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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1: THE BUILDING OF HUNGERFORD WORKHOUS

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?