The workhouse looms large and horribly in our imagination. I have read so many narratives about what life was like within the walls. But I wanted to know specifically what our Marlow residents would experience if they were unfortunate enough to find themselves resident at the Union workhouse at Saunderton, or the children's house at Bledlow. I have covered life at Marlow's own workhouse up to the opening of Saunderton in 1843 in another post. The reality of work house existence has been both better and worse than my expectations.
Who needs a workhouse?
In 1847, author James Thorne who was writing a guide to the Thames said "I am afraid that Marlow still has a very poor population. The houses about the meaner streets have a wretched poverty stricken aspect, and there are more evident signs of vice forcing themselves on the attention than is at all common in country towns of the same size and class." Four years later the Incorporated Society for the Promoting the Enlargement and Building of Churches and Chapels presented their report into Great Marlow, after they were asked for a grant towards the cost of building the new church of Holy Trinity. They concluded the town has a very large number of poor persons and "many exist without known employment."
When the winter was bad, things got bad very quickly. Some help was available independently of what was available from the Union but it tended to be short lived provision. In the bad winter on 1854 when "very great privations" had been felt, the inhabitants got together to organise acts of assistance. This was paid for by private subscription and cases were "investigated" by a committee to ensure assistance was given only to those considered deserving. Then there were gifts mostly in kind provided by the "parish charities" - those paid for by various historic bequests and distributed by the churchwardens representative. In 1859 a letter writer to the local papers accused those responsible for the distribution of the parish charities of exhibiting favouritism when deciding who should receive a share. He added that many of the deeds to property which was supposed to provide an income to the charities had been lost which showed showed they weren't taking the task seriously. Furthermore he said the poor should be treated with civility as they were only claiming what was rightfully theirs to take.
Would you rather die than go to the workhouse?
We will never know some of the sacrifices made or deprivations put up with to do everything possible to avoid going to "the house." But it's certainly true that some people would literally rather die that enter its walls. We have mentioned before the case of the elderly and ill Mr Gardner living near Wymers, who slit his throat when he was told the only option for relief for him was to go to Saunderton. (1876). Men and women were housed separately whether married or not, and there was also an infirmary for each.
It's important to remember that certain groups of people were refused "outdoor relief" eg the limited amount of help available that was an alternative to going into the workhouse. Widows who had illegitimate children were one such group. For them it would be the workhouse or nothing. Fathers of illegitimate children were not refused relief however.
Children were sometimes admitted to Bledlow on a temporary basis, if for example their mother had died, and their father needed to travel to find a job before sending for his children but he would be required to contribute to his children's maintenance if possible. In the same way adult working children of elderly pauper inmates were required to pay towards their parents keep at Saunderton unless they were very poor themselves. The amount was set depending on the income the family received and what other dependents they had. If you didn't pay, you could be summoned to the magistrates court by the relieving officer of your parents union. For example railway porter John Plumridge, then living at Slough, was summoned in 1895 for not contributing to maintaining his mother who was in Saunderton.
Some of those sent to Saunderton where there because they needed to be admitted to the infirmary before Marlow got a cottage hospital. The Marlow relievers paid for a certain number of admission tickets to Reading Hospital - usually those who'd need an operation. But for others who could not be cared for at home, Saunderton it was. Poor George Blewett was one such person in the 1870s. He had been severely burned in a kiln accident at Marlow and there was no chance of recovery. He died after what must have been an agonising journey there, age just 32. It was believed he'd had some kind of seizure before the accident.
On arrival all those except emergency admissions to the infirmary, were sent to the male and female recieving wards so they could be medically assessed for any infectious disease. Men and women were lodged separately even if married. Once in the main male or female "ward" the days routine was marked by the ringing of a bell - with getting up time at 7.30am.
Humble and subservient?
The work house inmates were supposed to be grateful they were housed, and uncomplaining. But the reality is quite different. The visiting guardians of the poor for the union and the various committees were not always greeted with politeness they expected. They reported that in 1868 some of the men were openly defiant in their speech and action. The guardians had come to investigate reports of disorderly conduct (reported by a former resident) such as smoking in the dormitories, and staying up late into the night. He said the lower staff not only knew about those late nights but provided the lights for them to see by! (Smoking was at that point banned throughout the work house) They concluded that overall a "bad tone" existed at Saunderton. The light providing porter was severely reprimanded for failing to do his proper rounds at night and for not searching inmates for tobacco if they had been allowed out. The governor was warned they needed to supervise things more personally.
Misbehaviour at the union house seems quite common in the 1840 and 50s in particular. Destroying clothes, or breaking something belonging to the place we're the most frequent causes of inmate's being bought before the courts. There was no point fining a pauper, so many found themselves in that era in jail for a few weeks.
Could you leave once admitted?
In theory yes, but you had to apply for permission from the board who usually wanted to interview you in person. There were particular reasons they would grant a leave of absence such as to attend a funeral, or to seek work. The latter reason was very often not accepted though. The board wanted to be certain there was a reasonable chance you would find employment. Just walking out because you'd had enough was not allowed - especially not if you were still wearing the clothes provided by the Union when you entered. Those that did were pursued by the police for the theft of this clothing. The board were however empowered to give those who did stand a chance of work an allowance of a two or three of days food for the journey. One Great Marlow man who received this type of aid was William Levington or Lewington in 1865. William said he had been imprisoned several times and so he had a bad reputation in Marlow. This meant he was trapped in a state of unemployment and had ended up at Saunderton after suffering a fever. Now recovered, he felt the only hope was to seek a situation further away. He declared he was determined to turn over a new leaf. William initially hoped the guardians could give him some money to help with this but they were not legally able to do that. William must have made a good impression when he appeared before the board. They said the master had reported to them that he conducted himself well and they felt his plan was a realistic and good one. They suggested he returned to his native Marlow for the upcoming fair, which was still a great place to find work with farmers who attended from far and wide. He would be provided with some items of clothing including the smock frock no self respecting agricultural labourer could do without. They actually reached into their own pockets to give William a little fund to start with, offered him some words of advice, and asked that he wrote often to them to tell them how he was getting on. I wonder if he did?
If you had been admitted only to the infirmary, you could leave once you recieved the doctor's certificate of fitness. The vagrancy ward took in tramps who could stay for a limited time. They were expected to do some work to "pay" for their stay.
Cruelty in the infirmary
In 1898 the head nurse Mary Baker in the infirmary at Saunderton was sacked after being found guilty of a heartbreaking series of assaults on a young helpless crippled girl under her care who was also both deaf and blind. She was also criminally investigated and given what was considered a high fine of £3. Another nurse Emily Pocock raised the alarm after discovered severe bruising and cuts on the victim. When she pointed these out to Baker, the guilty nurse dismissed her concerns. Emily was immediately suspicious as she knew such marks could not be made by accident, and in any case no incident was reported. Some of the other infirmary patients said they had heard the girl scream and be slapped at night but they were too terrified in their own helpless positions to call for help. One woman said she hid under the blankets terrified that Baker would know she had been awake. The nurses defence was caring for such cases was "difficult" and the work house inmates who had testified against her had over active imaginations or were prone to exaggeration. They also said such a kindly looking and well bought up woman could never stoop to such cruelty. The jury disagreed.
Days of celebration
One thing I did not expect was to find how often the inmates of Saunderton work house were treated to a special meal or experience. That is not to say every day life when you were not free to come and go and remain amongst your friends and family was pleasant. These special days were the exception but they occured more frequently than we might think. What spurred these "high days" could be almost anything eg the marriage of the Prince of Wales in 1863 or that of the Duke of York in 1893.
As time went on there was a general softening of attitudes to those who found themselves at Saunderton. More was fine to provide them with leisure opportunities. In 1889 a donation of several dozen pairs of reading glasses meant that reading was again within reach of many of the older residents. A "reading cupboard" was given for their use and an appeal made for books and papers to furnish it. Marlow's Walter Lovegrove organised a collection for this at Marlow. Later Marlow Institute sent more volumes.
As well as a special Christmas dinner in a decorated dining hall, the inmates had an annual treat usually around New Years Eve. Wycombe town band was the entertainment for example in 1891. And then there was harvest festival celebrations within the workhouse chapel.
On a side note the tobacco and snuff that was forbidden to the inmates in the first years of the workhouse were by the 1890s back at Saunderton. The supply of both was given to the master who gave them out to well behaved male inmates at his discretion. The men were not allowed to smoke at night or while working but puffing away at meal times was Pipes usually featured as part of the workhouse Christmas celebrations or other special events (men only).
Death in the workhouse.
Those regarded as incurably or seriously "mad" were taken to the county asylum at Stone to be cared for. But there were many regarded as less seriously afflicted who instead found themselves at Saunderton which was totally unable to properly supervise or aid them. There just wasn't enough staff. Some sadly therefore were able to commit suicide. One such was one time Marlow resident John Gibbs in 1849 who after unsuccessfully slashing his wrist, hung himself at the workhouse.
The Wycombe Union was liable for the cost of a paupers funeral. Some guardians lamented the fact they did not think they could recover any funeral expenses from the family of the deceased. The family did not have to let the union bury their loved one just because they died at Saunderton though. If relatives claimed the body, the Union had to pay for it to be transported to the relatives parish where it would be buried. The family could still attend a paupers burial which was typically at High Wycombe cemetery but it was reported that few did. When in 1891 changes to burial arrangements were mooted one Union guardian made the extraordinary claim that as few family members paid for stones for their pauper relatives graves it showed they did not "have much feeling about the matter" of how their relative was buried. The idea a pauper family might not have spare cash for an expensive gravestone seems to have passed this man by entirely. Thankfully some of the other members of the board were more grounded in reality. Many of those dying had no nearby relatives anyway they said. Some wondered if it would be kinder to the families if a private place could be provided for pauper burials at the workhouse itself, as a public parish burial was considered very embarrassing by many. But others thought it would be too depressing to the older inmates to have a burial ground in their view. In the end the idea wasn't proceeded with.
Part two deals with life for the children at the Bledlow workhouse or rather residential school....
FURTHER INFORMATION:
The Wretched - poverty in Victorian and Edwardian Marlow here
The life of James Croxon - friend to the poor here
From the workhouse to convict ships - the Brothers Frith here
Marlow hero John Langley here
General posts about everyday life in old Great Marlow here
Marlow workhouse keepers the Reeves here
Written and researched by Kathryn Day. © MarlowAncestors.
Sources:
Thorne, James. Rambles by the Rivers: The Thames Vol 1&2, ( 1847) Charles Cox & Co.
Bucks Herald 5th May 1849.
Hampshire Chronicle 25th January 1851
Maidenhead Advertiser 8th July 1899
Reading Mercury 14th January 1859
South Bucks Standard March 15th & June 7th 1895
Windsor & Eton Journal 15th Jan 1876
Report of the Wycombe Guardians, High Wycombe Union, February 1863 and January 1891.
