Lowering the standards of relief was the Vestries responsibility; Richard Lower’s task, it seems, was to make administration more efficient and eliminate waste. Chiddingly was fortunate to have him available, for most parishes stumbled through their problems with the aid of men whose small store of literacy was sorely tried by the paperwork. Assistant Commissioner Walcott, reporting to the Commission of Enquiry into the Poor Laws in 1834 wrote: “As a body I found annual overseers wholly incompetent to discharge the duties of their office, either from interference of private occupations, or from a want of experience and skill; but most frequently from both these courses. Their object is to get through the year with as little unpopularity and trouble as possible. Their successors therefore have frequently to complain of demands left unsettled and rates uncollected, either from carelessness or a desire to gain the trifling popularity of having called for fewer assessments than usual. In rural districts the overseers are farmers.”

The last statement was certainly true for Chiddingly – Thomas Guy, Thomas Day Esquire, Robert Reeves, John Knight and others were the men who served as Overseers. It was rare for a well-educated man with literary pretensions like Richard Lower either to be trusted with parish money or demean himself to the detailed paperwork and the doling out of relief that Poor Law administration required. Richard had had poems published in the Sussex Weekly Advertiser; he undoubtedly had ambitions in writing. Why, then, had he stayed immured in an obscure parish rather than sought for wider cultural opportunities in, say, Lewes or even London?

The answer seems to have been his devotion to his family. He had married somewhat early for his time but once married – and even more when children came along who survived babyhood – his over-riding consideration must have been to ensure a secure, sufficient income. This his school provided but he sought to supplement it by taking on such official posts as Collector of Government Taxes, for which he received a small commission. He was also, in the years around 1820, teaching himself the arts of surveying and map-making to provide an additional economic string to his bow. He was devout, conscientious and willing to accept social responsibility. In 1820, therefore, the Vestry made him one of the Overseers.

He was appointed to the post again in 1823, this time with Thomas Day Esquire and Robert Reeves of Stream Farm, two of the richest men in the parish, as his “watchdogs”. The following year, at a specially convened meeting held at the “Six Bells” on April 15^th, 1824, the Vestry passed the following motion:

Resolved that this meeting do judge it expedient for the general benefit of this parish to engage a fit and proper person to act as Assistant Overseer.
Resolved that when appointed by the Magistrates of this district, shall (under the direction of the Churchwardens and the Overseers for the time being) transact the business of this parish, that is to say, to pay the poor according to the direction of the Vestry, to collect the poor rate, to superintend the management of the Poor House and to keep all accounts relating to the Poor.”

Like many other parishes in Sussex, Chiddingly was about to entrust its Poor Law administration to a paid Overseer. The person they appointed was Richard Lower, at a salary of £40 per annum.