The Vestry accepted his resignation. It took effect on March 25^th and the next day the Vestry met to appoint his replacement. It discovered that to do so it needed not one man, but no less than five: James Aylwin, Thomas Davies, John Knight, John Funnell and James Goldsmith. There could have been no sharper testimonial to Richard’s value to the parish. That same Vestry meeting also appointed Freeman Aylwin and James Noakes to meet at “The Six Bells” on April 2^nd to inspect the Overseers accounts.

There could have been little wrong with them, and little right with the five new Overseers, for when on June 15^th the parish signed an agreement with a new Poor House Governor, Richard Soper, who should sign as Overseers on behalf of the parish but Goldsmith, Aylwin – and Richard Lower. For whatever reason it was that Richard resigned, within three months the Vestry had found that he was indispensable.

The new agreement with Soper was that he would take at least twenty-five paupers at 3s. 9d. each a week, to cover board, lodging, washing, mending and clothing. For a woman’s lying-in at birth he was to receive 40 shillings. Funeral expenses would be paid by the parish, though a year later this was amended to Soper paying all expense (except for the coffin, and the parson’s and clerk’s fees) but receiving 12 shillings for each funeral.

Meanwhile the Vestry had been trying to discipline its paupers. On July 4^th, 1825, it had decided that any pauper caught dealing in spirituous liquors would be excluded forthwith from relief. Now, on February 4^th, 1828, it issued a set of regulations governing the clothes to be worn by female inmates of the Poor House, except old Widow Ann Glyde who was specifically exempted from them. No female pauper was to dress in anything other than linsey, a coarse, drab, woolen material; to wear frills, white stockings or aprons; have her hair cut anything but short; or to have curls or ornaments in her headdress. If she were a pauper on Relief, she had to look like one – and in this deliberately shaming policy, again Chiddingly was merely keeping in step with numerous other parishes in Sussex. In some, the shaming policy went considerably further: even, in Brede, to hanging bells around paupers’ necks and harnessing them like draught beasts to the parish cart. Relief scales could hardly be lowered still further without causing unacceptable hardship – although in 1828 the Chiddingly Vestry also decided not to rive relief “to the third Child during the summer” when seasonal work was usually available – and so every effort was made to discourage paupers from actually applying to the parish for aid.