In 1787 another workhouse labour supervisor was required. At this point there were 85 men, women and children in residence, all of which would be required to work to some degree. The responsibility for finding this work laid with the supervisor. It was suggested that the workhouse building and the land around it would make the place "well suited to becoming a manufactory" for example of woollen blankets or similar articles. Whether this suggestion was adopted to any degree I don't know. The contract to maintain and employ the poor there would initially be offered for a year. There is anecdotal evidence that finding work that covered the costs of running the work house was not easy to come by.
Marlow workhouse continued in an independent capacity until the so called new poor law act of 1834. This tried to improve piecemeal local provision and reduce the possibility of getting "out relief" eg assistance that wasn't dependent on going into the workhouse if you were able bodied. Larger poor law unions were formed, and Marlow was part of the Wycombe Union. It was called a union because 34 parishes would be bought together under its supervision. Their first meeting was at the Wycombe work house in 1835, when it was decided to meet in future in Friday's as this was market day and so it would suit the many farmers who came into town then anyway. Marlow workhouse was adopted by the Union, as was the one at Bledlow. Originally the able bodied poor were supposed to go to Marlow, and the aged and infirm to Bledlow. But this does not seem to have been particularly closely enforced.
Getting in
The primary motivation for maintaining Marlow was actually financial as it was considered that a great deal would be saved if they didn't have to build a new central workhouse. However money was spent on repairing and adapting it for wider use. When the work was finished the building was declared "excellent". But what it didn't have was many inmates. The guardians said few able bodied poor had applied for entry to the workhouse, and the applications of most of those who had applied had been refused. This state of affairs would not last long. There was an agricultural depression locally and as agricultural labouring was a major source of employment, things would get bad indeed. As of 1835, the Union had not however taken up an offer by the government to send our paupers as emigrants to Australia or Canada, a fact that earned them criticism from some quarters.
In 1835 the Reeves answered an advertisement for workhouse managers for the Marlow house now it was under Union control. You can read about the Reeves in a post . This time the salary for the married couple would be £100 per annum.
At this time if you required a ticket for admission for the workhouse or needing to request assistance because you were unable to work you had to personally apply to your Relieving Officer. The 1835 man in this role was Robert Turner who actually lived in Marlow. He however was also responsible for Fingest, Turville, Fawley, Hambledon, and Medmenham. There were times he would visit these places to receive applications, otherwise the poor were expected to walk to his place of residence if they could not wait. Little Marlow was grouped with Wooburn as part of the Wycombe town district.
Everyday life
Marlow's 1830s workhouse residents still included children as well as adults. A school teacher was employed but the boys were sent to the National school with the Union paying their fees. They were also supposed to be taken to a Sunday School but there was criticism that they were not escorted there on a regular basis. The National school master was criticized in 1838 for his conduct towards a group of his pupils who were residents in the workhouse at Bledlow but who came to Marlow to school. He advised the boys to go to London to seek work (on foot) and better opportunities than would come their way as workhouse inmates. He had provided them with a letter of introduction to a fishmonger there. But they had no money or food when they were stopped by a waggoner at Hounslow who assumed they were runaways. The waggoner took them into London and handed them over to the authorities so their stories could be checked out. They were eventually returned to Wycombe. The school master was told he had no authority to arrange employment for the boys in such a way.
There were some bright moments for Marlow's inmates. They were treated Roman annual Christmas feast of roast beef and vegetables, plus a pint of beer for the men and half pint each for the women and children. Yes children. Everyday fare was not so elaborate but it was at least regular which was a luxury not all the residents would have been used to by any means. Contracts were offered to supply the workhouse masters tables at Marlow and Bledlow, plus the inmates own food of course. An advert for a contractor to supply bread meat to Marlow specified they required bread, beef and mutton for the inmates consumption. Two years later the Marlow workhouse was broken into and a "quantity of beef, mutton, bacon and bread stolen therefrom." A £5 reward was offered for information leading to the thieves capture. This well stocked larder shouldn't give the impression that the inmates diet was luxurious - the meat offered to them wasn't given at every meal. As it was not usual for the poor labouring family to eat good meat every day, it was considered spoiling the poor to offer more than they would get outside. And if word got around the food was good in the workhouse, the motivation to avoid going in there would be reduced they thought. In 1840 they had meat twice a week (in theory at least) with hot soup on other days for their main meal and bread with or without cheese for other meals.
There was no infirmary and no room to separate out the sick. In 1840 an anonymous letter writer complaining about the general management of the Marlow workhouse claimed that there was an abundance of lice and "itch" amongst the residents.
Marlow stamps it's foot
Almost as soon as Wycombe Union started, some suggested a new large workhouse would be best. A meeting in 1836 by the Guardian's decided to proceed with this plan and so the Marlow house would be closed, but not before 1837 to enable other premises to be made ready. In the end Marlow work house continued to operate until the large Saunderton work house open in 1843. Closing Marlow would save the £25 per year rent they paid on the building to the parish. The Guardians said that although the people in Marlow had at first suggested that the Union work house could be located in the town, but now accepted that the existing building could not be adapted to such an extent as would be required to house the poor from the entire Union. But did this mean independently spirited Marlow would willingly accept a Union house all the way in Bledlow 12-14 miles away by their estimation? (That is an extended version of the existing work house at Bledlow. Saunderton came later) No chance! A campaign was made to split Marlow from the Union and form a new smaller one with parishes actually closer to their own such as Little Marlow and Stokenchurch. Or alternatively if other parishes where cut out if the Wycombe Union, the Marlow workhouse could be the sole house after all as it would be big enough. Critics of the one for all work house at Bledlow said it was not only distant from Marlow but in an unhealthy spot with low ceilings and poor ventilation. They argued few of the Guardians visited Bledlow to inspect things as things stood, and this would be much worse if it was the sole house going unsupervised. The guardians could not spare the time from their day jobs to take time to visit Bledlow and as it was an agricultural district with no market, they didn't find themselves in the neighborhood otherwise as they had no reason to go there. These schemes were all unsuccessful.
No more poor law says Marlow
In spring of 1841 Marlow men and current guardians Charles Susan (link to biography below) and Thomas Dukes has been gathering signatures asking the 1834 new poor law to be abolished in favour of a fairer alternative. Four hundred people signed it. The law had had a fair trial of six years they said, but just wasn't working for anyone. The petitioners said unnecessary difficulties had been placed in the way of those who needed help, and despite promises the law would make the system more efficient, the poor rates had gone up. But when the two men walked with others to Harleyford to either ask the Marlow M.P Sir William Clayton to present the petition to parliament or to support it (reports vary) he refused as he did not agree with it. He said the poor in the work house lived better than the poor outside it. He dismissed the idea it was hardship for married couples to be separated in the work house as he said it was nothing more than a businessman and his wife had to experience if he went off on a voyage for trade purposes! Clayton also claimed that if the costs of administering the law had gone up (which he disputed) it was because the relieving officers were too afraid of criticism in the press. The guardians were also too timid to enforce the law properly, and Clayton says they delighted in a reputation for "spurious benevolence" which had allowed people to get in "the comforts of the workhouse" when they should have been turned away. Hmmm.. Afterwards Charles Susan write to the press saying Clayton had accused those who wanted to abolish the new poor law as "interested parties". Charles agreed he was indeed such a person as he was "interested in helping the destitute." The poor had been "made to feel that poverty is a disgrace rather than a misfortune" said Charles. The most alarming statement he made was related to the diet of the poor in Marlow workhouse. He said the governor's had restricted the meat to a bare minimum and overall the diet was so poor that he thought some adults had died of malnutrition. No wonder he asked that married couples should be allowed to stay together as such companionship would be their sole solace in the time to come. I think the petition was presented by Marlow's other M.P but of course it did no good.
In 1843 the new single Union house would be opened at Saunderton and Bledlow became the residence of the children who came into "the house". The regime there was different and I will cover that in a different post.
*Some of the early Wycombe Union Marlow Guardians of the poor included John Moss, Henry Webb, Thomas Gibbons, and George Brangwin.
Written and researched by Kathryn Day.
Related posts:
Poverty in Victorian Marlow here
The most famous person to be born in Great Marlow Workhouse was showman John Richardson. See here
Biography of radical Charles Susan here
Sources:
Census 1841, from the transcripts made from originals by Jane Pullinger.
Annual Report Of the Poor Law Commissioners Volume 1. 1835. Copy from Bavarian State Library digitized by Google.
Bucks Gazette 4th April, 6th June & 12th December 1835, 10th September 1836, 30th December 1837, 21st July & 4th August 1838, 17th April 1841.
Bucks Herald 20th June 1840, 17th April 1841.
Oxford Journal 1st April 1775, 5th May 1787
Windsor and Eton Express 14th March 1840
©MarlowAncestors.
