Sarah Deacon

They can be found at the bottom of this page.

Mr. Fielden and the Woburn Guardians

[We take the following correspondence from the Morning Herald of the 1st and 6th inst.]:

To the Editor of the Morning Herald.

Mr. Editor,—In a published letter of Mr. John Fielden’s to the Guardians of the Todmorden Union, dated the 16th July, the following paragraph occurs:—

” Mr. Pearse, chairman of the board of guardians of the Woburn Union, was thus protected, when I would have inquired into the case of the widow Deacon, of Woburn, whose relief had been gradually withdrawn, and who, in despair from harsh treatment of the guardians, drowned herself in the moat of the clergyman under the walls of Woburn Abbey.”

Allow me to say that Mr. Fielden is well aware that the only reason why the case of the widow Deacon was not gone into by the committee of the House of Commons was because the committee of the House of Lords had taken it up. Under these circumstances, is it not most unfair, most unjust towards the Woburn Board of Guardians, on the part of Mr. Fielden, publicly to prejudge the case, and to impute harsh treatment to the guardians to the degree of driving the widow Deacon to self-destruction? Whenever the facts of the case are brought under investigation, I confidently rely upon its being proved that the distressing suicide which occurred in the parish of Eversholt (and not of Woburn, as stated by Mr. Fielden) was not the consequence either of destitution or of any harsh treatment on the part of the board. In justice to myself and colleagues I hope you will afford this statement a place in an early number of your journal. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant,

George Pearse,

Chairman of the Board of Guardians of the Woburn Union.

Harlington, near Ampthill, July 30.

MR. FIELDEN AND MR. PEARSE.

To the EDITOR of the MORNING CHRONICLE.

Sir—In your paper of the 2d instant I find a letter from Mr. Pearse, chairman of the Woburn board of guardians, complaining that, in a letter addressed by me to the Todmorden board of guardians, I have dealt “most unfairly and most unjustly” by the board of which he is the chairman in stating the following:—”Mr. Pearse, chairman of the board of guardians of Woburn, was thus protected, when I would have inquired into the case of the widow Deacon, of Woburn, whose relief had been gradually withdrawn, and who, in despair, from the harsh treatment of the guardians, drowned herself in the moat of the clergyman, under the walls of Woburn Abbey.” Mr. Pearse does not explain to you what protection it was that I complain of, and, therefore, I will do that first. I related to the Todmorden guardians that when he (Mr. Pearse) was brought to be examined before the poor-law committee, and was giving his evidence in favour of the working of the act, he was protected from answering a question put to him by me to illustrate the treatment of poor widows, and which, in my opinion, would have drawn a gloomy and adverse picture before the eyes of the committee out of this gentleman’s own mouth. I was stopped in a manner so remarkable, and with so much promptness, as to make a great impression on my mind; but a short quotation from the 37th, 38th, and 39th report (these forming one report) will put you in possession of the course of examination that I was pursuing, and the manner in which I was frustrated.

” Question 13,127. Mr. Fielden: I find that an address to the poor-law commissioners from the Woburn union was sent up in the year 1836, and in that address there is this passage: ‘To aged widows and labourers of good report, struggling under the pressure of declining years, it is the practice of the board to administer the provisions of the act with much kindness, indeed, with the utmost latitude that a proper interpretation of the regulations of the commissioners referring to this subject will admit;’ has that practice been pursued towards those widows, or to widows residing on the spot?—I hope that it has.

” 13,128. You, a chairman of the board, ought to know whether it has or has not ?—There may be a difference of opinion upon the subject; we think that we have administered the law with kindness.

” 13,129. You are so conscious of it that you sent up this report to the Poor-law Commissioners?—That was the report of the board, and implied the conviction of the board at the time.

” 13,130. Do you remember the case of a widow in Woburn of the name of Mrs. Deacon?

” The committee-room was cleared.

” An objection being raised to the question, motion made [Mr. Fielden], that the witness answer the question.

” Amendment proposed [Mr. Scrope] to leave out the words after the word ‘that’ and to substitute ‘the question be postponed until the committee be summoned to decide whether the case of the Widow Deacon be entered upon or not in the present stage of the committee’s inquiry.’

” Question put, ‘That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question :’ ” Ayes 1, Mr. Fielden; Noes 3, Mr. Freshfleld, Mr. Liddell, Mr. P. Scrope.

” The amendment proposed by Mr. Scrope put and agreed to.”

And thus the question was got rid of for that day, on the amendment of Mr. Scrope. This remarkable disinclination to hear the case of the widow Deacon out of the mouth of the chairman of the Woburn board, he being already sitting in the witness’s chair before us, struck me as singular; because, if it was a case of a distressing kind (and Mr. Pearse confesses it was), and if it was one on which there had been, or was likely to be, misrepresentation, surely here was an opportunity that Mr. Pearse, as chairman of the board, would have sought for, in order that he might give the explanation that would refute all misrepresentations past, and anticipate any that might come. But Mr. Pearse accounts for the postponement In this manner: “Allow me to say that Mr. Fielden is well aware that the only reason why the case of the widow Deacon was not gone into by the committee of the House of Commons was because the committee of the House of Lords had taken it up.” Now, sir, so far is it from being a fact that I was well aware that the Lords’ committee had taken this case up, that I had it from the mouth of the Reverend Mr. Bull that the Lords positively refused to let him enter upon the case after they had called him before them to substantiate cases that he had alluded to at public meetings, and after he had taken the pains to go to Woburn and Eversholt to make personal inquiry into the case of the widow Deacon, that being one that he had mentioned either in speeches or writings addressed to the people in the north. Indeed, to say that the Commons’ committee declined going into the case of Mrs. Deacon for no other reason than that the Lords had taken it up, is to accuse the committee of gross inconsistency; for when Mr. Bull was before the Commons’ committee, he wished to be excused from answering questions there as to the cases he had mentioned, alleging that he was to be examined before the the Lords on those specific cases; that a noble lord had, to his knowledge, announced his intention in the house to move for a committee before which Mr. Bull should be examined; but this was considered by the Commons’ committee no reason for allowing Mr. Bull to reserve his answers, and he was pressed till he did answer all that the committee had to ask of him.

On a subsequent day to that on which Mr. Pearse was thus protected, I again pressed the Commons’ committee to make the inquiry; but I was assured that Lord Wharncliffe had sent for Mr. Pearse, and had stated that the Lords’ committee would investigate the case. I acquiesced in then deferring the inquiry, expecting the Commons’ committee to go into it if the Lords did not. I have repeatedly made inquiry since, whether the Lords were investigating the matter, but have never yet heard any satisfactory answer; and, indeed, we have in the 5th paragraph of Mr. Pearse’s own letter the proof that their lordships have not even yet “taken up the case;” for he begins that paragraph thus :— ” Whenever the facts of the case are brought under investigation,” &c. So that on the 30th of July (the date of Mr. Pearse’s letter) the Lords had not begun the investigation, though on the 1st of June he was stopped from answering my question only,” he tells us, “because the Lords had taken up the case themselves”!

But Mr. Pearse complains that I have “publicly prejudged” the case of the widow Deacon, and that I have acted “most unfairly and most unjustly” by the Woburn guardians, in imputing to their harshness the insanity under which Mrs. Deacon drowned herself. My answer is: I have not prejudged this case, or imputed this. The death of the poor woman happened in 1836; a coroner’s inquest was held on the body, and the jurymen who served on it signed and circulated a paper immediately after they had closed their inquiry, which is my main authority for saying what Mr. Pearse complains of. I did no more in my letter to the Todmorden board than republish what the coroner’s jury had signed and circulated amongst their neighbours immediately after the gloomy event had happened. But the same fact that I stated in my letter to the Todmorden board, and of which Mr. Pearse complains to you, was published in the columns of the Morning Herald more than a month ago, in Mr. Bull’s petition to the Lords. If you will look back to that petition, you will find the following passage in It:—”Your petitioner has also presented for investigation the case of the widow Deacon, ascertained by himself, who drowned herself in a state of insanity, brought on, as the jury found, ‘by harsh treatment from the guardians of the Woburn union,’ and which verdict, your petitioner is informed, the coroner, being an officer of the board, refused to record.” I think that you will want nothing more to convince you that I have not spoken hastily, or on mere rumour, in this case; but as some may think so, I will subjoin to this the narrative of Mrs. Deacon’s case, as prepared and sent to me by my friend Mr. Bull, which narrative I read to the Commons’ committee when we were discussing the propriety of hearing Mr. Pearse upon the subject. Mr. Bull obtained his information in person and on the spot, and the principal facts are given under the hand of the party who communicated them. It is as follows:—

” Under the old poor-law this widow, who had been left nine years before with four children, received out-door relief (I think the amount was five shillings weekly). Under the new law it was gradually withdrawn, and finally discontinued altogether in September, 1836.

” At the time of her decease her two girls were at service, and she had her two boys living with her—one eighteen years of age, who worked for the Duke of Bedford, and had six shillings a week (it had been recently raised from five shillings to six shillings a week); the younger boy had two shillings and sixpence a week. The elder boy paid his mother four shillings a week for his board and lodging, requiring the other two shillings for shoes and clothing; so that the three persons had for their subsistence, when the rent was paid (1s. 6d. a week), something less than threepence per head per day, to include fuel and clothing for two persons. When her outdoor relief was entirely discontinued In September 1836, she was offered the workhouse. This offer was very grievous to Mrs. Deacon, who begged very earnestly to be allowed but one shilling a week. She had seen better days, having been the wife of a small farmer, and had been respectably brought up.

” Some time before Michaelmas 1836, she paid her last visit to the board of guardians at Woburn, and, after waiting three or four hours at the workhouse, she was told by Mr. Stratfold, the then relieving-officer, now at Woburn, that she was not to have any relief at all except in the workhouse. She begged to speak with the gentlemen (the guardians), but was told that she could not see them. She came home in a very depressed state of mind, and the effect upon her health, at that time not good, was evident. From being, as Mr. Fleet stated, in her younger days the finest woman in the village, she became from distress of mind (and William Chapman believed, want of sufficient food) most pitiable in her appearance.

” To Mrs. Meltham and others she frequently said ‘They have denied me everything but the workhouse.’

” From the straitness of her income she began to incur debts which she saw no prospect of paying, and this, together with the ultimate and apparently inevitable necessity of accepting the offer of the workhouse, was a source of constant grief to her, and the subject of her frequent complaint to her neighbours. It was stated that she made her appeal to the local guardians without effect. Mrs. Meltham being on a visit to her daughter, the wife of William Brown, slept several nights with Mrs. Deacon, who usually was glad of her company, and she endeavoured to cheer up her despondency. Though generally distressed in her mind, she became much worse towards Christmas, and on the night of Christmas-day, 1836, was in a very pitiable state, pacing up and down the house, striking her hands together, and talking of her children being ruined or coming to want. Mrs. Meltham had difficulty in persuading her to go to bed, which at last she did, but lay awake uttering many exclamations of distress. That night Mrs. Meltham said she (Mrs. Deacon) seemed to treat her as if she was in her way, though, before she had always been so glad of her company. Mrs. Deacon soon left her bed, and walked about the room striking her hands and uttering distressing exclamations, and Mrs. Meltham being alarmed at her disordered state, knocked up at the partition wall, her son-in-law Brown, and called Mrs. Deacon’s son to get up, which he began to do as soon as she could awake him.

” About this time she saw Mrs. Deacon throw herself into a chair, and clapping her hands violently over her head, she exclaimed, ‘The Lord forgive me!’ Mrs. D. then went down stairs, and suddenly darted out of the door. Mrs. Meltham hastened the son to follow his mother, which he did, and as soon as he was gone she put on some of her clothes and her cloak, and went out to alarm the neighbours. It was a bitter night, the ground was covered with snow. The son soon returned in great dread, stating that he had tracked his mother through the snow to the moat of the rector, the Rev. James Reed (about 300 yards distant, as nearly as I could guess), and that she had thrown herself in. Chapman, Brown, and Pepper, then went down with others and pulled the corpse from the moat. The clergyman’s family were roused, and Mr. Reed sent them word to have the body rubbed and a surgeon sent for, which was done as soon as they had borne the corpse home upon a door taken from the clergyman’s premises. The moat, which I saw, borders upon the rectorv garden, and has a little gate opening into it from the road. It was also stated that the moat was thinly frozen when Mrs. Deacon plunged in, and that <unreadable> of the frost, the shape of the body and her head were very distinguishable so as to excite the attention of passengers.

” An inquest was held on the body, and the jury agreed on a verdict to the effect (the words were not precisely given) that Mrs. Deacon was insane and had drowned herself in Mr. Reed’s moat, on last Monday morning (about two o’clock), through distress of mind in consequence of having been refused relief by the guardians. The coroner. Mr. Reddall, of Woburn, and the auditor of the union, objected (as Mr. Fleet stated) to the verdict, saying, that the proper verdict was ‘ insanity,’ and that the rest was only the opinion of the jury.

” The jurymen afterwards commenced a subscription out of compassion and respect to the deceased, and in order to prevent her goods being taken from her orphans, if the union should be put to any expense for her funeral, and the money so collected, amounting to upwards of ten pounds, was to be spent in paying her funeral expenses, in discharging her debts, and the rest to be given to her children. The subscription paper contained a heading to the above effect: Lady Charles Russell, Colonel Seymour, and the servants of the establishment at Woburn Abbey, with many respectable persons around, contributed handsomely.

” My time was very limited, being ordered to be in attendance at noon on Monday before the committee of the House of Lords. I conceive, however, that I have obtained sufficient information to enable their lordships to enter upon an investigation of this case, which I cannot learn has ever been inquired into by the poor-law commissioners. I subjoin a list of the names of parties capable of giving information upon oath to their lordships.

(Signed) “Geo. S. Bull.” 

I think I have now shown that, if any one has “prejudged” the case of Mrs. Deacon, or treated the Woburn guardians unfairly, it is not I that have done so; and I think that every impartial man will agree with me, that it was incumbent on those gentlemen to answer the paper circulated by the coroner’s jury in such a manner as to satisfy the neighbourhood of Woburn, and so prevent the spreading of the facts it contained, and I am quite sure that it was as much the duty of Mr. Pearse to remonstrate against Mr. Bull’s statements, published in The Morning Herald some weeks ago, when the session was not on the eve of closing all business, and, of course, all inquiries, as it is his duty now, within a few days of the prorogation of Parliament, to remonstrate against the same facts put forth to the public through the same channel.

I am, sir, your obedient servant,

JOHN FIELDEN.

London,  August 4, 1838.

“Lady Charles Russell” above was the wife of the fourth child of the sixth Duke by his second wife! Who was Colonel Seymour?