Then “N.B. There are four male Paupers whose united ages amounts to 309 years and there are four female paupers whose united ages amounts to 308 years. Total 617 years. All as at this time in good health. Have made a tasty dinner from beef and plumb pudding this 25th December 1833, commonly called Christmas Day.”

The next entry on February 25th 1834 clarifies the E. as Edward aged 13 years. Virgil aged 11 yrs is present (he may have been in the torn/stained portion in December) but James does not seem to be present. Apart from that all the above are still in residence.

To give more perspective to the occupants of the Poor House, as at 25th March 1834 there were the following people, as well as the Hickmott inhabitants; Bailey Thomas 77; Bailey Henry 34; Barefoot Ambrose, 16; Bailey Edward 14; Botting Thomas 11; Bailey Charles 9; Doust Josiah 72; Fuller Samuel 72; Fielder William 10; Jeffrey John 29; Jeffrey Arthur 13; Latter William 7; Moss Jonathan 80; Nye Alfred 16; Nye James 13; Bailey Ann 70/80?; Baden Polly 34; Botting May 29; Bailey Carey 16; Bailey Ann 11; Doust 16; Davis Charlotte 10. These are only some of the names I could read!

Then there is the entry, “Thomas Hickmott Wife and Family admitted 31 March 1834.” They are listed as “Jane, 31; Ruth, 7; George, 5; William, 3; Harriett, 2; Henry, 1.” Thomas himself is not admitted, nor does it mention where he is or why his family have fallen upon these hard times. They remain in residence for over a year until discharge on 14 April 1835. This family have lived away from Lamberhurst for some time, as only Ruth and Henry (the eldest and youngest of the children) were baptised in Lamberhurst and the marriage of Thomas and Jane also took place away from the parish. Two year old Henry died and was buried in Lamberhurst on 29 August 1835 but at the time was noted as residing in Tunbridge Wells.

On 25 April 1834 we now have a total of sixteen of our Hickmott family in the Poor House!

Trying to sort out who these various Hickmotts are, by taking into account the ages of each of them, I have come to the following conclusions:-

Nathaniel at 57 is the Widower of Mary and his age is possibly understated. By October 1835, the last entry, he is still in residence and aged 59. At this time most of the remaining residents of the Home are discharged, some transferred to Saleshurst and some to Ticehurst.

Henry, aged 13 appears to be Nathaniel’s youngest son. He is discharged on 8 February 1835 “Gone to Service”. So it looks like a job was found for him. By this time he is 14 years of age.

This is amongst many notes of clothing taken by, or given to individuals, (the heading of which can hardly be read due to staining but is as follows: “Paupers from the ......?.......?.......?.........?.....Service” - (perhaps it is clothing given to those who leave, to fit them out as they go into service?) Feb 8 1835 Henry Hickmott (stain/water mark - cannot be read) brother at Dundo?(illegible) 3 Shirts, 2 (?)-------------2 Jackets, one waistcoat,------------one pair shoes, 2 neckerchiefs and ? hats. The entry is so badly marked, but interesting for all that. He did not seem to be too badly off for clothing, it was probably 2 pair trousers, maybe some socks (or would they call them stockings).

Edward, 13; James, 11; and Henry, 7; seem to be the sons of the unfortunate Samuel, who had two wives die between the years 1825 and 1830. They were the children of his first marriage to Harriet Hartridge. William, son of Eliza Tester, the second wife is not present. He may not have survived, or perhaps been raised by Eliza’s family after her death. This confirms my previous opinion that Samuel, although living in Pembury for some years, was in fact from Lamberhurst originally.

He may not have been granted “Settlement” by the Parish of Pembury after his wives died, or his job ceased and without Government Social Security in those days he had to fall back on his birth Parish for support for his children. Life was difficult in those days.

For those not understanding Settlement Records, (my own knowledge is very limited), the following are notes I took from a very interesting lecture weekend with Lady Teviot, when she was visiting Hervey Bay: 1662 Act of Settlement: A stranger in a Parish could be removed in 40 days if he did not work or get property worth £10. From 1691 a stranger could enter a Parish if they could produce a Settlers Certificate, if they were born there, worked at least a year if unmarried, serving a Full Apprenticeship, marrying a husband, father there if legitimate, serving Public Office, paying rates or having 40 days there. I understand that the Settlement Certificate said that a parish of settlement would be responsible if he needed poor relief.*

As Samuel must have lived and worked in Pembury for ten years or more, he should have qualified for Settlement, perhaps he just returned home after his misfortunes, where his children could be close to family? We here in Australia can confirm that his son Henry immigrated and helped populate the country with healthy, hearty Hickmotts, with the assistance of three wives along the way. The Poor House experience certainly never held him back from living life to the full.

Charlotte, 10; Caroline, 7; and Henry, 7 seem to be the family of John and Patience. Caroline, 7 years and Henry (now said to be 9 years) are discharged 22 May 1834 with the notation “Gone to reside with her/his parents.) No such luck for poor Charlotte, who is still there in October 1835. November 24th 1834, there is a note regarding “at Mr Lansdell for Cloth 10/-” in connection with Charlotte. The family are eventually united again however, minus their father, as in the 1851 Census they are living with their mother, Patience, in Eltham, Lewisham district.

Then we come to 11 year old Virgil. He is of interest to our New Zealand families, being the son of their particular Thomas and his first wife Mary. Mary had died in 1829, leaving Thomas with five children. Charles died in 1831, but in 1834 there remained James (b.1820), Virgil (b.1822), William (b.1826) and Louisa (B. 1828.) Virgil is the only one who is in the Poor House and he disappears from there after 25 September 1834. There is a notation between the names of he and 11 year old James “23 October , gone to his Uncle in Wadhurst.” I thought it applied to James, but Virgil disappeared, then the next month James is not there either - have they both gone to Wadhurst? As I believe that James is Virgil’s cousin, not his older brother, (who would have been closer to 14 than 11) it is possible the Uncle took in the two eleven year old boys, cheap labour after all. In the 1841 Census, Louisa is living with Thomas and his second wife, Thirza but in 1844 she died. Virgil himself died in 1841, only 19 years old, so James and William were the only ones of this family who survived to marry and leave descendants.

After the last entry on October 25th 1834 we have Ann Hickmott, aged 15, admitted on 28th October with the notation “From Mr. Wickenden”. Then “Nov 17. Gone to live at Mr. Lansdell’s”. Now we do not have an “Ann” on our family tree christened in Lamberhurst circa 1819 but she must be the daughter of one of the Lamberhurst Hickmotts, perhaps born away from the village, who has returned.

Last of all we come to Harriett, 13 years old when we first come across her in December 1833, October 1835 she is said to be 14 years. It appears she is the daughter of Elizabeth, one of our “unattached” (on the family tree) Hickmotts, born illegitimate, christened 20 January 1821. Harriett stayed in the Poor House until the last entry in October 1835 when it is noted “24th Oct. Gone to Salehurst.”

Only nine of the Paupers, including Nathaniel and Charlotte remained in residence after that date, though there seems to have been an effort to discharge most of them.. The majority of the residents remaining were elderly. There were no further entries after the October listings.

Following the Poor House entries are several documents relating to Settlement Orders and very lengthy and complicated affairs they are too, but not concerning Hickmotts. One of them was in regard to the removal of a Richard Pearson and his wife and four children from Plumstead to Lamberhurst and the other a David Gilbert Dyer and his wife Jane, who Lamberhurst seemed reluctant to support. They are lengthy and legal documents strongly denying that the named has any right of settlement in the areas they are residing in and hence refusing any responsibility for keeping the “Paupers”. Although it seems “that the system of Settlement lapsed early in the nineteenth century,”* both of these are of the era of 1859, so obviously still strongly upheld in some areas at that time.

Then we pass onto Tithing, which I thought we had fully covered, but not so. In fact I had to rethink my attitude to this subject. Initially when I encountered it (the first time I have done a study of this depth), I assumed it to be tithing as I knew it when I went to Church, a regular, promised donation. This is not correct! Tithing in this timeframe is in fact a rate or levy on landowners/occupiers, apparently at the rate of one tenth of the main produce of the land and of stock and labour, such as wool, pigs, milk etc. and was paid to the local Church.* So my comment on reading the first of the Parish Chest films regarding the “magnanimous gesture” of George Rose was a misconception, the poor man had little choice - he had the land and produce, he paid the price!

This further information on Tithing is a Schedule of all the Landowners and Occupiers in the area and fully describes the land there. It is very revealing and Tithe Maps may be seen at County Offices which actually show where the people lived in the village. Some examples of the descriptiveness of the records are:-

• 81/ Camberwell Field / Hops
• 82 / Well Meadow / Hops
• 83/ Cowden Wood / Wood
• 239/ Highfield/ Arable
• 240/ Oast House Barn & Yard Yard etc
• 241/ Haggard / Pasture
• 242/ Oast House Field/ Hops
• 243/ Orchard / Fruit & Arable
• 288/ Lower Field/ Meadow
• 289/ House Meadow /Fruit/Arable
• 290/ House & Garden / Garden
• 291/ House and Garden
• 292/ House and Garden

• ASHBY Richard/ 1493/ Garden
• JEFFREY Thom. / 1494/ House and Garden

WILSONHURST Adam/HICKMOTT John/ 939/House and Garden/1021/garden

CAMDEN John Jeffreys/ HICKMOTT Stephen/ 536/ Stonebridge Plot

• DOUST Samuel/1250-1257/ House, Meadow, Orchard, House & Gardens, Outbuildings, little Meadow, Park, Pasture, Upper Slip (Pasture), Lower slip (Meadow).

,FRANCIS John/ GOLDING James & BOORMAN John / 906/ House and Gardens

CAMDEN John Jeffreys/ROSE George/177-228/Pastures, Arable, Woods, Hops, Shed and Lane, Meadows/ 512-514/ Rough & Pastures

LAMBERT William/ROSE George/ 7-20/ Pastures, Arable, Out buildings, House and Gardens, Meadows./43-46 Arable, Pasture and Woods/109-111/Arable, Pasture and Woods/119/Hops/ 125,113,115 /Arable, Pasture, Waste

Lord Camden was noted to be the Land Owner of a great deal of the properties and while the “occupier” may appear to be someone renting the property, there may in fact be some type of leasehold arrangement, so that the land occupancy is secure for a set number of years.

The only Hickmott Landowners we have in Lamberhurst circa 1840 are Timothy and Daniel. Timothy had taken over the Tithe of his father, Russell, who died in 1807. Presumably he took over the family farm. In the 1851 Census Timothy is described as 83 years old, a Farmer of 277 acres, employing 15 labourers, living at Strawberry Hill, Lamberhurst. He died in 1855 at Frant, Sussex. Daniel in the 1841 Census is described as an Agricultural Labourer, aged 70 years but he seems to have accumulated some property in his lifetime, or to have inherited it, though he himself lived in a home where he is not the actual landowner. Daniel died in Lamberhurst in 1849.

The other Hickmott “occupiers” are James, John and Stephen. We know there were other Hickmott families in the area at the time, for instance Thomas and Thirsa married in 1836 and lived in the area until around 1848/49, when they moved to Brenchley. As Thomas was an Agricultural Labourer, this family probably lived on one of the farms in a workers cottage and this may be the case for others also.

Following the schedule is a “Summary of the several Rent charges upon the estate of each Landowner in the foregoing Schedule of Apportionments”. From the schedule, two rates were charged; “Rent charge payable to Vicar” and “Rents payable Rector”. Timothy Hickmott paid £1.16s.9d (Vicar) and £2.10s (Rector). I could not read Daniel’s. Stephen Hickmott paid 1s.0d to the Vicar only and John Hickmott paid 7s6d. to the Vicar also. George Rose paid £11.12s.6d (Vicar) and £17.7s. (Rector) for the larger of his two properties and £5.0s.3d (Vicar) and £8.10s.9d (Rector) on the smaller land.

The total amounts gathered by this means were “Gross Rent Payable in Lieu of Tithes for Parish of Lamberhurst, in the County of Kent” £410.15s.0d (Vicar) and £375.0s.0d (Rector), a total of £785.15s, quite a nice sum of money in 1840. However, on the final receipt, the Rector’s share appears to have been channelled elsewhere, perhaps the Church was not large enough to have both a Vicar and Rector. The total sum however is shown as it’s “Value in Imperial Bushels and Decimal Parts of an Imperial Bushel of Wheat, Barley and Oats”. i.e.:-

There were several letters relating to the Survey above, obviously some problems over the contracting of it, which I scanned briefly but did not note. They were dated late 1838 and early 1839 and one related to the payment for the prepared map as follows:-

“ Poor Law Commission Office
Somerset House
18 August 1840

In reply to letter of 14th Inst. enquiring .............(regarding who pays etc)........... they believe that two thirds the cost of the map is the proportional usually paid by the Land Owners for a copy of a map made under an order of the Parochial Assessment Act. The Commissioner however thinks that circumstances might exist which would justify the Guardians in charging the Land Owners one half the original cost of the map but the Commissioner must leave the Guardians to fix the price which they may consider most equitable.

Signed by Order of the Board
T. Chadwick”

This therefore leads me to the conclusion that the Tithe Schedule, although undated, was therefore an accurate accounting of the Land Owners and Occupiers around 1839/1840. It is therefore of interest to anyone looking for people in the district around that time.

There followed a dozen or more early wills which were dated 1438 - 1535, none of which related to our families and some letters from the periods 1432-73, as well as several in Latin, which were copies of the Charter Roll 11, Henry 3, pt.2 m7 from 1227 AD and Charter Roll 41, Henry III m7, 1257 AD. I tried to photocopy some of these but the film and documents are so dark that I cannot read them.

I have learnt much through my study of these films and have had to revise some my early opinions. For a historical insight into the Parish I would recommend the study of these Parish Chest films. So far however I have touched on only the beginning and ending of the documents. There remains yet another complete film, which comes in between the two I have examined so far. Hopefully, this one may shed some light on the problem of the Hickmott children born to mothers, without naming their fathers.

* Source The Family Historian’s Enquire Within by Pauline Saul