Folios 268-272. Draft letter from the Poor Law Board, to Thomas Day, Clerk to the...

Folios 268-272. Draft letter from the Poor Law Board, to Thomas Day, Clerk to the Guardians of the Bromsgrove Poor Law Union, saying they have received the report from their inspector, Mr Graves, [John T Graves, Poor Law Inspector] on the enquiry held into the charges preferred by Elizabeth Dance, the schoolmistress against Anne Pope, the workhouse matron, and vice versa.

Having considered the report carefully, they believed faults had been proved on both sides. Dance had shown want of sympathy and co-operation with the matron and had acted improperly in refusing to allow Ward to leave the schoolroom.

Regarding the matron, the evidence showed that on more than one occasion she had addressed Dance in terms which no provocation would justify and had conducted herself towards Dance in the presence of the schoolchildren in a way which subverted the discipline of the school.

As to the charge that Pope had allowed undue communication between children and adults and allowed food to be given to children by parents, the arrangements had been somewhat imperfect but the Poor Law Board were willing to believe she was active in trying to prevent irregularities.

The circumstances were sufficient, the Board considered, to account for Pope cutting and combing hair in the women's ward without imputing to her any intention to contravene the guardians' order.

There did not appear to be any wilful neglect on Pope's part in the omission to provide a change of linen for the girl Hill.

The Board observed that both Pope and Dance had punished children in contravention of the regulations but it was not shown that there was any intentional harshness. However they could not permit any departure from the regulations concerning the punishment of children.

Although the complaints were domestic, they were not unimportant as quarrels between superior officers were injurious to the union. It would be advantageous if Pope and Dance ceased to hold office in the same workhouse, but there were not sufficient grounds to require their resignations. If disputes again disturbed the discipline of the workhouse, the Board would have no alternative but to consider whether they should retain their offices.

As questions had arisen about the respective duties of matron and schoolmistress, the Board drew their attention to articles 210 and 212 of the General Consolidated Order. The guardians, subject to these regulations, were empowered by article 152 to make any rules necessary.

For the information of the guardians, the Board were of the opinion:

1. The matron had no authority to interfere in the literary instruction of the children.

2. The matron was responsible for regulating changes of clothes and linen and if the schoolmistress undertook any part of that duty she was subject to the control of the matron.

3. Regarding industrial training, sewing and needlework imparted in the schoolroom chiefly concerned the schoolmistress but the matron had authority over cooking and cleaning rooms.

4. The matron and schoolmistress had duties in common as to the cleanliness of the children but the schoolmistress should yield to the matron as to the manner in which the children were washed.

5. Where the duties of the matron were not expressly defined by the guardians or the Poor Law Board, she should be subject to the authority of the master.

The Board wished the guardians to communicate the effect of their letter to Pope and Dance.

Paper Number: 33608/1863.

Poor Law Union Number: 526.

Counties: Shropshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire.