Undoubtedly, whether or not a parish responded to the Commission’s enquiries was largely a matter of local personalities. In Lenham, Kent, for instance, three people returned answers to all the questions: the parson, a churchwarden and the Overseer. In Ticehurst, Sussex, the respondent was a local magistrate. He thought that single men were a considerable force in instigating the riots, because they earned much the same as married men – which would not have been true in Chiddingly – they were more likely to be laid off when work was slack. They resented this and, being young and without family responsibilities, were more likely to indulge in irresponsible acts. At the same time the magistrate commented that the farmers tried to throw some of the burdens onto the tithes and they also inflated the apparent surplus of labour in the parish – a surplus that was of considerable concern in many places – by the practice of laying men off on every wet day. The average wage in Ticehurst in 1832 was 2s. per day or 12s. a week for a labourer, to which his wife might add another 10% by working in the hop-fields, especially at harvest time. In 1830 the hop harvest had failed, and this was a point made also by the respondents in Lenham. The Ticehurst magistrate was also very critical of the practice of “putting out” pauper children instead of allowing – or compelling – parents to negotiate with the farmers over the placing of their children in domestic service. This, he said, imposed additional burdens on the Poor Rate, whilst weakening the sense of responsibility that parents should have for the actions of their children. It is a great pity – at least as far as this book is concerned – that Chiddingly’s views on the practice are not available.

However, in September 1834 the days when this and other problems connected with the Poor Law were a constant concern to the Chiddingly Vestry were swiftly coming to an end. The summer of 1834 had been good and this was reflected in a most unusual event at the normal monthly meeting of the Vestry held on September 1^st; or rather in something that did not happen.Not one person came to the meeting to ask for Relief. Under the relevant Minute someone wrote – not Richard Lower, to judge from the handwriting – “This was the first General Vestry held for the last 20 years in which not one applicant for relief appeared!!!” The respite was brief: in October ten appeared; in November twenty-one; in December twelve; and in the first four-months of 1835 another fifty-four. And then, on April 13^th, 1835, the Vestry was relieved of all responsibility for aiding the paupers of Chiddingly. The New Poor Law, as it was called, had come into being.