Folios 217-225. Report initialled JTG [John T Graves, Poor Law Inspector] of the...

Folios 217-225. Report initialled JTG [John T Graves, Poor Law Inspector] of the enquiry into the mutual complaints of the schoolmistress [Elizabeth Dance] and matron [Anne Pope, wife of Joseph Pope, the master] in the Bromsgrove Poor Law Union workhouse:

Graves held the enquiry on 1 September 1863; all witnesses gave evidence on oath except the matron who affirmed. All the witnesses, except J A Rose the late master who spoke for the schoolmistress, were called on behalf of the matron. Master and matron had been appointed the previous Christmas and soon after this disagreements began. The schoolmistress had been in post for about four years. The schoolmistress was a good teacher with command over her temper. The matron was well-meaning but with a hot temper and 'not always guarded in her language'.

Some matters had come out in evidence which were not in the written complaints. Dance had 'boxed with her hand' Joseph Depper who fell and hurt his face and some time ago had chastised Phoebe Ward with a rod. Ward also said Pope had hit Elizabeth and Sarah Ann Guest for mocking her. There was nothing in 'these violations of the rule' to indicate harshness, but they were hasty.

On 26 May 1863 the master complained to the guardians that Dance was interfering with the supply of clothes to some children. The same day Dance complained to the guardians that the matron had called her 'a brute'. The matron said Dance had said she had behaved cruelly to a woman called Stephenson [assistant in the schoolroom]. Graves thinks the 'brute' evidence not trustworthy. Dance refutes she said 'cruelly', maintains she said 'most unkind'.

On 7 July Dance made three charges against the matron to the guardians: that Emma Hill had not been given a proper change of linen between 18 June 1863 and 7 July 1863; that a proper supply of combs had not been furnished to the school; and that two children had not been given a change of pinafores when all the others had. Graves says regarding Hill he does not believe it was wilful neglect and explanations about the other matters seem satisfactory.

The matron considered the guardians had not sufficiently upheld her authority on both 26 May 1863 and on 7 July 1863. After the children's supper on the latter date she 'yielded to passion' and behaved towards the schoolmistress in a manner no provocation could justify, 'imputing falsehood in direct terms to Miss Dance' and calling her 'a vile woman'. Again on 18 July 1863 in the presence of children 'she showed such disrespect as must have tended to subvert the discipline of the school.'

Dance made charges against the matron regarding food. She said she allowed the children to take food out of the dining room and also allowed food to be given improperly by parents to children. Graves said there was no evidence that the matron gave permission for food to be taken but Dances's statement was received 'with unbecoming discouragement.' It was difficult for the matron to check abuses 'until authority had been consolidated by time'. He thought that circumstances were sufficient to account for the matron directing the cutting and combing of children's hair in the women's ward.

Graves considered there were faults on both sides.

It might be that the master's opinion about Dance's want of respect for the matron were true but her demeanour was cautious and self-controlled. She could not be blamed for appealing to the guardians when she considered she had grounds for complaint. That she remonstrated with the matron about her treatment of Stephenson was not a serious offence considering she was a schoolroom assistant. Her remark that the matron could not see the cobwebs might not have been in good taste but too slight to be made subject of a formal complaint. Her conduct on the evening of 7 July 1863 was free from 'insubordination and passion.' Graves thinks Dance was wrong not to let Phoebe Ward leave the schoolroom when the matron sent for her, the matron having authority to which the schoolmistress was bound to submit, even if injudicious.

Graves considers there are some misunderstanding as to the respective powers of the matron and the schoolmistress and that the guardians would welcome guidance from the Poor Law Board. He therefore gives his views.

Some matters are plain. The matron would be wrong to interfere in literary matters in the school. But the matron has responsibility of regulating changes of clothing (article 210, numbers 8 and 12). It is doubtful if she can impose on the schoolmistress the charge of the children's change of clothing and to seeing whether they receive the clothes. In industrial training the matron and schoolmistress have duties in common (article 210 number 3 and article 212 number 2). The girls have two kinds of training, firstly instruction in the schoolroom in sewing and needlework and secondly in domestic economy - cooking and the cleaning of rooms. The first kind comes under the schoolmistress but there might be conflict if the matron provided materials for the making of clothes for inmates. The second, in the form of cleaning and the making of beds, comes under the matron. They both have duties in common when it comes to cleanliness (article 212 number 4 dealing with the schoolmistress; article 210 number 7 with the matron). Where duties are not expressly defined, the master has authority and, above him, the guardians.

Graves recommends that the Poor Law Board write to the guardians, expressing an opinion on the points of conduct of the matron and the schoolmistress which have been the subject of the enquiry and explaining the limits of the respective authorities. They should say that they have no sufficient ground to call for the resignation of either party but it might be to the advantage of the union if the matron and the schoolmistress ceased to be officers in the same workhouse. The complaints, though of a domestic nature, they regard as by no means unimportant. Quarrels are often deeply injurious to a union. If discipline is again disturbed by disputes between the matron and the schoolmistress the Poor Law Board will be obliged to consider the necessity of requiring the resignation of one or both.

Annotated: prepare letter in accordance with Mr Graves's recommendations, dated 17 September 1863.

Paper Number: 33608/1863.

Poor Law Union Number: 526.

Counties: Shropshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire.