Will Of Bridget Manning Of Great Marlow 1735 and Manning research

Will written 1734, proved 1735.

Spinster.

Asks to be decently buried. 

All her goods, chattels, plate, jewell's, rings, ready money, debts, credits and all the rest of her personal estate to her loving cousin Samuel Manning of Great Marlow who is also made sole executor of the will.

Witnessed by Jane Gibbons, Francis Hone and Mary Lethieullier. Drawn up by Thomas Stephens, notary public.

I transcribed and then summarized this p.c.c will from the original held at the National Archives, Kew.

Notes:

Samuel Manning, Bridget's cousin, was the Marlow gentleman and brewer of that name who died in 1745.

Mary Lethieullier was perhaps the daughter of William Lethieullier of Sutton at Hone in Kent. In which case her mother, his first wife was born Mary Manning. She died in 1717 and William remarried. The Lethieullier family came to England as Huguenot refugees and it is suggested that the Mannings were originally from Germany before they settled in Kent. Samuel Manning was the brother of the Mary Manning who married William Lethieullier and the son of Nicholas Manning of Westerham, Kent. Bridget was the daughter of Ranulph alias Randulf Manning of Westerham, Kent (seemingly by his first wife). Ranulf / Randulf and Nicholas were brothers. There were two further brothers- Thomas and John.

Bridget's uncle John, a draper, also lived in Marlow for a while. Though he was of Westerham Kent at the time of his death he asked to be buried at Marlow with his wife. John's 1728 will left Bridget Manning his niece an annuity of £10, a gold brooch and some of his best books. He also mentioned his nephew Samuel Manning and niece Mary Manning. 

This isn't an easy family tree! Bridget's father was married to Catherine Missenden (seemingly his second wife) by whom he had sons called both Ranulf and Ralf as evidenced by the son Ranulf's will. His brother Nicholas was married to Catherine's sister Mary. The women's father was a merchant adventurer based in Hamburg, Germany so you can see how the idea that the Mannings were German of origin may be correct. Others believe them to be in fact an old Kent family. The first name Ranulf was once quite common in England but would have been very out of date here by the late 1600s /early 1700s. Randulf has never been anything other than rare.

Samuel Manning of Marlow's daughter Sarah features in this post.

See the Wills Transcriptions Index here for other similar posts. All mentions of any person on this blog can be found on the A-Z Person Index. Thousands of people are mentioned.

©Marlow Ancestors. You are welcome to use this summary for family or local history purposes with credit to this blog.

Will David Weedon Of Medmenham 1617

Written and proven 1617. 

Says he is sick and weak but whole and perfect in mind and memory. 

Commends soul to God. Asks to be buried in Medmenham churchyard but this is at the discretion of his executor and his other friends.

To Joan his eldest daughter £100 within a year of her marriage or at the age of 30 whichever happens first.

To daughter Sibbell £100 under the same conditions as Joan's legacy. If either daughter dies before she can inherit then that daughter's inheritance remains with the will's executor.

To daughter Anne and daughter Jane both £100 at the age of 21. If either die before age 21 their inheritance stays with the will's executor.

To wife Jane £10 every year for the term of her natural life if she refuses to live with his son Christopher. If she does live with him he is to pay her £4 a year and a room of her own all the while she remains with him. Her "diet" is also to be at his expense.

After funeral expenses, legacies and any debts paid the remainder of his personal estate is to go to his son Christopher mentioned above who is also appointed executor.

Will witnessed by Christopher Weedon of ?Hitchenden?, Richard Weedon "and others".

This will summary was created from Charlotte Day's transcription of the original p.c.c will held at the National Archives Kew.

NOTES=

The son Christopher may be the Christopher Weedon of Wood End /Woodend Medmenham who died in 1639. That Christopher's daughter Jane inherited his property.

We focus on Marlow but try to include some surrounding area content. Over 100 will summaries are available on this blog. See the Will Transcriptions Index. More Medmenham related posts are indexed here.

©Marlow Ancestors. You are very welcome to use my research for family or local history purposes with credit to this blog.

Free Press Links

 Coming from the Marlow /Bucks Free Press? Looking for the post on the former school at Cedar House?

CLICK HERE

Election Rioters 1880 - here

Previous occupants of Chalks, High Street - Many_Female_Ironmongers

NB Mike Dewey uses the information in the above posts with our permission. 

Edwardian Spittal Street and Spittal Square Part One

Odd Numbered Properties

Note: Our Marlow ancestors were terrible at giving precise or consistent street addresses for themselves or others, knowing exactly what number they lived at (!), and the authorities made some bizarre property numbering decisions (don't get us started on Berwick Road... ). Some properties in Market Square at the bottom of Spittal Street were officially numbered as if in Spittal Street and could be described as being in either Market Square or Spittal Street  depending on the whim of the describer. They are included here. Properties in Spittal Square were also numbered as if in Spittal Street (but could also be referred to as being in Chapel Street or Dean Street by local residents depending on the property). Throughout history Spittal Street and Chapel Street which run into each other were repeatedly confused. Never believe any property is definitely in one street rather than the other without multiple pieces of evidence!

Edwardian building numbers are not necessarily those of the modern day. Multiple of the properties mentioned below no longer exist.

In this post I follow the popular perception of the "Edwardian age" as extending 1901-1914. Some incidences in the earlier lives of the named residents are also included. This is an ongoing project, if anyone has been missed we hope to remedy that as soon as possible.

For unplaced people who were in unidentified buildings in Spittal Street or Spittal Square see that the end of the upcoming Edwardian Spittal Street Part Two post.

1-3 Anne "Annie" Badger's fancy goods repository. Anne (born c 1842) had been in the shop for some years, though initially as a boot and shoe seller. Late on the night of Christmas Eve 1896 the horse-drawn omnibus from the Crown Hotel next door crashed into Anne's shop, smashing the window glass and breaking the gas pipe used to fuel the illuminated lamps in her windows. This represented a major fire risk but thankfully the leak was swiftly spotted and contained. Not a great Christmas present for Anne nevertheless! At least the accident did not occur in the run up to Christmas, when fancy goods shops were especially busy (they were effectively gift shops). Giving New Year gifts to friends was common at this time period however so any disruption to Anne's business would still have been costly to her, and of course the premises were also her home.

The omnibus horse received cuts from the plate glass window but the driver and sole passenger of the vehicle were unharmed.

Anne was the widow of Joseph Badger who had first ran the boot and shoe shop on these premises. He died aged just 35 leaving Anne with 6 children but thankfully also the shop to support them. Anne already served in the shop before Joseph's death. Her daughter Mary assisted in the business. A son Joseph junior was a solicitor's clerk.  When Anne retired in 1903 she moved with Joseph Junior into the newly built house Lulworth in Claremont Road. Sadly Anne died of heart disease not long afterwards. She was a Roman Catholic and is buried in St Peter's churchyard in St Peter's Street Marlow.

The Badger's shop was properly in Market Square. Confectioner Elizabeth Bennett may have been in these premises at the end of the Edwardian age.

5 John Ford's wholesale and retail tobacconist's / newsagent and confectionary shop in 1912 and 1913. John sold some unusual tobacco varieties as well as cigars  according to his ads. He supplied publicans amongst his other customers. Gone by 1915. Site later a cafe. Previously the International Tea Company Stores (who also occupied other premises in Marlow at different times). Property usually considered to be in Market Square.

7 Allam's fishmongery, then George and Elizabeth Davis newsagents who would remain there to at least the late 1930s.  Alfred Allam took over his mother Sarah's fishmongers. It has previously belonged to his father who was also called Alfred and who operated it as both a fishmongers and fruiterers plus a horse and carriage hire business. To read more about the characterful Alfred senior and Sarah, not to mention their brush with a "poltergeist" see this post. Alfred also features in this post. 

9 The Wheelwright's Arms pub. For landlords Edwardian and otherwise and for the history of this pub see this post.

11 The home of a Mr Welch in 1905 but seems to have been the site of business premises too. Situation needs clarifying.

13 Emma Carter's butchers premises. A biography of Emma is on the blog here.

15 The Carpenters Arms. Ran by Charlotte Rose and then her grandson Thomas Probert. More on the history of this pub and it's landlords here.

17 -  updates to follow.

19 Henry Harris master harness maker and saddler, rope and twine maker and - early in the Edwardian era - agent for motorcycles and a seller and hirer of bicycles too. He also sold horse care equipment like blankets and cleaning sponges. A long standing business in Marlow. In 1904 his ad says that he also traded in Wooburn. Henry was born circa 1854. Wife Ellen. In 1915 their only son Edward, who had previously worked as an engineer, was killed in action when the Navy ship he served was torpedoed and sank.

21 Richard Bowles boot and shoe dealer. Richard was born c 1839. Throughout the Edwardian era he had several members of the Bailey family as his lodgers, previously he had himself been a lodger with Baileys. Richard died circa 1914. By 1920 his former premises were incorporated into no 23.

23 Charles Baker gentleman's outfitter and hatter. Charles was originally from Wiltshire and born circa 1856. His wife Catherine took over the business as a widow. By them number 23 had been incorporated into it. The shop was still in operation in the late 1930s as "Baker's Clothiers" with a live in manager.

25 Colonial Meat Stores ran by Grace and co. Employee George Tennant lived on the premises with his wife Eliza in 1910 and 1911 (at least).

27 Boot family. Eliza (nee Collins) Boot kept a confectionery shop. Her husband Henry Boot was a French polisher. The family housed several lodgers. Daughter of the family Florence attracted much sympathy when she was stood up at the altar in 1907 by her fiancee Arthur Henry Lynch. He left her family home where he was helping with final preparations on the Sunday in order to go home to London where he lived with his mother. He was due back in Marlow on the day of the wedding on the 9.15 train from Paddington. He sent a telegram to Florence saying that he had missed the 9.15  but would arrive on the 11.15 instead which would be early enough for the wedding. However he never turned up. Nor as it turned out had he even told his mother he meant to get married and she did not know where he was either. The couple had "courted" for 5 years. Poor Florence had used much money from her savings to help pay for the wedding and the necessities for their first home together. She had also given up her long standing job in readiness for her married life. Arthur had been given as a wedding gift by his employers Great Western Railway two free passes to Teignmouth in Devon for their honeymoon. Henry Boot died  in 1907, the same year as his daughter's marriage disaster. A tough time for the Boot family. Eliza died in 1927. She retired from the shop after 1911 but by 1915.

29 Sawyer family home, a small cottage. Ada Sawyer born circa 1876 with her husband George who was a builder's foreman in carpentry for Sellmans builders in Marlow. Amongst the Edwardian building projects George would have worked on for the Sellmans were six houses built in Station Rise in 1904, the new C of E Boys' School in 1913 (now Holy Trinity) and the Borlase School chapel in 1914. His brother Harry was also a house carpenter and in this era lived with him. 

In 1903 Ada and George's daughter Edith had a miraculous escape after being ran over by a cart in Spittal Street. The vehicle went right over her legs. After the initial swelling went down however Edith regained the use of her legs and was able to walk again.

George was one of Marlow's volunteer firefighters and in fact the deputy fire captain.

The building of this old number 29 longer exists.

31 cottage and premises of Henry Collins gas fitter and whitesmith born circa 1838. His wife was Eliza. She was born circa 1850. Building no longer exists. Henry also had premises in Chapel Street in 1915.

At end of this odd number side of street with numbers indifferently given, all really in Spittal Square=

S Dorrell wheelwright business premises. Building no longer exists. Probably Sidney Dorrell born c 1878 who lived in Station Road with his parents.

Albert Hillsdon blacksmith / farrier business premises. There by 1906 but had previously operated from premises in Institute Road. The buildings on both sites no longer exist. This Spittal Street forge were previously the premises of W.J Walker. Albert was born c 1874. Wife Kate born c 1876. Albert was the son of William who had been a blacksmith up at Marlow Common. 

Henry Arber's. Building no longer exists. Henry Arbor senior and his wife Rosa lived prior to this in Duchess Place off Victoria Road and their son Henry junior when grown up also lived in that street. It is not clear which Henry is the "Henry Arbor" recorded in a property in Spittal Square in 1907 though I'm reasonably sure it was Henry junior. In either case the Arbor occupation was not for long. Henry senior was originally from Cambridgeshire and had been a stone dresser in Stephen Smith's corn mill. He was born circa 1856. In 1898 he was one of those who formed a committee to set up a sick benefit club for women as an off shoot from the Clayton Arms pub slate club. A few years previously Rosa had been seriously ill and the couple's eldest daughter Lillian was kept home from school to help look after the other children in the family and her mum. This went on long enough to lead to Henry being summoned to court for neglecting her education. Extra money from a benefit club to pay for hired domestic help and extra medical support in such a situation would have helped this family tremendously so you can understand Henry's interest in such schemes. At around the same time his son Henry junior "Harry" was refusing to go to school anyway and staying out all night. His father repeatedly asked for him to be placed in an "industrial school" as he considered the young teen uncontrollable. This was eventually achieved when a place for him was found in an Isleworth industrial school. The school didn't work as after he arrived back in Marlow Harry soon found himself fined for  throwing stones in the station goods yard with other lads. Obviously he found self discipline in himself in the end as he became a regular player for Marlow Football club during the Edwardian era and also then won prizes for his punting on the river. He worked as a boat building labourer at Shaw's boatyard (who hired no one who wasn't hardworking and good at their job). While at work in 1908 Harry found in the river mud a diamond studded gold purse. It was realized to be the lost property of someone who had lost it when visiting Marlow seven years previously. Hopefully the eagle-eyed Harry got a reward!

Sadly Harry died of complications following an appendicitis operation while he was in service in France in the First World War. He left a widow Mary and three children. His bereaved parents had previously lost their baby son Edwin of convulsions caused by "teething".

By 1911 Henry senior appears to have moved to Water Eaton in Bucks to work at the Smith's corn mill there while Rosa was left behind in Marlow. This was probably a temporary job for Henry rather than evidence of a separation for the couple, however I do not know for certain. Rosa lived in Marlow Fields in the Newtown area of Marlow.

Lillian Arber became a domestic nurse.

Picture Palace cinema constructed 1913. Much more about the cinema on this post.

Post researched and written by Charlotte Day. © Marlow Ancestors. You are welcome to use my research for family or local history purposes with credit to this blog.

Compiled from a great many sources. It would take a blog of its own to list them all. Some are listed below.

Kelly's Post Office Directory of Buckinghamshire etc 1911, 1915, editions. Kelly's Limited. 

Kelly's Directory Of the Leather Trades 1881.

Marlow Directory and Almanack 1902, 1907 and 1914 editions. 

Marlow Printing Company.

Property and rental records, shop bills.

England and Wales Census 1901 and 1911 from the National Archives, Kew. Census information remains Crown Copyright.

South Bucks standard 7th Jan 1898 and 26th June 1903.

GRO death and marriage registrations from the National Archives.

"England and Wales, National Index of Wills and Administrations, 1858-1957", , FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:7XNJ-PCN2 : Tue Mar 05 23:44:45 UTC 2024), Entry for Henry Walker and Mary Ann Stockbridge, 25 Oct 1894.

"Spontaneous artistic proclivities" at the Medmenham Pottery.

When the sculptor Conrad Dressler and the Danesfield House "soap magnate" Robert Hudson decided to open a late Victorian "art pottery" at Marlow Common, it's fair to say some people thought they had made an eccentric or unwise decision.  The site may have had clay nearby but it was too out of the way critics said - and not even connected to the water mains.  How could they compete with the Staffordshire potteries with abundant cheaper coal near at hand and a choice of skilled and experienced staff? Conrad's answer was they had chosen the site precisely because it was in a rural spot (more of which below) and to develop the artistic talents of the "villagers" whose natural creative talent would be unleashed. He would not compete on price but would create works of  unique hand-made beauty. At least that was the theory. How long he managed to keep these ideals we shall see! 

This is not intended to be a biography of either Conrad Dressler or Robert Hudson who were well known in their respective fields. So a quick introduction only to both -  Conrad was London born and of German and French abstraction. He came to Marlow Common from the Della Robbia pottery in Liverpool which he co founded. He had unfortunately fallen out with his partners  - Conrad had something of a habit of quarrelling with those he worked with as we will see. Robert Hudson, who spent every other week in Liverpool for much of the year, was in 1896 the new owner of both Danesfield House and Medmenham Abbey.  He planned to pull down the Danesfield mansion almost immediately. The entire estate would be made over and the Abbey restored. He had no shortage of funds at this point to indulge his interests. These included encouraging local craft and industry. This included attempts to revive lace making in the area and to breed traditional British varieties of livestock. He provided the funding for the establishment of the Arts and Crafts inspired Medmenham Pottery and appointed Dressler as his design manager. They were soon co general managers if not so from the beginning. The pottery produced a large range of items, most famously tiles and garden features such as sundials. Conrad continued to take on personal commissions for his busts and sculptures too. Architects could also commission the pottery to make pieces to their own (or clients) design, for an extra fee. 

The Beginnings 

When Conrad and his wife Nita arrived at Marlow in 1896 the pottery was not ready to begin production. Hudson wished Dressler to superintend the design and erection of the pottery premises. Although the traditional presence of brick making complete with clay deposits at Marlow Common probably bought the site to their attention, the clay that had been dug from the common itself and near the brick making kiln was actually regarded as functionally exhausted already. The brick makers found plenty of clay in the fields around and had made agreements to dig that out. The Medmenham Pottery intended to use local materials and work people as far as possible, as this was in tune with the ethos of the arts & craft movement. But it was discovered that the clay here while good for bricks, was not suitable for the pottery. Conrad refined production methods constantly. His special love was the production of glazed architectural friezes and decorations that needed to be outside in all weathers without crazing, cracking or fading. He'd already done much work in creating the right "recipe" for this at the Della Robbia works. But this was tweaked further at Marlow Common. He found that the Marlow clay could not be successfully fired at the high temperatures he required, without the additional of other materials. (The full list of additives was kept a trade secret!) In 1899 it was reported that the pottery had come to the conclusion is was cheaper to import clay from Staffordshire than to correct the local material. However they had not quite given up on the Marlow clay and experiments were ongoing with the hope of utilising it for less delicate work. 

The basic site taken over was one of the two brick and tile making kilns formerly operated by Thomas Butler and Henry Hewett in partnership, and then Butler alone until he went bankrupt in 1893. When that occured,  Butler sold up to builder and lime burner Henry Harris, and it's from he the pottery took over the kiln from. (NB Henry Harris continued to operate a brickyard at different premises at Marlow Common until bankruptcy in 1908.) The newly established Marlow Water Company readily agreed to extend their water supply to the works - without which the pottery would have been impossible. The Dressler's immediate residence was at The Limes in Glade Rd which must have been more comfortable than living at an extensive building site. The house at Marlow Common the family  would soon live in  - "White Cottage" (or White House) was said to have been built specifically for Dressler and to his designs. When author Jerome K Jerome lived there later, it would be known as Monks Corner. It was decorated and still is by Medmenham Pottery tile friezes inside and out. 

Trouble a foot 

The pottery had not even been fully completed when Conrad found himself in court charged with violently assaulting his former friend and employee Mr Houghton at Bovingdon Green. Houghton had come to Marlow Common to act as the company secretary by arrangement with Conrad. They fell out and Houghton was sacked. The pottery management said this was because his work wasn't satisfactory.  Houghton at first refused to accept his dismissal as he was ordered to clear off immediately and this was not in his view proper notice. Robert Hudson subsequently put the dismissal in writing. The next time Dressler saw Houghton, he beat him about the head and chased him across the Green until the latter passed out. Apparently Dressler believed that Houghton was behind some anonymous letters recieved by his wife that accused her husband of improper conduct. He did not deny the assault but his legal representative asks for leniency on the grounds of great provocation. The Marlow magistrates said they regretted for the sake of the neighborhood such a case had come before them, ignored the request for sympathetic sentencing and bound Dressler over in the large sum of £50 to keep the peace. He also had to find an additional person willing to pay a surety for his good conduct, and was fined £2 on top plus costs. Would that be the end of the matter? Not quite. Dressler was subsequently successfully sued by Houghton for repeating the assertion that he had sent the poison pen letters. And furthermore Houghton won a case of wrongful dismissal against the pottery. It is amusing that Conrad is recorded as saying a happy workplace was a "powerful aid in the production of beauty". 

The locals need convincing...

One of the main aims of the Medmenham Pottery was to train the local youngsters in the craft. At first some free apprenticeships were offered to 4 local boys. Hudson was going to pay the usual premium required to take on this position, and the young men would also be paid a "slightly" higher wage than was usual locally for those in a similar role. Thereafter premiums would be £20. But it was later reported interest in this opportunity was low, because parents could not be persuaded art pottery was a good career. Conrad thought young people would need 5 years good training. Many adverts appeared in local papers etc asking for teenage girls to come and paint tiles at the pottery. (In 1897 a 15 year old was offered 5s a week for this role.) With this in mind a girls drawing class was started in Marlow to develop the skills that might be useful. 

In 1897 he gave a lecture at Bovingdon Green school to parents and other interested adults where he tried to explain his aims and ambitions. He wanted work to be produced by hand because he thought the use of machinery stunted creativity and "enslaved" humans.  To work in a beautiful natural environment would be ideal and inspirational, hence the choice of Marlow Common. 

Brighter times ...briefly

Moving on to 1899 we find happier times at the pottery. They held an open day and exhibition there for some 300 guests who were apparently very impressed by the items on display which included medallions, sundials, tiles and busts. The companies London agent Hoflers of Soho Square displayed their wares in a showroom and offered them for export. They had completed a large commission for exterior decoration on 12 cottages at Westfield Medmenham, part of Hudson's revamped estates. Each cottage would display a Medmenham Pottery panel depicting a particular month of the year and the activities associated with it.  January showed wood gathering, June haymaking and November ploughing for example. 

Unfortunately, the company fortunes took a down turn in 1900 when the pottery suffered a severe fire of unknown cause. Starting in the engine house early in the morning, it spread rapidly. Thankfully as work was soon to start enough people were near at hand to rescue a quantity of valuable  finished pieces. The engine house could not be saved, nor could the drying room. The premises were insured but much disruption must have been caused. Marlow fire brigade attended with a depleted crew as some had not heard the bell! And the horses struggled to pull the fire engine all the way up Chalk Pit Lane, so progress was slow and the fireman got out to walk and lighten the load. Given that and poor water pressure, it's a wonder as much was saved as was. 

Sometimes you feel the Pottery staff must have felt that fates were against them. Even in 1900 when they secured a spot in the Paris International Exhibition, things did not go to plan. When one of the British "jurors" of the category they were exhibiting under went to look for their display in the British Pavillion, he found the attendants couldn't identify any of the pieces. The items had appeared in the catalogue but do not seem to have actually made it on display. The juror did find some uncatalogued pottery items from the Bromsgrove Guild of Applied Arts and from Messrs Martin Bros which had just been used to decorate the pavillion, and oddly he suggested these pieces could be judged under the title "Medmenham Pottery" - but whether this suggestion was taken up I don't know! 

New kilns, new ideas 

Conrad was constantly innovating and Hudson seems happy to give him fairly free rein to make what improvement he could at the pottery. In 1901 he tore out the kilns put in less than a year before in order to replace them with more economical ones, on the advice of a French expert. An article in the September issue of The Artist that year explained that Conrad had had "heartbreaking disappointments" in attempting to innovate and only his untiring devotion to his work had allowed him to "surmount many difficulties" at Marlow Common. 

Dressler wants to create "spontaneous artistic proclivities in the girls he employs" so really original work could come from them, the author said. But apparently Conrad had found the "human material" less promising than he had expected! The magazine  seems gently sceptical at this approach but hoped  Dressler would strike a vein of some local talent. The work they said, Dressler found a "severe mental and physical tax." 

Unfortunately many of Conrad's innovations  were made out of necessity for keeping production costs down. He took out many patents during his time at Marlow. He admitted they struggled to meet their buyers expectations of what an art pottery piece could profitably be produced for. In 1902 we are told that Conrad had been forced to introduce some designs that could be stamped out "under dies" rather than hand moulded. This was 25% cheaper but those commissioning pieces could still opt for the less mechanised process if they were willing to stump up more. They were again using mainly local clay, with additives as Conrad had managed to perfect the "recipe" for using it. 

His biggest disappointment was - look away now proud Marlovians - the local artistic talent - or lack of it. No native talent had emerged and so "a stricter adherence to rules and orders has had to be observed and the liberty which he hoped to foster when he began potting has had to be curtailed". 

Closure 

The end of Medmenham Pottery was first reported in November 1902. Some in the trade expected the closure to be temporary and so were surprised when it was announced as permanent. However the South Bucks Standard announced a month or so later that Conrad Dressler had purchased the works from Hudson and would continue much the same as before. For how long he did so is not certain - I've seen dates of anything between 1903-1909 for the end of the pottery at that site. Part of the difficulty is that tiles made to Conrad's designs were subsequently referred to as Medmenham Pottery even when it definitely wasn't made there. The 1908 edition of the Victoria County history of Buckinghamshire says that the pottery had moved to Staffordshire. In 1909 it was reported in the local newspaper that Dressler had sold his Marlow Common home to Jerome K Jerome who certainly lived there later. But Dressler was still present at White Cottage on the 1911 census and in a 1915 Marlow Directory. Work known as Medmenham Pottery tiles were produced by J H Barrett & Co of Stoke on Trent for many years, by agreement with Dressler who died in 1940. 

NB the grave of Nita Dressler in an Ohio cemetery bears a bronze sculpture by Conrad, executed the year following her death there in 1928. 

Written and researched by Kathryn Day. 

Related posts:

Others related to Marlow Common and nearby can be found here

General Marlow history post index - here

Artists in Marlow history - synopsis here

©MarlowAncestors. 

SOURCES:

Bergesson, Victoria - Encyclopaedia of of British Art pottery, 1870-1920, Barrie and Jenkins (1991)

Herbert, Henry - 

The Decorative Time in Architecture, Phaidon Press  (1995)

Lemmen, Hans Van -Art Nouveau Tiles, Shire Books, 2002

Miller, Frederick . The history of art pottery in the British isles. (Article within Supplement to The Art Journal 1902)

Plaited, Arthur Henry -  Manor and Parish Records of Medmenham, Buckinghamshire, Longman, Green & co (1925)

Academy Architecture And Architectural Review 1899 Vol 16, Publication date 1899

Reports from His Majesty's Commissioners relating to Paris International exhibition of 1900, HMSO. 1901 

Catalogue of the Paris International Exhibition 1900. 

Arts  & Crafts Exhibition Society : catalogue of the seventh exhibition, the New Gallery, 121 Regent St. 1903

by Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society

The Builder 24th April 1901, May 1902, 19th June 1931. 

Bucks Herald 23rd May 1896.

South Bucks Standard 30th Jan 1893, 15th February 1895, 22nd, 29th May  & 18th December 1896, 14th May 1897, 21st Jan, 25th March &  6th May, 6th June 1898, 31st March 1899, 26th October 1900, 5th & 19th December 1902. 

Uxbridge & W. Drayton Gazette - 11 September 1909, 2nd April 1937

The Victoria County History of Buckingham shire, 1908/9 edition,  ed by Wm Page. 

Survey of London, Greater London Council, Athlone Press, 1966 

 

Nita's Ohio death registration https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33S7-9PK4-9RPY?view=index&personArk=%2Fark%3A%2F61903%2F1%3A1%3AX8GG-HCS&action=view&cc=1307272&lang=en

 

Marlow and it's workhouse between 1775 and 1843

The Marlow Workhouse in Berwick Lane was in existence by 1775 when "a good and sober man and woman" with respectable characters were sought to take charge of the place and the Marlow poor. Application could be made to the churchwardens and overseers of the poor. Maximum salary £20 per annum plus obviously their accomodation was provided plus some allowances for items like fuel and candles for personal use. The successful applicants would be required to find work for the inmates so they could earn their keep and maintain the habit of working -  according to the ideas of the time innate idleness and poverty went together. Agricultural labour and flint picking (the flints were used to repair the roads) were popular local labour choices. 

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.