The Building of Hungerford Workhouse 1846-48, by Eileen Bunt

THE BUILDING OF HUNGERFORD WORKHOUSE: 1846-1848
By Eileen Bunt, April 1988
Based on documents relating to Hungerford and Ramsbury Union in the Berkshire Record Office:
G/H-5 Letter book 1843-8
G/H 1/3 and G/H 1/4 Minutes of the Board of Guardians
The Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 provided for Boards of Guardians to administer the Poor Law on a local basis.
The Guardians were required to have a property qualification and were elected by voters who also needed a local property
qualification. The Act also provided for groups of parishes to be amalgamated into“unions”for administrative purposes,
the Hungerford and Ramsbury Union (hereafter called Hungerford Union) comprising:
1. Aldborne, Baydon, East Garston, Lambourn, East and West Shefford
2. Ramsbury, Great Bedwin, Little Bedwin, Chilton, Froxfield and Hungerford
3. Shalbourn, Ham, Buttermere, Inkpen, Kintbury, Avington and West Woodhay
The Union was divided into 3 divisions as above, each division having a“medical attendant”and a“relieving officer”.
When the Hungerford Union was formed there were two workhouses functioning within it, one at Hungerford and the
other at Lambourn. The Hungerford building must have been in a dilapidated state and inadequate for the number of
paupers to be housed, for the Guardians discussed whether money should be spent on refurbishing it. Their final decision
was that Lambourn Workhouse should be altered and improved and that all paupers living in Hungerford Workhouse
should be transferred there. The move probably took place in March 1836 for in the following quarter they allowed Mr
Arnan's bill for 1V- for 'hire of cart removing paupers from Hungerford to Lambourn'.
Thereafter and for the next 10 years the workhouse for the Hungerford Union was in Lambourn, but the Guardians
continued to meet at the old Hungerford Workhouse. The Relieving Officer for District No.2 also lived there. G.H. Cherry
of Denford House was chairman of the Board of Guardians, and W.H. Halcombe of Chilton was vice-chairman, in the early
years of the Hungerford Union, so Hungerford was clearly a more convenient place for them to meet rather than
Lambourn, meetings being held weekly.
The first suggestion that a new workhouse might be built for the Hungerford Union came in February 1846 when one of
the Poor Law Assistant Commissioners, from the central administrative organisation for the Poor Law (hereafter called
P.L.C.), attended a meeting of the Hungerford Guardians. The minutes state:
Mr Piggott having very fully described the inefficient accommodation afforded by the Workhouse at Lambourn and the
necessity of improving the accommodation by amending the old House or building a new one, it was resolved that a special
general meeting of the Guardians be held on Wednesday the 18th instant at 9 for the purpose of considering the Question,
whether such alterations as are necessary to make the Lambourn House efficient shall be made or a New Workhouse built
in the centre of the Union at Hungerford.
At the meeting on l8th February there was a lengthy discussion on the course of action to be pursued and several different
proposals were put to the Guardians. Some advocated doing nothing, while others were in favour of altering the Lambourn
House, but it was finally resolved that::
A new Workhouse be built at Hungerford, provided it can be effected, including all costs and expenses at a sum not
exceeding £8500, and that a Building Committee, to be named by the Chairman, be appointed to select a site for a
Workhouse at Hungerford, and carry out the Resolution of this day.
Later that month the P.L.C. gave their approval for building a new; Workhouse and by March a Building Committee had
been appointed and an architect chosen. There is no indication why they chose Mr Foden, of 12 North -Place, Grays Inn
Road, London, to design the building; he may have been recommended by the P.L.C. as he appears to have already designed
one new workhouse. Part of the Guardians' letter to him reads:
The Building Committee would be glad to have, at your earliest convenience, the plan of the workhouse at Stratton (in the
Highworth and Swindon Union) if you consider that plan as the one by which the largest amount of accommodation may be
had at the least expense -and they wish at the same time to have an estimate for building and fitting up a new Workhouse at
Hungerford on the said plan capable of containing 400 inmates with Trampers and receiving Wards in proportion.
The Guardians were clearly intent on getting as much for their money as possible, in which they were probably following
P.L.C. instructions. There is an interesting postscript to this letter stating that there are no stone quarries in the neighbourhood
of Hungerford; one assumes some of the Guardians thought in terms of stone rather than brick for the building.

Shortly after receiving this letter Mr Foden visited Hungerford and was shown“a narrow strip”(of land) which the
Guardians had in mind for the new building. By the end of March they had received an estimate from the architect which
exceeded by £500 the sum they had allocated. Mr Foden maintained that the price of materials was higher at Hungerford
than at Stratton which assertion was accepted without any argument. The P.L.C. was notified and their advice sought, thus:
Notice of a motion for Wednesday next has been given for obtaining the sanction of the Board of Guardians to the
additional outlay, and I have no doubt of its being approved and carried, and if so a contract for the purchase of a suitable
piece of land on which to erect the Buildings will be immediately made, and the Business proceeded with, in the meantime
you will oblige me by your advice in v/hat manner I should record the decision of the Board so as to render their
Proceedings irrevocable, as it is possible the Board of Guardians for the succeeding year may not approve of the outlay,
altho' I do not anticipate such a result. (It seems the Clerk to the Board, Mr Rowland, was not too sure about some
members.)
The contract I presume should be made by the Board of Guardians in their corporate character, testified by affixing thereto
their common Seal, with the Vendor of the Land, who must of course engage to deduce a marketable Title.
Presumably the P.L.C. agreed to the additional outlay, for early in April the Guardians placed £8500 at the disposal of the
Building Committee, with a further £600 for the purchase of the site. And at the same time they wrote to H. Major about
buying a piece of his land. The Guardians had to restrain Mr Foden from submitting a “new design", the“narrow strip”
seemingly being too small or the wrong shape to take the Stratton design. He was told they now intended to buy a
different piece of land, described thus:
The piece of ground selected is next the "narrow strip" - quite level, and fronts the Common, would be quite adequate to
take the “Stratton design”.
For the next two months the Clerk to the Guardians was fully occupied in correspondence with H. Major, Surgeon,
Hungerford, and a Mr Gedye, presumed to be his solicitor, over the purchase of the land. The problem arose over Major's
title to the land which his father, or grandfather, had acquired, and at first he maintained, 24 th April, 1846, that he had no deeds
relating to it. In reply the Clerk wrote:
It must, I imagine, be known to some members of Mr Major's family how the late Mr Major acquired the Common Lands
and rights, and the knowledge of that fact may afford some clew to the Deeds.
By the end of April the Guardians were threatening“to give up their purchase”, unless the earlier title was produced. H.
Major had a record of the Inclosure award (Berks. R.O. Ref. QRDc 65B shows the land in question as belonging to
Thomas Major), but this did not satisfy the Guardians who required proof of an earlier title. Some of Thomas Major's land
appears to have been bought from Charles Thomas Hawkesworth who received it by the will of Thomas Hawkesworth, but
no evidence is forthcoming from the records I have seen as to which piece of land. However by the end of May title and
purchase deeds had been found which satisfied the Guardians.
In the same month the Building Committee viewed Stratton workhouse and also saw; plans of Ailesbury workhouse, which
were supplied by Mr Foden.
On 22 June 1846 the. P.L.C. authorized the Guardians to purchase land and to build a workhouse on it. They v/ere also sent
an application form to obtain an advance of £8950 from the Public Works Loan Commissioners, to be repaid with interest
by 10 annual instalments. The Guardians had originally understood the repayment period was to be 20 years and so
requested the P.L.C. to authorize the extended period. Shortly afterwards they were enquiring what the rate of interest
would be, and also whether a private individual could advance the money.
At about this time Mr Thomas Wooldridge was asked to make a plan of the workhouse site for Mr Foden:
Will you measure off 3.acres and map it? It is to be a square piece and Mr Major will point out the Land upon your calling on
him.
Within a week they were able to supply Mr Foden with a plan, only to have to tell him the following day that the Surveyor
had muddled E. with W, and N. with S. The P.L.C. returned the plans towards the end of July with suggesting for some
amendments which v/ere due to be discussed at a special meeting of the Guardians. No record of this meeting survives;
however it seems the proposed alterations were not acceptable, as Mr Foden was told to submit the plans to the Builders
without making alterations, but leaving it open to change them at a later stage. He was also told:
It will be most convenient for the Drawing and Specification to lie at the Board Room, Hungerford. Mr Morris, one of our
Relieving Officers lives in the House, of which the Board Room is part, and will take charge of them.

Asked to attend a meeting of the Building Committee on 26th August, Mr Foden was then informed it was postponed to
2nd September 'in consequence of Ilsley Great Sheep Fair falling on 26 August, which many of the Guardians are likely to
attend'.
The plans must soon have been placed in the Board Room, care of Mr Morris for on 28 th August lie was told the Guardians
had advertised, by hand-bill for making a roadway to the new workhouse and that he should show the plans to any person
wishing to see them.
A meeting of the Guardians on 2nd September transacted the following business:
1. Mr Major executed a conveyance of the site for .£450.
2. Mr Stephen Waldron agreed to advance £6000 at 4%, repayable by 20 annual instalments.
(The Guardians had thus arranged to raise the money locally, rather than through the Public Works Loan Commissioners.)
The money was to be secured by a charge on the Poor Rates of the parishes of the Union. Mr Waldron was asked to pay
£1000 on or before 9th September, the rest in sums to meet the payments to the Contractor.
The P.L:C. was notified that the Guardians had accepted the tender of Messrs. James and W.E. Baverstock of Marlborough
for the erection of the new workhouse at the sum of £6935 12s 0d. They were to be allowed until 1st September 1847 for its
completion. Contracts with Messrs. Baverstock for building the workhouse and for excavating the roadway had the Union
Seal affixed on 30th September.
One assumes that building started in October 1846 although neither the minutes nor the letter book give any detail. In
December Mr Halcombe wished to treat with the Hungerford Gas Company“for the laying down of pipes for the use of the
new workhouse in an early stage of the building in order that additional expenses may not be incurred by removing the Soil
after it has once been laid down”. A sensible course to suggest, and shortly the Committee was requested“to obtain all
necessary information regarding lighting of the new workhouse with gas”. Sad to say they found candles would be much
cheaper, so candles were decided upon.
The first mention of a Chapel was on 24 th February 1847 when the Rev. F.L. Popham stated at a Committee meeting that the
estimated cost of a building to hold 300 was £500. He had raised £400 by voluntary contribution and trusted the Board
would vote anything more. It was agreed that £200 out of the funds of the Union could be used towards the Chapel. At the
same meeting the Guardians discussed the rather odd suggestion that the Chapel should be built over the dining room at the
new workhouse, but in the end decided“to erect a separate building”. Mr Foden was notified of their decision.
There is no further mention of the Chapel for 4 months, except for a letter in answer to one .received from the P.L.C. saying
“the Chapel shall be kept for the use of the Inmates exclusively”. During this period the building of the workhouse must
have been going ahead for by June Mr Waldron had advanced £3000, most of which was being paid to the builder. The
Guardians had some difficulty in persuading him to advance the rest of the money he had promised and it was not until
January 1848 that he paid the final instalment.
The plans for the Chapel were sent to Mr Foden in June 1847, with an accompanying letter thus:
I am instructed by the Board of Guardians to transmit to you plans of the proposed Chapel at our new Workhouse which
have been gratuitously presented to the Board by one of the Guardians (Mr Popham) and unanimously approved by
them….the Guardians in adopting these plans wish you to clearly understand that no other Architect is engaged, that the
intention of Mr Popham in gratuitously offering them the enclosed plans and. their adopting them at once, was to have a
definite resolution come to by the last Board ere they went out of -office. (Once again the Board did not trust its successors.)
As with the workhouse the Guardians' had to dissuade Mr Foden from altering the plans for the Chapel, for on 13th July they
were writing somewhat peremptorily:
The Building Committee do not at all like the proposed alterations as stated in your letter, they would like to know the coat
of reducing the Chapel according to its present proportions, so as to hold 200 in the area, instead of 240, to retain the
present pitch in the roof as in plan, allowing it to be ceiled, and to keep the walls two feet thick. Wednesday next is not a
Board day but the Committee are desirous to know if you would meet them at Hungerford on that day, and at what hour.
(No explanation is forthcoming as to why the numbers to be accommodated had fallen from 300 to 200.)
Perhaps by now Mr Foden was getting tired, of being told exactly what he could, or could not, do for he seems to have
ignored the Guardians request to meet them. Maybe he was taking a holiday. A letter to him in oven sharper terms
followed on 28th July; in fact it is in the form of a statement:
The Committee have arranged to meet Mr Foden here on the 4th of August at one o'clock, as there have been several
delays which have put the Committee to some inconvenience The Committee trust that Mr Foden will be prepared with all
specifications and plans in accordance with their letter to him of 14 th inst. so as to have no further delay, as the Committee

are most anxious to begin the Building; the Committee trusts that Mr Foden clearly understands that his suggested
alterations of the plans, they gave him were not approved by them.
Presumably Mr Foden met the Building Committee for on 6th August the P.L.C. were informed“Mr Foden..... has prepared
the plans and specifications for the Chapel, the specifications I enclose and the plans he has promised to leave at your office
today”. In the same letter there is a record of the estimated cost of the Chapel 'is £630, of which the Guardians are to pay
£200 and the Rev. John Leyborne Popham the rector of Chilton Foliatt has undertaken to pay the remainder'.
According to P.L.C. General Orders tenders for erecting the Chapel should have been obtained; however the Guardians
made out a case for awarding- the contract to Messrs Baverstock, who were erecting the Workhouse, to which the P.L.C.
agreed.
By September the fixtures and fittings for the Workhouse were being discussed, particular mention being made of“Steam
apparatus”which was apparently to be used for cooking. The total cost was estimated“will not be under £700”. Also it
was decided a new well would have to be sunk. The minutes of 27th October record that Mr Baverstock explained the delay
in building the Workhouse because of his inability to obtain the window frames; they would be ready in 5 to 6 weeks.
About this time the Guardians notified the P.L.C. that Mr Waldron had refused to advance more than the £6000 and that, as
they required a further £2500, they wished to borrow it from the Public Works Loan Commissioners. As with all the
information about building Hungerford Workhouse, we have here only the Hungerford Union letters, so we do not know
why a later request was made for“the requisite forms of proceedings to enable the Guardians to make an application to the
Royal Exchange Insurance Company for the loan”. They did not proceed with the application and instead found a Mr
James Little to advance the required sum.
There are no details about the actual fittings for the Workhouse, although it is noted in February l848 that Mr Baverstock was
instructed to fix a large bell there and to place a tap and slate trough in the Infirmary.
The Rev. Edward Thompson was thanked for his services as Chaplain at Lambourn, and the Rev. Alfred Eyles Davis was
appointed to this office at Hungerford.
Late in March the Guardians set up a Committee to arrange for the removal of the paupers from Lambourn to Hungerford
and, although an exact date for the opening of Hungerford Workhouse is not given, it must have been functioning within a
month or so. As early as 19 th February 1848 an advertisement had appeared in the Berkshire Chronicle for a schoolmaster at
Hungerford Workhouse, the salary to be £30 p.a., and the man to be over 21 and single. In both the Berkshire Chronicle- and
the Reading Mercury for 22nd April appeared the following advertisement for a nurse:
Wanted for the Workhouse, at Hungerford, a NURSE, salary £10 per annum, with Lodging and Rations in the Workhouse,
and Groceries, Fuel, Candles, Washing and. Beer. Candidates must be able to read and write (a widow without
incumbrance, or a single woman not under 35, would be preferred). Testimonials as to character and competency must be
sent to the Board Room, in Hungerford, on or before the 25th of April instant, and Candidates must attend there
personally, on Wednesday, the 20th, at 11 o'clock, when the election will take place.
By order of the Board. William Rowland, Clerk.
In July and August 1848 minor alterations and additions were being made to the Workhouse, such as a 'clock for the
schoolroom was inspected and approved £4, and Mr Baverstock was asked“to make a shoot to convey the Wash through
the wall of the workhouse”, and“to make a new table for the Clerk's office”.
At a meeting on 22nd November 1848 the Building Committee reported and were thanked for their work. The
following cheques were to be paid:
£571 1s 4d Building Account. Messrs Baverstock. Balance of bills for building Workhouse, entrance
Gates, etc.,etc.
£119 7s 6d -do- Mr Foden, Architect. Balance of his bill
£49 9s 3d -do- Mr Rowland's bill for conveyance of scite (sic)
£469 0s 2d Est (?Establishment Account) Mr Frazer's bill for cooking apparatus and other fittings erroneously
paid out of Building Fund on 14.6.48
£300 0s 0d Est Messrs Baverstock for fixtures and furniture and the Guardiana proportion of
expense of erecting; Chapel. Leaving £257 2s 6d due to them
It was reported that the Building Fund needed £73 2s 6d to meet the sums drawn on it and. it was resolved this sum be
charged to 'Est. account'
The new Workhouse at Hungerford was complete.