Spanswick One Name Study
Surname Home Page - Spanswick ONS Home - Spanswick Origins - Back to Spanswick's of Wiltshire - Spanswick ONS - Spanswick's In the News - Titles and Dates
THE TIMES, 6th July 1840.
Sir,- When Mr. Chadwick's report appeared in the Devizes Gazette of the 21st of May last, though its statements were in some respects incorrect, and generally unjust towards me, I had determined to let it pass free from any public notice on my part. But as its appearance in your paper of the 9th inst. evinces a disposition to keep alive the prejudice excited against me, I have determined, by the special advice of my friends, to publish a vindication of the course I adopted, and to show that it was not without sufficient grounds that I sent the paragraph for insertion in your paper of the 27th of March last.
PEWSEY UNION WORKHOUSE
TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES
I was elected to the office of chaplain to the Pewsey workhouse about Lady-day, 1837, and I have the satisfaction of knowing that from that period till the appearance of the paragraph in question my conduct had invariably been such as to have given satisfaction to the guardians of three successive boards, and at the same time to have gained the good-will and esteem of the numerous poor creatures who for three years came under my spiritual care.
The present master and matron of the Pewsey workhouse were elected to their respective situations a twelvemonth since, having been previously discharged from holding similar situations in the workhouse of the Midhurst union. From about Christmas last rumours reached me, and circumstances came within my observation, implying a want of cleanliness and order in the management of the paupers; but as the weekly report-book of the house committee, to which I had access, continued to present "All things satisfactory," it might have been considered an infringement on the duties of that committee had I interfered in other than the moral and spiritual affairs of the establishment. But, as the subjects of complaint increased, I resolved on attempting their removal. With this view, therefore, on the evening of the 22d of March, in a private circle at the house of one of the guardians, where was present also the clerk to the board, I alluded to the existing complaints, and spoke particularly on the filthiness of the children's stockings, adding, that although I did not wish myself to bring the subject before the board, yet I was desirous, for the sake of the paupers, that the complaints in question should be brought under their consideration. On the following morning I called on another of the guardians, Mr. Stratton, of Manningford, and to him I repeated the charge which I was desirous should be brought forward at the board on the succeeding day. The reply at once given me by Mr. Stratton, if not precisely in words, was in substance - "You know, Mr. Bleeck, as well as I do, that the board would be so prejudiced against any charge that I should bring forward against the present master, that it would be useless to make an attempt, and the commissioners too partial to the man to suffer his removal; I will, however, see Mr. Hayward, the guardian of Wilsford, and, if he does not object to being the matter forward, it shall be done."
Accordingly, on the 24th of March the subject was introduced at the board by Mr. Hayward, and a boy and girl, Robert Woodruff and Martha Minall, were brought before the guardians then assembled. The testimony of the boy before the board was to this effect:- "that he was on that day, the 24th of March, 1840, wearing the same worsted socks which he had worn, unwashed, from the 9th of October 1839; that he remembered the circumstance from having gone out of the workhouse on trial at a place of service, and returned in two days, being unfit for the situation." To corroborate the truth of his statement, the boy was asked to take off his socks before the guardians there assembled; and I had it from an eye-witness that the boy's statement was fully borne out by the appearance of the socks; the words of the eye-witness to me were, "the socks were nothing but filth and fritters." The girl also then stated, that she was wearing the same pair of worsted stockings which she had worn, unwashed, for 20 weeks. But though those statements stood at that time substantially uncontradicted, the master was not reprimanded, and the matron was not even brought before the board.
Seeing, therefore, that this application to the board through one of its members was not attended with that searching investigation which it ought to have been, and possessing a knowledge of other cases confirmatory of similar neglect, I resolved on forcing the abuses into notice by inserting a statement in some public journal : and the paragraph in The Times was written with the firmest conviction of the truth.
On the publication of the paragraph, learning that some inquiries were to be made respecting it, I immediately avowed myself the writer; and I received an order from the board of guardians to attend them on the 7th of April for the purpose of proving the truth of my statement. I attended with the view, but from being distinctly told by the chairman, Colonel Wroughton, that the board would not receive the testimony of any pauper who was not at that moment a resident in the workhouse, I considered my case must be so weakened by such an exclusion of evidence, that I altogether declined entering on the examination of witnesses. It was then intimated to me that my presence was no longer necessary, and I received the same evening a letter from the clerk, stating that "a vote of censure had been passed upon me by the board of guardians, and an application made to the commissioners to take the necessary steps for dismissing me from the office of chaplain." And this before a single witness has been examined in my favour.
During the following five weeks I continued to perform the several duties of my office as chaplain; and on the 12th of May I attended at the investigation instituted by the Poor Law Commissioners, through their Assistant-Commissioner, Colonel A'Court. Previous to my entering the boardroom on the morning of this investigation I was met by the assistant-commissioner, and a private conversation passed between us. It that conversation it was intimated to me by the assistant-commissioner that my better way would be to resign my situation as chaplain. I replied that I had given publicity to the truth only, and saw no grounds for my resigning. He said that the guardians would not serve with me. I replied that I had the Bishop's license, and could only be removed by his authority. The assistant-commissioner told me I was mistaken; as a licensed chaplain had recently been dismissed by the commissioners from Bath or its neighbourhood. I then expressed to him my determination to remove their order into the Queen's Bench : and to this he replied that I could not do so, as not order for the dismissal of an officer could be removed into that court.
Finding myself thus constrained, and desirous of avoiding all further altercation. I reluctantly assented to the recommendation of the assistant-commissioner to resign my situation as soon as the investigation should be brought to a close. At the same time I declared my anxiety to go into the investigation, in order to show to him and the guardians that my statement in The Times was a true one. Had I known in what manner this investigation was to be conducted, I certainly would not have entered on it. My witnesses were severally sworn and examined by the assistant-commissioner himself, and the information which I might have elicited had I been allowed the examination in chief of my own witnesses was in greatest measure evaded. In fact, the course of examination pursued by the assistant-commissioner was more adapted to screen the parties implicated in my public statement and to defeat me than to elicit the truth. That the public may judge of the nature of the evidence with which I was provided, I have forwarded herewith copies of the statements made to me by the paupers; but, not wishing to trespass too freely on your columns, I leave you to select for publication, with this letter, such of them as you may deem most important.
In the report published by Mr. Chadwick I am made to say, that "I was much vexed at having been deceived by the parties who had furnished me with information respecting the alleged abuses." And truly vexed I was ! But why ! Simply because I had placed too great reliance on the moral courage and firmness necessary to support trembling paupers in stating unacceptable truths before a tribunal so constituted as was that of the Pewsey Board-room on the 12th of May last; comprising, as it did, an assistant-commissioner, the acting magistrates of the district, and from 20 to 30 large occupiers of land, upon one or other of whom each witness must necessarily be dependant for bread, and whose displeasure it would require stouter hearts than those of workhouse paupers to incur. The statement of Mr. Chadwick, like the proceedings of the board of guardians, throughout this affair, has exhibited one prominent object, namely the ruin of my reputation; whilst "the head and front of my offending" is, that I have dared to disclose "the secrets of the prison-house." I repeat, that from the first the efforts of the Pewsey guardians were more directed to the crimination of the writer of the offending paragraph, than to the detection and exposure of the alleged abuses.
I have to apologize for trespassing so long on your valuable column, and I beg thank you for the sympathy evinced towards me in a recent leading article, under the persecution to which I have of late been subject.
I am, Sir, respectfully yours,
WILLIAM BLEECK.
Huish Rectory, June 17, 1840.
The following are the statements made to Mr. Bleeck by paupers of the Pewsey Union, by the six first-names previous to the appearance of the paragraph in The Times of the 27th of March, by the remaining subsequent to that period :-
Robert Woodruff stated to me, some time in March last that he was then wearing the same pair of socks which he had worn unwashed from the 9th day of October last; which day he well remembered, having gone out of the workhouse on trial at service, and returned to the house on the 11th, having been found unequal to the situation.
Martha Minall stated to me, some time in March last, that she was then wearing the same pair of stocking which she had worn unwashed for 20 weeks.
Martha Fowler stated to me, some time in March last, that she was then wearing the same pair of stockings, which she had worn unwashed for 21 weeks.
Miss M'Tier, the schoolmistress, stated to me that Robert Woodruff and Martha Minall had given her similar information to the above; as had also another boy, Charles Amor who stated that he had worn his socks as long as Robert Woodruff. Miss M'Tier has never known either of these boys or girls tell an untruth.
John Costar stated to me, on the 24th of March, that he was wearing a pair of stockings which had not been changed or washed for more than three months; that they were his own stockings, having never been able to obtain any of the workhouse stockings. Costar pulled off one of his shoes to show me in what state the stocking was : it was very filthy, and the heel worn entirely off. (This witness's attendance on the day of Colonel A'Court's investigation I could not obtain, although I had written to a guardian who resides near the man, to request his attendance).
Aaron Mead stated to me, on the 24th day of March, that he was at that time wearing the same worsted high socks which he had worn from some time before Christmas last without a change or washing; he pulled up the legs of his trousers and showed his socks to me, and they were in a bad [?] state. He also stated that he had worn his flannel shirt for a longer time than his socks, and he opened his waistcoat bosom that I might see how filthy his flannel was.
John Cue was present when Aaron Mead and John Costar made the foregoing statements, and said that he knew their statements were true.
John Hayward stated to me - I am a pauper of Upavon, about 40 years of age; a cripple, I went into the Pewsey workhouse about three weeks before Christmas last, and remained there six weeks and a day. I lived entirely with the old men. Whilst I was in the house my wife used to bring me clean clothes from home every fortnight; she was not in the workhouse. During the six weeks I was there I know that there were only two men, namely John Spencer and William Drew, who had a clean flannel waistcoat and only one man, John Harding, who had a clean pair of stockings during the six weeks. Out of old John Spencer's flannel waistcoat I picked a large body-louse, and killed another in the flannel at the neck part. How many lice there might be below in his body part I cannot tell, but old John said at the time that he was pretty nearly eaten up by them. The body louse that I picked out of his flannel was so large that old William Adams took it up and put it in the window, saying, "I should like to have a good view on en." It was a very large one. When I left the workhouse and got home, I found several lice in my clothes, and I think I must have got them by putting my trousers upon another man's bed, for I was never before lousy in all my life. I used to hear the old men grumble a good deal after we were in bed at night about never having any clean flannels or stockings, but they were always afraid to speak out. I have heard them say at night, when we were in bed, that they were wearing the same flannels they had worn ever since the summer. This kind of talk usually took place after we were in bed.
Eliza Spanswick stated to me:- I went into the Pewsey Union workhouse on the 4th of December last, and came out on the 18th of April. I wore the first pair of stockings I had been given me for two months without washing. I then washed them and put the same on again after mending them and I caught a cold in consequence. I wore the same flannel petticoat for two months. No woman in the workhouse that I knew, except Mary Oram, had a change of stockings or petticoats throughout the last winter. I remember seeing a large body louse on one of the neckerchiefs in the laundry, and I crushed it with flat heater. Lucy Head saw me do it. Since the disturbance made through Mr. Bleeck, two of the women, namely, Hannah Martin and the "Dumb woman," have been washed on account of the lice about them. I found things very different after Lady-day, when the disturbance took place; all had a change of everything after that.
William Bailey stated to me - I was in the Pewsey workhouse six weeks during the winter, after Christmas. Throughout that time I could never get any other stockings than those I wore in, nor any other neckerchief. I never saw any ablebodied man put on a clean pair of stockings whilst I was in the house. I and the other men use to ask for stockings but could never get any. Sometimes we asked the porter to try to get us some, but he said it was of no use to ask.
William March stated to me - I was in the Pewsey workhouse six weeks during the winter. I got a pair of clean stockings once during that time by means of my wife, unknown to the master or mistress; but the able bodied paupers in whose ward I was placed never thought of changing their stockings or neckcloths, as no clean ones could be obtained.
Ann Andrews stated to me - During the last winter I was in the house nearly six weeks, and throughout that time I wore my own stockings and petticoat without any opportunity of getting a change of either.
Lucy Head.- I am a pauper, a single woman, having two children. I have been an inmate of the Pewsey workhouse the last 15 months nearly. I left it yesterday. Whilst in the workhouse, I wore the same pair of worsted stockings without a change or washing for six months. I wore the same flannel petticoat four months, and the same top petticoat full four months. I wore my gown full 14 months and it verily stank. The handkerchief round my neck I wore three months. I have known other women in the house wear their stockings and flannels a very long time; and I am sure that few of the women in the house had a change of stockings or petticoats through the last winter. I heard Rhoda Heath in particular say, that she was wearing a pair of stockings which had not been washed for six months. I have heard the women in the washhouse say, that when the men's flannels were brought to be washed, they were very filthy and had lice in them. I saw a neckerchief which Hannah Martin had been wearing for a long time; it was in the laundry, and there was a large louse, called a boy-louse upon it : Eliza Spanswick crushed it with a flat heater. Since the disturbance made through Mr. Bleeck, every pauper has had a clean change I know that four of the women who gave evidence before the Board after the disturbance - namely Mary Oram, Rhoda Heath, Mary Perry, and Charlotte Bird, were treated with beer and other things, in order to get them to speak in the master's favour when called before the Board. I have heard them say that they did not care what they said before the Board, so long as they were not put upon their oaths; that it would not do to tell all the truth whilst they remained in the house. Mary Perry said, that when she got away from the house, she should do as Martha Minall had done - speak the truth. I heard Elizabeth West, one of the kitchen maids, say to another woman, that if she had said but one word, master would have been ruined for ever.
The mark of X LUCY HEAD.
Eliza Marchmont stated - I am a pauper of Upavon, 25 years of age, single woman, having one child. I went into the Pewsey workhouse a month before Christmas last; stayed there seven weeks and five days. I then went out for a few days, and returned and stayed there ten days. The first week I was there I wore my own stockings. I then had a pair of the workhouse stockings, which I wore without a change five weeks. I usually stood at the washtub whilst in the house; the number of stocking brought to be washed every day was from two to five pair at the most, sometimes not one pair at all. The house was very full at this time. I have known women take off their dirty stockings, wash and dry them, and put them on again, because they could not get no others. My own flannel petticoat I wore the first three weeks. I them got a flannel petticoat which Nanny Higgins of Newnton took off when she was going home, and which she had worn a quarter of a year; the reason why I put this one on was because my own was nearly all to pieces, and I thought I should have none to wear home when I left. I should have washed Nanny Higgin's petticoat, but that I was afraid, if I hang it out to dry, one of the other women would have taken it, for they were as bad in want of a clean one as I was. I never had but one gown, and I used to take it off and wash it, dry it at the above, and put it on again. I never could get another. The old men's flannels were seldom brought to be washed. When they were brought they were very filthy, and often had lice in them. Their shirts also had lice upon them. I have been twice in the house before this master and mistress came. I found things very different then from now. It is not like the same place. We then had all clean changes of everything, and everything was clean.