In 1832 “Reform” was in the air. In that year Parliament passed the Reform Act, which carried through the first fundamental change and broadening of the basis on which the House of Commons was elected. Two other major institutions required a similar re-appraisal, said the reformers: The Administration of the Poor Law and the Church of England. In the event, the latter escaped with its privileges scarcely touched, the only important change to take place being that tithes, previously paid in kind and in relation to each man’s produce for the year, were commuted into a cash levy on the rental value of each occupier’s property and related to the current price of corn. The methods of Poor Law Administration, however, were fundamentally changed.

The first step was the appointment of a Commission of Enquiry into the Administration of the Poor Law in 1832. This Commission, headed by the Bishop of London, appointed Assistant Commissioners in each region whose task was to reveal just how the Poor Laws were currently operated by parishes and to receive and make suggestions for improvement. At the same time the Commission send out a detailed questionnaire to all rural parishes – and later also to urban parishes – in England and Wales, which was particularly concerned with how, why and when parish Relief was given to the able-bodied poor. It also provided an opportunity for parishes to comment on the reasons for the November 1830 Riots.

Out of 15,000 parishes that received the questionnaire, only 10% actually replied. Chiddingly was one of them. Unfortunately, when the Commission later published its report it included only a sample of these and Chiddingly’s was not one of them, so it is not possible now to learn how Richard Lower answered the Commission’s questions – for it was to Richard Lower that the Vestry delegated the task, paying him £5 for his trouble. It took this decision at its meeting on September 10^th, 1834, nearly two years after the questionnaire had been sent out and, in fact, after the Commission had already made its report to the Government. However, since 90% of the parishes seem never to have replied at all, perhaps Chiddingly’s dilatory response need not be too strongly criticised.