---

AMONG THE MORE revealing records to survive from nineteenth-century England are those created under the administration of the Poor Laws.

We have already glimpsed one aspect of the dystopian Poor Law Act in my July 16 post: ‘The Examination of Anne Wyer‘.

Here is another.

Intended as administrative documents rather than family histories, Poor Law records nevertheless preserve remarkable glimpses into the lives of ordinary working people who might otherwise have disappeared from the historical record.

One such document concerns Thomas Wand, his wife Elizabeth and their young family.

THE DOCUMENT IS a Removal Order, dated 10 March 1844, issued by two Justices of the Peace under the provisions of the Poor Laws. Its purpose was straightforward.

As we have seen in my earlier post, before the establishment of the modern welfare state, each parish was legally responsible for supporting its own poor.

Relief was funded by the local ratepayers, and parishes were understandably reluctant to assume responsibility for newcomers who had no legal claim upon them.

If an individual or family became, or was thought likely to become, dependent upon parish relief, they could be removed to the parish in which they possessed a legal settlement.

Although the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 reorganised poor relief into Poor Law Unions (workhouses) and sought to reduce the burden on local ratepayers, it did not abolish the long-established laws governing settlement.

Those provisions remained in force for decades, and Removal Orders such as this continued to determine where poor families legally belonged.

THOMAS WAND HAD been born in Sleaford in 1805, the son of Samuel Wand and his wife Mary. His entire life would be spent in rural Lincolnshire, where employment was largely seasonal and opportunities often required labourers to move from one village to another.

On 19 May 1831, Thomas married Elizabeth Coxson at Wellingore. Together they began raising a family during a period when rural England was still recovering from agricultural depression and social change following the Napoleonic Wars.

When the first census to record every individual by name was taken in 1841, Thomas was living in Harmston with Elizabeth and their children Mary, William, Ann and Sarah.

Thomas was employed as an agricultural labourer, suggesting that, despite the uncertainties of rural employment, he had succeeded in finding work and providing for his family.

Only three years later, however, another official record reveals how precarious that security could be.

THE REMOVAL ORDER records that Thomas, Elizabeth and their children had moved to Navenby, where the parish authorities concluded that the family had not acquired a legal settlement. The document states that they were ‘likely to become chargeable’ upon the parish.

To modern ears the phrase sounds severe, but it was simply legal language. It did not necessarily mean that Thomas was already receiving poor relief. Rather, the Overseers believed there was a real possibility that he and his family might soon require assistance.

For an agricultural labourer, whose employment depended upon the seasons, the harvest and local demand for labour, such fears were by no means unusual.

Having examined the evidence, the magistrates concluded that Thomas’s last legal settlement lay in the parish of Brauncewell.

They therefore ordered that Thomas, Elizabeth and their children should be removed from Navenby to Brauncewell, where responsibility for their support would rest with the parish authorities there.

The document is couched in formal legal language, yet beneath the official wording lies a very human story.

One can imagine Thomas moving his growing family from village to village in search of work, only to find that questions of parish responsibility could prove almost as important as employment itself.

The decision of two magistrates had the power to uproot an entire household, irrespective of where they had hoped to make their home.

What happened next is unknown. By the time of the 1851 Census, Thomas was once again living in High Street, Navenby.

Whether the Removal Order was never carried out, successfully appealed, or whether Thomas complied with it only to return later when work became available again, the surviving records do not reveal.

The last possibility perhaps seems the most likely.

AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS FREQUENTLY followed employment wherever it could be found, and once a man had secured regular work he might well return to a village where opportunities were better.

Whatever the explanation, the census shows Thomas, now forty-six years old, once again earning his living as an agricultural labourer.

Elizabeth remained by his side, while the household had grown to include daughters Ann, Sarah, Elizabeth and Eliza, together with their young son Thomas. Their eldest son, William, was employed as a groom, although temporarily out of work when the census was taken.

By 1861, Thomas and Elizabeth were still living in Navenby. Daughters Mary and Elizabeth remained at home, and the household had gained a new member—Samuel, Thomas’s grandson.

Samuel had been baptised on 29 August 1855, the son of Thomas and Elizabeth’s eldest daughter, Mary. No father was named in the baptism register, and the infant appears to have been brought up within his grandparents’ household.

Such arrangements were far from uncommon in Victorian England, where extended families often provided support during difficult circumstances.

Thomas, now in his mid-fifties, continued to describe himself simply as an agricultural labourer. It is a remarkably consistent picture of a man whose working life changed little despite the profound transformation taking place throughout Victorian Britain.

Thomas died in December 1876, having lived for around seventy-one years. His lifetime spanned an extraordinary period of British history, from the closing years of the Georgian era to the height of Queen Victoria’s reign.

Railways, industry and empire reshaped the nation, yet Thomas’s own life remained firmly rooted in the fields and villages of rural Lincolnshire.

Yet Thomas’s story did not end with him.

THOMAS’S GRANDSON, Samuel William Wand, represents something of the next chapter in the family’s history.

Unlike his grandfather, Samuel did not spend his life as an agricultural labourer. He learned the skilled trade of joiner, a craft that offered greater stability than the uncertain seasonal employment of the farm worker.

In 1890, Samuel married Betsy Fiddling, a native of Tealby, and together they established their home in Boultham, on the outskirts of Lincoln.

The 1901 Census finds them living at 5 Harding Street, where Samuel was employed as a joiner. Ten years later they were still together at 65 Waterloo Street, Samuel continuing in the same occupation. By this time they were sharing their home with Betsy’s elderly, widowed father, Joseph Fiddling.

It is another small glimpse into the importance of family support across generations, echoing the care once given to Samuel himself by his grandparents many years before.

By 1921, Samuel had retired after a lifetime in his trade. He and Betsy had remained at Waterloo Street, and although the census states that the couple had no children, theirs appears to have been a settled and enduring marriage.

Samuel died in January 1936, sixty years after Thomas’s own death. In that interval the world had changed beyond anything Thomas could have imagined.

Horses had given way to motor cars, villages had become connected by rail and road, and the Great War had transformed British society.

Yet the surviving records reveal a steady continuity within the Wand family: men and women who worked hard, supported one another, established homes, and lived lives that rarely attracted official notice except in documents such as census returns, parish registers and, in Thomas’s case, a single Removal Order.

THAT MODEST LEGAL document therefore becomes far more than an item of nineteenth-century bureaucracy. It marks one difficult moment in the life of an agricultural labourer whose determination carried him through uncertain times.

When read alongside the census returns and parish records, it allows us to follow not only Thomas himself but also the generation that followed him.

His grandson Samuel’s life suggests that the family gradually found greater stability, moving from the insecurity of seasonal agricultural labour to the skilled trades of an expanding Victorian town.

Thomas Wand left no fortune. His legacy lies elsewhere—in the family he raised, the resilience he demonstrated, and the generation that followed.

Thanks to one unassuming Poor Law document, supported by the surviving records of parish and census, the outline of that ordinary life can once again be seen.

And it is precisely because it is so ordinary that it deserves to be remembered.