Life for the Marlow children at the Union school at Bledlow

This is part 2 of a post dealing with the life of Marlow's residents when they spent their time at either the Union workhouse at Saunderton or the residential school for school age children at Bledlow. 

Life for the children at Bledlow 

In 1891 the master of Saunderton said he took the children out for a walk once a week. When it was suggested a daily constitutional would be better for them, he stated that he did not have enough staff to do this. The little ones were allowed time to play outside when the weather allowed but they had no dedicated playroom as such for use during poor weather. The children were occupied at lessons and their "work" between 8 and noon and between 2-4pm, Sundays excepted. Dinner was 12.30 pm. The "work" was obviously dependent on age, but typically included helping tend the vegetable garden or pump water for the boys, and assist with the laundry or mending for the girls. They had a certain amount of donated books and toys and the master allowed them to make mud slides in the yard. The girls also had a swing as provided by a local benefactor in 1880. 

They wore a sort of uniform all the time they were at the school. It was either a plain grey or dark coloured cord trouser suit for the boys with a matching cap or dresses for the girls of the same material. 

Entertainments 

As monotonous as daily life may have been for the young "inmates" I'm pleased to say they were not forgotten during the "high days and holidays" of the year. 

In the 1880s and 1890s in particular visits were made by groups of singers and minstrels who were given permission to entertain the youngsters. The Marlow "Loyal Duck Lane Minstrels" were once such troupe who travelled to the main work house at Saunderton several times in the late 1880s and early 1890s. The children of Bledlow were bought along in hired brakes and waggons to enjoy the show. They were given an orange and some sweets before they headed home. All residents young and old were provided with a special tea abundant in cake, as paid for by Marlow residents. 

At Christmas the youngsters could look forward to a number of treats provided by local men and women year after year. Oranges, nuts and sweets always featured in these, and often a magic lantern show or similar entertainment followed. Christmas dinner was a special one by the standards of the normal fare and the general daily routine was relaxed.   

The lady visitors come calling 

In 1895 a committee of lady visitors was established for Bledlow. Thereafter it's noticeable that many improvements were made in favour of the children's comfort. In the same year a Band of Hope was established at Bledlow for the boys. This was a Christian temperance focused sort of youth club. Also the children were allowed to join a Sunday Bible class at Bledlow itself, which was also open children not resident in the house. This was in addition to an agreement that the juvenile inmates could attend the Wesleyan Sunday schools in the village. The children were marched there and back and their "industrial teacher" took one of the classes at the chapel. Some of guardians complained the lady visitors were constantly making suggestions, and some were dangerously close to letting the little ones be treated better than the offspring of the labouring poor in the outside they feared. (For example the ladies idea of providing night clothes for the boys so they didn't have to sleep in the same clothes they wore all day. The matter was dropped on cost grounds officially.) But the ladies were successful at securing donations of  footballs (from Marlow Football Club) and cricket stumps, bats and balls (courtesy of Marlow Cricket Club) all collected by Marlow's Walter Lovegrove. The fairly new master and mistress Mr and Mrs Quint were also responsible for improving the atmosphere at Bledlow in the 1890s. It was noted that since their arrival the children had had better spirits and were more animated, especially when Mr Quint joined in their games.

Where were their parents? 

Some of children at Bledlow were orphans, some had parents in the Saunderton workhouse, some were children abandoned by their families (who would face charges of leaving their dependents "on the parish" if traced)  and a few were admitted on a special case basis while their parents could not care for them eg because they were widowed and needed to travel to seek work (but these parents were required to contribute to their children's maintenance.) A few were admitted because the widowed parent could not support all their offspring and so a difficult decision was made to put some in the workhouse while others stayed at home. 

The decision to house the school age children separate from the adults was not just for space reasons. Many thought it desirable the children should be kept free of "polluting" and "contaminating "influences even if they were the youngsters own family! Poverty, idleness and criminality were considered by some Victorians to be inevitable bed fellows so poor adults needed to be kept at a safe distance. This was one reason an 1881 plan to move the children from Bledlow into an extended Saunderton workhouse were not proceeded with. It's interesting that in 1891 when the idea was mooted again, those in its favour said that it was impossible to keep the children entirely away from potentially bad adults already as their parents could visit them every day if liked. Obviously those at Saunderton could not just walk out to pay their offspring a call - they required permission from the master to leave and he may not have been willing to grant it day after day in practice. Any other family wanting to visit the youngsters would also require permission from the Bledlow master to do so. The board considered Saunderton then had enough room to keep the children reasonably apart from others but they stayed at Bledlow. Some children were of course at Saunderton too, mainly because of their young age. 

Children under 10 years were  routinely boarded out within the community from 1891 unless they were considered unsuitable for some reason. Some of those caring for the children were Marlow and Little Marlow families, but their young guests were not necessarily from those places. They were provided with a suit of clothes and their foster parents could apply for more as needed. This boarding out meant the Bledlow premises were not as full as the early years before the boarding out began. In 1891 there were 36 little residents. A relative lack of crowding was considered to be one reason why the children had less outbreaks of infectious conditions such as conjunctivitis or head lice than was usual in such institutions. 

The Premises

By the 1890s the Bledlow buildings were considered to be in poor condition. A group of guardians visiting making their customary fortnightly visit in 1893 were alarmed by the state of the stairs which had holes at the corners large enough for one gentleman to poke his umbrella through. The water pump was stiff and heavy too. Repairs were made slowly but it doesn't sound like an especially warm and draught free place to grow up! 

Leaving Bledlow 

The youngsters were sent to be apprentices or into service for training or employment when considered old enough, unless of course a family member was able to claim and house them. It seems that some of the wages were subsidised. Those going out into the world were given an outfit to go away with.  Anyone interested in taking on one of the teenagers would apply to the board. It was not a given that the request would be granted or that the boys and girls were allowed to go with just anyone. The employers were interviewed and some applications were refused altogether. If accepted in principle, they would be invited to select in person from a choice of three boys or girls chosen by the masters as most likely to be suitable. For, example in 1892 Mrs William Creswell at High Rews farm in Marlow chose 12 year old Amelia Webb from Thame to come to her.  Sometimes the children refused to go and while some pressure might be exerted, they were not actually forced to. They could also be "returned" if the arrangement didn't work out. I saw that one girl had come back three times while they were despairing of placing a 14 year old would be servant who had had no offers. (Girls had to leave Bledlow at 16.)

They made special efforts NOT to place the children in "advantageous positions" as opposed to putting them in a situation considered fit and at a  "proper level" for children of the labouring class. This was yet another way to prevent the idea of abandoning children to the parish to "better their prospects" appearing attractive. I wonder how many children might have been lifted out of poverty if those willing to give them a head start regardless would have been allowed to do so. 

In 1894 the Grimsby North Sea Trawling co asked if they had any lads desirous of going to sea.  There were three boys age 14 & 15 who the master approached but the only one who fancied life as a fisherman was considered too short!

Some children (before the boarding out began) spent their entire childhoods at Bledlow. How strange they must have found life "on the outside". 

Written and researched by Kathryn Day. 

For sources, see part one.

Related posts: 

The Wretched - poverty in Victorian and Edwardian Marlow  here

Marlow workhouse keepers the Reeves 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

 

© MarlowAncestors. 

Life in Saunderton Workhouse for Victorian Great Marlow residents. Part one.

 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 harsh, 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 severe winter of 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 churchwarden's 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 that 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 for 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 as mentioned above. 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 that he needed to supervise things on a more personal basis. 

Misbehaviour at the union house seems quite common in the 1840 and 50s in particular. Destroying clothes, or breaking something belonging to the place were the most frequent causes of inmate's being bought before the courts. There was no point fining a pauper, so many in that era found themselves 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  two or three days of 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 received 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 criminally investigated and given what was considered a high fine of £3. Another nurse Emily Pocock raised the alarm after she 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 petrified 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 done 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 acceptable.  Pipes usually featured as part of the workhouse Christmas celebrations or other special events (men only). 

If a friend or relative should send a gift of money to an inmate, it may have been confiscated to put towards the cost of maintaining them in the house if it was more than a minimal sum. For example in 1866 one male inmate received a letter containing a postal order for an unspecified sum.  The envelope was opened by the master as he had been told by the postmaster what it contained. (His right to open the inmates post was strongly disputed by several board members.) He decided to allow the person to whom it was intended 1s a week from the sum to use for "extras". When a second postal order - this for £2 - came for the same man the master suggested it should be kept to pay for the man's upkeep. The board agreed and the recipient was called in and told their decision. 

Technically the workhouse residents were only allowed to eat what was on the official menu unless it was either Christmas or a variation of the diet had been approved for medical reasons. This meant that the inmates could not use gifts of food or use any spare change to buy themselves a treat. However it's thankfully not difficult to find examples when this was ignored. 

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.  After unsuccessfully slashing his wrist, he 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 relatives were 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

Life for the Marlow children at the Union workhouse school at Bledlow 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. 

South Bucks Free Press 16th November 1866

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

Everyday life for Marlow people at the Wycombe Union workhouse at Saunderton here and for the Marlow children at the Union residential school at  Bledlow 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. 

From Work-House to Convict Ships - The Brothers Frith

Today's subjects are three young boys who caught my eye amongst the many young residents in the Great Marlow Workhouse in 1841. Charles, Alfred and Abraham Frith aged approximately 15, 13 and 9.  The two eldest are our focus here. There were a number of other Friths resident there then.  Young Charles and Abraham were the sons of John and Maria Frith, and most likely Alfred is their brother baptised 1827. It appears the boy's mother Maria was dead. Their father was not, but he was not with them in the parish house. It was not unusual for children left without a mother to end up in such a place, but sometimes this was only a short lived experience until perhaps the father remarried or another relative could help care for the children. At other times a child or two from a large poor family might be taken in temporarily to relieve the pressure on the household budgets if the breadwinner was out of work. In the end the same reason is behind every admission to the workhouse: poverty. At this time the work house managers were the Reeves, who you can read about in a dedicated post from Charlotte here. The buildings of the former still remain in Munday Dean Lane, just beyond Berwick Road.

Some of the workhouse residents would go on to better things and never return there but unfortunately they were the minority. And none of our three young men were amongst those fortunate few. Abraham reached adulthood but seems to have died young after numerous minor brushes with the law mainly for vagrancy, and just after finishing a 6 month sentence for robbing a cottage in Rotherfield Greys. And both Charles and Alfred would end up as convicts sentenced to transportation. 

Charles goes sheep stealing

Charles received his first conviction for sheep stealing when he was around 16. I'm unsure of his sentence then but it was likely several months in gaol. A youthful age was little defence in the eyes of the authorities. 

To be caught a second time was extremely serious. Charles would have known this as several Marlow men had already been sent to Tasmania as result of the two strike rule. 

Unfortunately in December 1846 Charles and his friend 17 year old Charles Lomax decided to pay a visit to Little Marlow of an evening. While they were there they caught and killed a sheep belonging to farmer William Simmonds of Monkton Farm, butchering it near the scene (more on Monkton Farm and the occupants of it in Charlotte's post here). This was a common practice as it was easier and more discreet to cart away cut up meat than to drive sheep away through the lanes. They did not remove all of their bounty straight away but took some back to Marlow and hid the rest in a bag amongst some bushes. They probably thought it safer not to be carrying too obvious a load all at once. I have read accounts of hundreds of local poaching incidents and this gradual extraction of stolen meat seems quite common, despite the obvious risks of constantly returning to the scene! Frith took some of his share back to John Badger's beer-house in Chapel Street, Marlow where he was probably lodging. He asked the daughter of the house, Jane, to cook him some of the mutton for his dinner. Most recovered stolen meat ends up sold to the likes of butchers and beer houses prepared not to ask too many questions. Eating some yourself, except some of the offal, was less common it seems. It doesn't mean those stealing it weren't hungry but may be because the sold meat could generate more food if  the profit was then invested in cheaper ingredients. 

The two men were seen near the farm but not immediately with any sheep so although their presence was noted as somewhat unexplained, they were not instantly challenged. Later the sheep were missed. A search for them found a skin marked with "S" for owner Simmonds in a copse adjacent to the farm. Aaron Simmonds, the nephew of farmer William, was the one to make this discovery. He said the animal had been badly - that is unprofessionally - butchered,  and the mark was partially obscured so he could not positively identify it but unfortunately for the Friths, the other witnesses could. The skins, always marked, were usually left behind as they were the most incriminating evidence to be found on your person. A more thorough search uncovered the Frith's bag of stolen meat. After some consideration about the best thing to do it was decided to return the bag to its hiding place and watch, with the aid of one of the parish constables, to see who would come back to claim it and in doing so proclaim their guilt. The brothers were therefore observed as they pulled the bag out of the hedge and were known by name to those watching so escape was unlikely. They were not however arrested immediately, perhaps it was the intention to follow them a little in case they lead the way to any other accomplice. If so this was ruined when Richard Clark, engaged in hedging near the copse, was seen by the Friths during their exit. They were clearly surprised, and now carrying a suspicious bag, they panicked and immediately began to run. Richard called out for them to stop, declaring that he knew them well so fleeing  was pointless although he said the latter to their fast disappearing backs. Of course they did not stop, but ran towards Great Marlow. It was now rapidly getting dark and perhaps they hoped any identification would be vague. Then about three quarters of a mile from Little Marlow and in Marlow Fields their flight ended in the arms so to speak of Marlow Parish Constable Richard Davis. He had been alerted about the thefts earlier. He saw Lomax first, who was searched with nothing untoward found upon him. Frith, slowed down by carrying the bag, had now caught up, but on hearing Davis had tried to drop the incriminating bag. As it was now dark he might have hoped this action would not be seen, but in the quiet, it was heard. A knife and cords (for tying animal legs) was found on Frith, and Davis soon found the dropped bag as Frith had had no real opportunity to hide it. With the help of Parish Constable Thomas Walker,* the two were taken into custody. 

They appeared before the magistrates which at that time met in a hired room in the Crown hotel. They were then sent to Aylesbury Gaol to await trial at the Quarter Sessions. The verdict was inevitably one of guilty for both men. The Berkshire Chronicle described Frith as a "notorious thief and sheep stealer" on his arrest although it appears he was suspected of being involved in more offences than he was ever convicted of. Lomax did not have a previous conviction for sheep stealing and so he received a 12 month prison sentence. But things were quite different for Charles Frith. A previous conviction meant an inevitable sentence of transportation, in this case for 10 years. Of course this was the same as a life sentence in many ways. I can find no evidence that Charles Frith ever came back to Marlow. He was transported on the convict ship Eden under Captain Murdoch, which left on the 30th September 1848 and arrived in Hobart, Van Diemens Land on the 21st January 1849.

Alfred Frith Follows 

Charles may have beaten Alfred to the convict ships, but it was Alfred who had actually troubled the courts for longer. 

In 1843 the Union Workhouse at Saunderton was opened to replace the local workhouses. Before long Alfred would be only too familiar with its interior. He was there in 1844 when he was accused of damaging the stove inside, alongside another youth. The boys defence was not recorded in the sources that I found. But their efforts were rewarded with 2 weeks in prison. It appears he flitted in and out of the workhouse, presumably between periods of employment. 

In 1846, Alfred was back in the Wycombe Union house. But not I suspect very willingly! For before long he was wanted on the charge of absconding from the place. Alfred was far from alone in making his escape without obtaining official permission. He was supposed to get clearance if he wished to leave for a range of specific purposes eg to look for work or attend a funeral. Or he could give notice of his intention to leave but the authorities would want assurance that he could support himself if doing so (and legally.) The other problem was that Alfred had left wearing a set of clothes belonging to the union. This was regarded as theft. He did not remain at large for long as he was picked up on suspicion of begging (he argued that he was in fact selling combs) and so arrived before the magistrates to receive a 2 month prison sentence. On his arrest he was described by one source as "notorious" but it seems that like his brother, he was suspected of involvement in more petty crime than he was actually convicted of. Those like Alfred who spent at least some time as an itinerant seller were often treated with much suspicion. 

Alfred saw the magistrates again early in 1847 for vaguely described "misbehaviour" in the Wycombe Union Workhouse. He had a co accused, and both were sentenced to 6 weeks imprisonment. It's fair to say Alfred was not going to settle quietly into life in such a place. 

Alfred's official job was as a tailor. But it does not seem he had much luck with maintaining this employment! 

In 1848, 20 year old Alfred would get into much more serious trouble. He had previously served a months sentence for a theft of turnips from a field in 1845. Now he was found guilty along with a 22 year old accomplice James West, of stealing three heifers from Benjamin Reeves of High Wycombe. Theft of livestock was not treated lightly, and although both plead not guilty, the case was regarded as an open and shut one. They were sentenced to 7 years transportation each. James West was quickly transferred to the Defence Hulk at Gosport to await a space in convict transport ship. Rebellious Alfred stayed initially in Aylesbury Gaol but his conduct there was regarded as "troublesome". It was considered that he was "unfit" to be put in solitary confinement so he was transferred to the larger and harsher Millbank prison in London in late 1849. The prison suffered a severe cholera outbreak shortly afterwards and a number of inmates were transferred to a "convict station" or temporary prison at Thorncliffe Barracks in Kent. He was still there at the time of the 1851 census. It could take some time for convicts to leave. I have not been able to trace which ship he left on (records are not complete) but I will update this post if I recover this info or any further information. 

FURTHER INFORMATION:

Other posts related to Great Marlow convicts, and law and (dis)order can be found in the index here

Life at Great Marlow Workhouse 1775-1843 - here and life at the Wycombe Union workhouse at  Saunderton for Marlow residents here

To find all posts mentioning a family or individual here, see the A-Z person index in the top drop down menu. There's over 6,000 people listed there. 

*More about parish constable Walker here

Written and researched by Kathryn Day. 

Sources include:

1841 census and parish register transcripts from the microfilm and originals by Jane Pullinger 1970. 

Bucks Advertiser &Aylesbury News, November 1846,  January & March 1847, February 1849 - British Library Archive and accessed via the BNA Partnership. 

Bucks Gazette February 1845 & 1847, as above

Bucks Herald September 1849 & January 1850 as above. 

Oxford Chronicle and Reading Gazette January & February 1850

Berkshire Chronicle December 1846, as above. 

The National Archives (TNA) : HO 11/15, pp.333-347

Australian Joint Copying Project. Microfilm Roll 92, Class and Piece Number HO11/15, Page Number 333 (168)

© MarlowAncestors

The Tucker Family of Queens Road

Fanny and William Tucker appear on the 1871 census in Queens Road, making them some of the road's earliest residents. I couldn't read William's occupation but in later records he was a wheelwright. Children Rose aged 6, Joseph aged 3, Mary aged 1 and little baby Caroline completed the family. To help with the children the couple had a nurse living with them - 64 year old Phoebe Wood. This was a poor family so it is possible Phoebe was getting free accommodation in return for helping out, but she certainly also worked as a nurse for others with children outside that household.

The couple, minus the nurse remained in Queen's Road at the time of the 1881 census. Earlier in 1881 Fanny took William to court for his alcohol fuelled cruelty to her. He had told her he was throwing her out. When she refused to leave her home and young children he beat her and pushed her out the door. She remained outside all night in the cold. This was not the first time a similar thing had happened. In the morning she went in to make her children's breakfast and found William just as threatening to the point she had to leave again. The magistrate who heard the case raged at William for his "unmanly" behaviour and sentenced him to 14 days in jail. This may not sound much but for any assault in those days, it was. Without any income coming in from her husband during those two weeks Fanny would have suffered too. She must have been highly motivated to try to shock William out of his behaviour to launch the case. None of the children then living at home seem to have been working yet- 15 year old Ada and 13 year old Joseph were both still described as scholars. Sadly Ada died the next year.

Prior to her marriage Fanny (nee Darvill, daughter of Joseph Darvill and Rebecca nee Hopcraft) had worked as a lacemaker. Aged 13 she was listed as such living with her already widowed at age 28 sister Jane Rogers, a grocer on the 1851 census in Monks Risborough, Bucks. Life probably wasn't easy for Jane and Fanny as Jane had been summoned the year before for failing to pay her poor rates. Living with her sister was presumably a choice rather than a necessity for Fanny however, as her parents were still alive, in Monks Risborough. Dad Joseph was a hay dealer and carrier, mum Rebecca was a dressmaker.

The Tucker family were still in Queens Road in 1891. Sons William aged 17 and Charles aged 15 were working as garden labourers. There were market gardens off Queens Road which may have employed them.

In 1897 William senior was a 60 year old in the Wycombe Union workhouse. He was one of several men upon which suspicion was thrown that they were pleading inability to work whilst being able bodied and fit to support themselves. He was ordered to undergo medical tests. The outcome of these I haven't found.

By 1911 as a widow Fanny went to live with her also widowed son Joseph who was a coach builder living in Oxford Road. I believe she died in 1915. Joseph's wife had been Julia née Plumridge whom he married in 1890.

Queens Road as it is now, most buildings are modern. It would be unrecognisable -bar the Duke of Cambridge pub- to the Tuckers. 

Related Posts:

For every mention of any individual on this blog see the A-Z person index on the top drop down menu. 

Everyday life in old Marlow post index here

Duke of Cambridge landlord listing: here

Index of posts relating to specific streets, properties etc here 

 

Researched and written by Charlotte Day.  Census transcribed by Charlotte Day and Jane Pullinger. Census information always remains Crown Copyright.

©Marlow Ancestors.

George Alexander Gratton "the Spotted Boy"

 

 George Alexander Gratton as he was later known was born to two enslaved parents on the island of St Vincent in the Caribbean in July 1808. He had a condition that meant much of his body was white skinned with only some black patches while his face and hair were mostly dark with lighter patches. 

Presumably through sale, George came into the possession of a ship's* captain who brought him to England. According to some reports he was at that point an orphan, and had already been exhibited in his nations capital. It was also claimed the little boys life was in danger due to the "superstitious prejudices" of the locals, although how far this was true or a later attempt to justify his removal is unclear. At Bristol the captain sold him to travelling showman John Richardson for a reported 1000 guineas. If true that was equivalent to the cost of buying multiple houses but John was a highly successful showmen already and could afford it. He was known to be a big spender. George was then between 14 months and 19 months old depending on which report you believe. It appears the Captain had sought out Richardson as a buyer rather than the other way round. 

John Richardson had been born in Marlow Workhouse. Again, according to which story you believe he either ran away from the workhouse or from a job he had been found at the age of 14 and went to London. There he became involved in running a pub and organising travelling theatricals. These seem to have been largely comic. He was not a "freak show" proprietor as such. 

For many years a Bible passed down through the Wildego family of Great Marlow which was said to have been gifted by Richardson to one of their female forebears. This was in recognition of her role in feeding and clothing the young runaway when he had no one else to turn to. Once he had made a success of himself, Richardson remembered her kindness and rewarded her with the Bible and a miniature chalk portrait of the Spotted Boy. The Bible was still in the family hands when the recipient's granddaughter Hannah Wildego died in 1883. 

George was exhibited as a toddler for several months in the Summer and Autumn of 1810. He was at St Bartholomew's Fair in London, at Sadler's Wells and at Croydon as well as at Marlow. I have not myself found any mention of his appearing anywhere after 1810 (though there were imitators who did).

The sideshow was called The Beautiful Spotted Boy and was billed as a chance to see the wonder of God's creation. The Star newspaper said George was the "without exception the greatest beauty and most interesting curiosity ever seen" while another dubbed him a "lovely infant". At Sadler's Wells in September 1810 the Spotted Boy was well down the list of attractions but by October his appearance was one of the most highlighted attractions.

Those he appeared on the bill with in September included Grimaldi the clown, the Sampford Ghost, Lambert the Fatman, Sadler's Baboon and The Yorkshire Giant. These did not work for Richardson, they just appeared as part of the same shows.

The comedy performer Charles Edwards must also have worked on the same bill as George at one point as his wife Anne in writing her biography of Charles said that he met the child and developed "a great attachment to him". He visited George regularly. Ann recalled that "the child loved him very much and they played together by the hour". The same affection was said to exist between George and John Richardson. Robert Chambers in his book The Book of Days for instance called George "a child of amiable manners much attached to Richardson". As well he might be, as John's affection aside, who else did he have in the world?

John had George formally baptised when they were together in Surrey. I believe the Gratton name had been given to him by the ship's captain -  it was supposedly the name of the overseer of the plantation on which George was born. ("Mr Alexander's", that is the Colonarie Vale sugar plantation of William Alexander which had around 300 slaves working there.) I do not think that it is possible to discover his birth name or those of his parents. 

In 1811 John commissioned an artist to paint the boy. In the painting George is posing with a bow and arrow which may reflect how he was taught to pose at the fairs. Typically those with unusual skin or body appearances either sat while people filed past them or stood on a stage and struck a series of poses to allow their appearance to be fully demonstrated. Later John began to educate George, who was said to have a "quick and penetrating mind." But the child is thought to have had tuberculosis and died in February 1813, just short of the age of 5 or 6. (A swelling of the jaw was mentioned as the first symptom, and a fever.)

Above, Alexander as depicted in the painting hung in the church. 

He was buried in John's native Marlow in a brick vault within the churchyard. Apparently the showman feared the boy's remains would be stolen and so had chosen not to bury him for 3 months. I have not been able to ascertain whether this rumour was true. When John himself died in 1837 he asked to be buried next to him, which is what happened. Their graves can still be seen in All Saints churchyard. In the parish church is the portrait of little George**

The popularity of George as an attraction led to many "spotted boys" popping up at fairs for decades after George's death. To see one (real or subject to some body painting) in a sideshow became as commonplace as seeing a bearded lady or a strong man. I also found one case of a painted statue purporting to be a likeness of George being used as an attraction in the 1830s, after John Richardson's death.

An additional memorial is now in the churchyard for George, alongside his grave. This notes that George is the first known person from St Vincent's to have come to Great Britain.

You may be interested in this post on the blog which is about an African boy who lived in Marlow for a while also in the 1800s. And see this post about Marlow's links to slavery and its abolition.

Life at Great Marlow Workhouse 1775-1843 - here and later at the Wycombe Union workhouse at Saunderton here

All mentions of an individual on this blog can be found under the Person Index on the top drop down menu. More posts dedicated to one person can be found under the Biographies Of Individuals menu option.

*Possibly aboard The Friends of Emma, arriving September 1809.

** Another portrait from life was made by Mr D Orme. It shows George sitting on a turtle or tortoise with a Dalmatian dog at his side. 

© MarlowAncestors.  Written by Charlotte Day and researched by Charlotte Day and Kathryn Day. 

Sources:

Memories of Charles Mathews Volume 4 by Mrs Anne Mathews. 1839. Copy in the British Library, digitized by Google.

The Book Of Days or A Miscellany Of Popular Antiquities by Robert Chambers 1864. Published by W and R Chambers.

The History and Antiquities of the County of Buckingham by George Lipscombe. 1847. Digitized by Google.

The Morning Advertiser, 29th September 1810 and 10th October 1810. Copy held in the British Library archives and accessed via the BNA.

The Star (London) 10th October 1810. As above.

The Morning Post 7th April 1810. As above.

Graves Great Marlow.

Literary Journal and Miscellany of  Science, Art, History and Politics Vol 2, 1819. 

 https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/person/view/2146636936

Bucks Advertiser and Aylesbury News, 12 May 1883. 

Richard and Jane Reeves, Workhouse Managers *updated September 2025*

 Great Marlow workhouse was in what we now call Munday Dean Lane but was then often called Workhouse Lane, on the edge of the town.

In 1835 the Bucks Gazette* carried an advert for an "intelligent master" for the place. The successful applicant needed to be a married man with a wife willing to act as the workhouse matron. Wages were to be £100 a year for the two of them together. This was about the standard wage in the region for such a master / matron work team, though some complained it was extravagant.

Richard and Jane Reeves were probably the successful applicants as they were running the workhouse by the time of the 1841 census. I can find no adverts for replacement staff in between times, and such posts were widely advertised.

With them in 1841 were two teenage children, William and Jane junior.

Richard on a later census said he was born Greys Oxfordshire which is likely Rotherfield Greys. Jane said she had come all the way from Yorkshire. Their children I found were baptised at Wooburn Bucks.

The Great Marlow workhouse had benefited from some renovation and improvement 1836, not to make the paupers within more comfortable of course but to further plans to close as many local workhouses as possible and cram their inmates into just 2 premises. One of these was to be at Bledlow and one at Great Marlow. It was originally intended that the able bodied poor would be housed at Marlow, and the aged and infirm at Bledlow. In 1835 there had apparently been few requests for admission into Marlow, and of those requests only 5-6 had actually been accepted. Such quiet would not last long. 

As part of the same changes the poor were no longer to be given money to help them survive, only bread. Landlords and shopkeepers of course didn't except bread as payment so if the poor couldn't support themselves entering the workhouse became their only option. In order to compensate the authorities for the food and shelter provided at the institution adults inmates were made to work (for no other pay). At Marlow this work then consisted largely of digging gravel out of fields bought for the purpose near the workhouse. 

This work may have had little real economic benefit but there was an oft repeated belief that given the chance poor people would never work, only laze about waiting to be fed bread and handed money so they needed to work at something every day in order not to lose the habit. Of course such beliefs were not universal. Even in the 1840s there were those who angrily questioned how people who employed servants to personally avoid doing any hard work felt qualified to make pronouncements on the subject of other people's "idleness".

While the adults worked outside the children were supposed to be receiving an education. Later Victorian reports suggest the workhouse children had attended the Oxford Road infant school but on the 1841 census there was a schoolteacher on the workhouse premises who was responsible for educating the children directly.  However those viewing the accounts, complained at the amount spent on paying for the boys to attend the Marlow National school (which also educated a few boys from Wycombe escorted there daily.) So perhaps the teacher was educating just the girls. 

The census shows far more children than adults in the workhouse. The youngest was just 4 days old. 

Though quite well paid it must have  been a stressful job to run the institution. The new system of refusing to give out of workhouse financial relief caused great resentment. Robert and Jane may have felt some of that in person. Fiction tends to paint workhouse managers as awful people. The Reeves however took up their role early on in this new workhouse system regime when it was largely untested. They may have been part of the (minority) of people who hoped that the poor would benefit from it by higher wages. If a farmer gave a worker a miserably low wage under the old system they knew that the local parish would top up the wages to a slightly less miserable level by way of poor relief. Under the new system without that extra money workers would become destitute and have to give up their jobs for the workhouse leaving farmers and other employers without enough available workers. If they wanted to continue as businesses the thinking went employers would have to pay their workers sufficient wages to actually live on. It had logic as a theory, but it didn't prove true.

In 1885, one of the poor law guardians Walter Lovegrove had gathered memories from Marlow people who had actually spent time in the workhouse at Marlow. One sadly unnamed lady who had first spent time there as a child, recalled the Reeves in particular. She said that Mr Reeves was a good and kind man. She remembered with affection how Richard escorted the children to the parish church on a Sunday. Instead of taking them directly back to the workhouse, he went with them to the old chalk pit almost opposite. There the children spread out around the banks under the shade of the trees and sang hymns together. 

An anonymous letter writer to the local papers in 1840 accused the Marlow workhouse of being one of the worst run and said that the managers (who he did not name) were too lax in their supervision of the inmates. The inmates could be found consorting about the town with criminal elements it was said, while the children were not escorted to Sunday school. He or she also thought that the female residents were mainly there because they needed to support illegitimate children, with the implication that it was not sufficiently strict enough to provide a determent from immorality. In the same year the diet of the poor there was criticized for lacking more than a bare minimum of meat when it was allowed (2 days a week) and for being being generally insufficient. 

Richard and Jane had left their workhouse jobs by the 1851 census (no earlier than 1843) to become publicans at the Ship Inn West Street. In 1843 the Wycombe Union had opened a central Workhouse at Saunderton to replace the local workhouses. 

By 1863 Jane was a widow running the pub alone. Following her death her daughter in law Sarah (son William's wife) would become the landlady.

The workhouse buildings survive in a private residential capacity.

More Information: 

Poverty in Victorian Marlow here

The most famous person to be born in Great Marlow Workhouse was John Richardson. See here

Life for the residents at the Workhouse - 1775-1843 here and for those at the Union workhouse at Saunderton here

For complete landlord listings for The Ship see this post. More pub related posts can be found on the menu  here

For every mention of someone on this blog see the Person Index in the top drop down menu. There are now 6,000 people listed there with more added weekly. 

Written and researched by Charlotte Day. Additional research by Kathryn Day. 

Sources:

Censuses from microfilm images and the transcripts from originals by Jane Pullinger. 

* Paper copy from the British Library accessed via the BNA August 1st 2020.

Wooburn parish registers.

Annual Report Of the Poor Law Commissioners Volume 1. 1835. Copy from Bavarian State Library digitized by Google.

A Paper on Pauperism - Walter Lovegrove, 1885. (As presented to the Marlow Mutual Improvement Society) 

Bucks Gazette 10th September 1836, 30th December 1837. 

Bucks Herald 20th June 1840. 

© Marlow Ancestors.  You are very welcome to use this information for family or local history purposes if you credit this blog and link here.