Francis O'Connor

Francis O’Connor

and his quest to release his sister from the Shoreditch Workhouse.

· Introduction

· Correspondence Part One

· Correspondence Part Two

During December 1885, Francis had discovered that his sister, Caroline Norbury, who he had not seen for sixteen years, was living as an inmate in Shoreditch (St. Leonard’s) Workhouse.

Part One of this story follows Francis’ applications to the Workhouse and to the Committee of the Shoreditch Board of Guardians, [SHBG] in order to visit Caroline and to enable her to be released. His visits were unsuccessful as there is no evidence that Francis ever did manage to visit her inside the Workhouse. Did she ever return home? Part Two follows Francis from when Caroline had left the Workhouse and his quest for 'relief' to be paid to Caroline.

This story is told through the letters from Francis to the Local Government Board [LGB], the Home Secretary and Queen Victoria, letters to Francis from the LGB and letters to the LGB from General Sir Henry Ponsonby, (Private Secretary to Queen Victoria and Keeper of the Privy Purse, 1878-1895), the Home Secretary, and correspondence with the SHBG.[ii]

There are over thirty pieces of correspondence, all hand-written; not all of the letters are included as many of them are either acknowledgments of letters received or re-iterations of Francis’s requests. Some of the letters are transcribed in full and some are only referred to or sections from them quoted.

The correspondence details neither how Francis and his mother lost contact with Caroline nor what led her to be in the Workhouse, although it does state why she was in there at that time. This is from a statement by the Superintendent of the Workhouse, “Caroline’s reluctance to leave is due to her fondness for drink, that being the sole cause of her being an inmate of the Workhouse.”

Correspondence Part One

Francis’ first visit the Workhouse occurred in early December 1885. After some explanation and persuasive words to the Superintendent [Master] of the Workhouse (Richard Larcombe), he was directed by the Superintendent to return on the 17^th December (the official visiting day), when he could see Caroline. Francis did return on the 17^th December. The Superintendent was absent at the time, therefore the Superintendent’s deputy, the Matron, following Workhouse regulations, refused Francis’ request. Francis then waited for the Superintendent to return and explained the Matron’s refusal. The Superintendent felt it was his duty to uphold the Matron’s decision, although at that time he did not feel it incumbent upon himself to explain his decision to Francis; he did though assure Francis that he could go before the Committee of the Shoreditch Board of Guardians at their next sitting, Wednesday 23^rd December 1885, and put his case to them.

How did Francis cope with those setbacks? He set to and wrote a series of letters in which he showed more and more his critical opinion of the Shoreditch Board of Guardians.

29Dec1885 From Richard Larcombe, Superintendent, Shoreditch Workhouse to Chairman, SHBG.

This story begins with Richard Larcombe, Superintendent of the Shoreditch Workhouse, who wrote a statement to the Chairman of the SHBG, dated 29Dec1885, regarding Francis’ visits and requests to see his sister.

The female officer, who Francis had spoken with on 17^th December 1886, was the Matron of the Workhouse who had been simply following regulations laid down by the SHBG. The Superintendent was absent at that time and the Matron was not aware of the relationship between Francis and Caroline. The Matron had only received a message stating ‘some man wanted to see Caroline Norbury’. Francis says that Larcombe had given his permission and then rescinded it after discussion with the Matron. Larcombe agrees that is what had happened, as he had to support the Matron in the proper discharge of her duty. Larcombe stated that he had originally given permission, although he had been reluctant in respect of the rule regarding visitors and inmates that are under 60. [The Workhouse regulations stated that no one under the age of 60 was allowed visitors.]

Larcombe sent for Caroline, after Francis’ visit, presumably pleased to give her some good news, and stated to her that she could leave on the following morning; also that her brother was living in Bishopsgate Street and would be pleased to see her. Her answer was, ‘NO!’ He had asked her again a few days later and she still declined. Larcombe had asked Caroline if she had received a letter from her brother to which she replied, “No.”

Larcombe attributes Caroline’s reluctance to leave to her fondness for drink, that being the sole cause of her being an inmate of the Workhouse. He also stated that Caroline was physically capable of earning her own living, and rendering herself independent of other people’s assistance.

04Jan1886 119327 LGB to Under Secretary of State for the Home Department

Francis had written to the Home Secretary as the following letter reveals. The LGB, on 04Jan1886, wrote to the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department acknowledging receipt of their letter that had enclosed a letter from Francis O’Connor.

19Jan1886 6076/86 O’Connor to the LGB

The LGB received a letter from Francis on 19^th January 1886 stating that he had received no communication since his letter of the 24^th ulto and that one calendar month had since passed.

20Jan1886 6077/86

Francis, after the setbacks he had had in not being able to see his sister, decided to apply to a higher authority. He wrote to the Queen explaining how had just discovered that his sister was in a Workhouse and that his mother had thought she was dead. He had also written to and or seen the Board of Guardians, the Local Government Board and the Home Office. He asked Her Majesty to direct the Secretary of State to grant him without further delay an order to see his sister.

20Jan 1886 6088/86 Sir General Sir Henry Ponsonby to LGB

The LGB received a letter from General Sir Henry Ponsonby, (Private Secretary to Queen Victoria and Keeper of the Privy Purse, 1878-1895) in which he enclosed the letter sent by Francis to Her Majesty [Queen Victoria][iv].

General Sir Henry Ponsonby[iii]

29Jan1886 6077B LGB to O’Connor

The LGB then wrote to Francis informing him that they had received a communication from Sir Henry Ponsonby in which he had enclosed Francis’ letter to HM the Queen and also that the LGB had received the letter that Francis had written to the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The LGB told Francis that he needed to apply to the SHBG for permission to visit his sister and that he could apply for the permission at their weekly meetings, held every Wednesday. It was also explained that Caroline could discharge herself anytime from the Workhouse whilst complying with current regulations.

08Feb1886 13896/86 O’Connor to the LGB

On the 08^th February 1886 Francis wrote to the LGB, beginning with acknowledging the letter from the LGB on the 19^th ulto. He reminded the LGB that he had gone before the Guardians Committee on the 23^rd December 1885 to put his case. He mentions the newspaper reports in the local paper and queries if the paper is under control directly or indirectly of the Guardians. He asks why the Matron did not explain the regulations regarding visitors on his visit on the 17^th December 1885. Francs explained that as he had not seen his sister for sixteen years he did not feel competent in advising his sister of her best course of action. He ends by hoping that the LGB can let him know if they can help him any further on the matter.

08Mar1886 24698 O’connor to LGB

On the 8^th March 1886 Francis wrote to the LGB in which he had enclosed an extract from a letter that he had written to her Majesty the Queen on the 25^th ulto. He had been advised by Sir Henry Ponsonby to address the President of the LGB. He said he had already done so but had received no communication from the Board since 18^th January although he had long since replied.

Extract from Francis letter to the Queen - in which he tells of his attempts to visit Caroline and of his widowed mother, eighty-three years of age, who had suffered injuries from accidents and desired to see her daughter. His mother, he had re-stated, had not seen Caroline for ten years and had believed her to be dead. Francis said he could easily get employment for Caroline if only he could see her.

Notes are appended to this from various Gaurdians:

1) To SHBG Guardians will observe that the President wishes to see this case.

2) I don’t think there is a case for further interference on the part of the Board, please see the Master’s report on this case.

3) I don’t think the action of the Master is satisfactorily explained by him, he admits that first he agreed to allow the visitor to see his sister and then withdrew his consent because he found that the matron had refused permission but at the same time he states that this refusal was given when no facts as to the relationship of the visitor was known The circumstances are of an unexplained character and I think that it would have been much better of the Guardians had consented to allow him in this instance..

4) O’Connor should have the opportunity afforded him to visit his sister.]

19March1886 24698B LGB to SHBG

“It appears to the Board to be desirable under the circumstances O’Connor should have an opportunity afforded him of seeing his sister and the Board will be glad to learn that the Guardians concur in this view.”

19March1886 24698B LGB to O’Connor

The LGB wrote to France on 19^th March 1886 acknowledging receipt of his letter of the 8^th March 1886. The LGB state that they have no authority in the matter although they had communicated with the Guardians upon the subject.

26Mar1886 30898 SHBG to LGB

On 26^th March 1886 the SHBG wrote to the LGB acknowledging receipt of their letter of the 19^th transmitting an extract from a letter written by Francis. The Guardians saw no reason why Francis should be given permission to see his sister, as she was perfectly able to discharge herself. Caroline had been informed of her mother’s situation but failed to make enquiries herself. Caroline had never received a letter from her brother and he had made no application to visit since 17^th December 1885.

The LGB received a letter from Francis on 12^th April, 1886 in which he had enclosed articles from local newspapers:- Hackney Examiner, 25Dec1885, A Visitor’s Case; Hackney Examiner, 26March1886, Writing to the Queen and Hackney Examiner, 02Apr1886, Purchase of Land at Harold Wood’.

The articles are newspaper reports of the SHBG Committee Meetings that Francis had cut out, glued onto paper, and then proceeded to comment on various aspects in the articles. From Francis’ tone, in his letter, the certain phrases he had underlined and also certain words that he had crossed out, it can be deduced that he was quite angry.

5^th & 12^th Apr 1886 30898B Letter from Francis O’Connor [no salutation]

Francis wrote, in April 1886, that after two visits to the Workhouse he had visited the Worship Street Police Court, on Tuesday, 22^nd December 1885, and spoke to a Magistrate, Mr. Hanney. Francis explained to him that he had found out that a sister of his, whom he had not seen for sixteen years, was an inmate of the Workhouse in Kingsland Road and that he was not allowed permission to see her on the grounds that she was under 60 years of age, and on the same grounds that she was not allowed to go out.

Mr Hanney replied that he had never heard of such a thing and that he was powerless in this matter but he would send an officer with Francis and make enquiries.

The officer accompanied Francis to the Workhouse the next morning. They were informed, in the Clerk’s Office that the Guardians were then sitting and it was suggested that Francis should go and see them. Francis was instructed by an official to send in word, with his name and address, that he wished to see the Board concerning his sister, Mrs Norbury, an inmate of the Workhouse. The official wrote Francis’s request on a slip of paper and took it in and after waiting a quarter of an hour, he was admitted to the Board Room.

Francis explains that the individual who occupied the Chair, a man named King, behaved in an insolent manner almost as soon as Frances entered. “Well sir.” he had said with a snarl “What is your business?”

Francis explained to the Board the Matron’s refusal to allow Caroline a visitor and that her refusal was “unwomanly”, whereupon he had been interrupted by the Chairman crying “Oh! Oh!” Francis stated that the Chairman was behaving similar to a Parish Beadle and was pompous and vulgar.

Francis then informed Mr King him that he was at perfect liberty to think otherwise if he chose. When Francis spoke of the Master’s [Superintendent of the Workhouse] upholding the Matron’s “authority”, Francis stated that it was rather upholding her brutality.

Mr. King then became very much concerned for the Matron and exclaiming in an excited manner “We are not going to sit here to hear the Matrons conduct”, and began to pooh-pooh and to treat the whole matter contemptuously.

Francis thereupon endeavoured to explain to Mr. King (‘or to relieve his mind of the false impression he appeared to be labouring under’) by informing him that he had not gone there to beg favours and that he had already seen the Magistrate and had written to the LGB and the Home Office.

Francis then withdrew but was immediately recalled to listen to a statement on the part of the Workhouse Master [see below] and permitted to reply.

‘One or two of the Guardians had attempted to interpose but were imperiously overruled, or sat upon or permitted themselves to be sat upon, by the ruffianly Chairman.’

Francis withdrew expressing his surprise to the Chairman that the other gentlemen should countenance his behaviour.

Hackney Examiner, 25Dec1885

Francis' comments on the article:

Footnote 1.

Francis commented that the answer brought to him from the Matron was simply a refusal, “No.”, and that it was the Under-Matron at the women’s quarters who told him about the rule with respect to age.

Footnote 2.

This is a great falsehood, Francis had written. The expression Francis said that he had used was ,“That I had not come to beg any favours.”; and he would not have said that if not for the domineering bearing of the Chairman.

Footnote 3:

From this paragraph taken in connection with the proceeding sentence, it was clear, Francis wrote, that the report was carefully manipulated or “revised” either by the Chairman or one of his friends.

Footnote 4:

The article states that the Master of the Workhouse told the Board that Francis had called him a “down-right rascal”. Francis wrote that he did not use those words and wished to correct the Master’s statement to that extent, but was not allowed. “I now consider the term would have been very properly employed.” Commented Francis.

Footnote 5:

This is another piece of gross deception, he had left the Board room at that point above mentioned, namely, when he was not allowed to reply to the Masters’ statement and had left telling this intolerant Chairman that he was sure the other gentlemen should countenance his behaviour.

“The dishonest report would lead any one to believe that ‘the man’ himself was present whilst the Master was making his statement with regards to this woman’s mother. The statement is disingenuous and ill-informed in order to serve a dishonest purpose.” Francis wrote that he should feel thankful if an opportunity were given him to show the truth of what he said.

Hackney Examiner 26March1886

Footnote 1.

Francis’ wrote that his first application was made in the first week of December when he was told visiting day would be the following week 17^th December. His next appointment was made on 17^th December, 1885 and when he laid his complaint before the Guardians on the 23^rd Dec that was tantamount he submitted to another application.

Footnote 2.

Francis stated, “Here is evidence of Mr. King’s animus.” The Clerk’s intrusion of his opinion, Francis saw, as “rank impertinence”.

Footnote 3.

“The woman” is made to say in one statement that she did not want to see her brother and in the other statement that “she did not know it was her brother”, remarked Francis.

Footnote 4.

“Another nice exhibition of touchy thin-skinned chairman. Mr King appears to be very easily insulted – very sensitive. How if he had been similarly treated himself.”

“I beg to acknowledge the receipt of the LGB note of the 5^th instant and enclosed therewith the copy of a letter received by the LGB from the SHBG. The Guardians it is said, can see no reason why permission to see my sister should be granted to me.

I will much grieve at present that it is no credit to the Guardians to say so in face of the facts now in their possession.

I will much grieve at present that it is no credit to the Guardians to say so in face of the facts now in their possession.

“The woman” it is stated is able-bodied woman at perfect liberty to take her discharge at any moment. If the Guardians expect me to advise her I must first be allowed to consult her.

As to what my sister may have been informed I have nothing whatever to say. My complaint refers to the gross impropriety , to put it mildly, on the part of the Guardians seeking to justify instead of repudiating the disgraceful behaviour of their officials.

As to no application having been made by me since the 17 Dec last I beg to say that I am at a loss to understand why one application should not suffice.

As a matter of fact, however, more than one has been made as already stated.

See statements forwarded by me to LGB 5^th Apr and 12^th. The only further application I should now think of making would be by the application of a good horse whipping to the rascally Chairman of the Guardians who has thought proper to identify himself and to champion the [?] of the Workhouse officials.

I have the honour to be

Right Honourable Sir

Your Humble and Obedient Servant

Francis O’Connor”

“Right Hon Sir

I have received no communication from the LGB since its letter of the 5^th ulto 30898B/1886 to which I have long since replied

Am I to understand that the Board can do nothing further in this matter?

I have the honour to be

Your ob. serv. Francis O’Connor.”

11May1886 46134 O’Connor to LGB

Transcription of a letter from Francis to the LGB Complaining again of no answer to his letters and asking if the Board is going to do anything further.

“It is now more than four months since I brought my complaint under the notice of the Board and, though, I feel very thankful for the Boards’s recommendation in this matter to the Shoreditch Board of Guardians. I am bound to say that the action of the Board has been very slow and very small in its result.

If the Board contemplate no further action in the matter I beg it will inform me as soon as possible to that effect.”

11May1886 O'Connor ot Home Office

“Right Hon Sir,

I should feel very grateful if the Home Office would be good enough to advise the LGB to deal with my case most expeditiously.

I have the honour to be….”

18May1886 O’Connor to President LGB

Francis wrote to ask for all his original statements or copies of correspondence as early as possible.

Notes are appended to this from various Gaurdians:

1) The originals have been written on – send copies.

2) I don’t think that the board need waste the time of its staff in copying.

3) Most unusual not to supply… send copies.

That is the end of the correspondence concerning Francis and his attempts to visit Caroline and to have her released from the Workhouse… read on from further news of Caroline.

Caroline did return home, though the actual date is not included in the correspondence.

CAROLINE AT HOME 91568 14Oct1886 O’Connor to LGB

Francis contacts the LGB on 14thOctober, 1886 from a new address: 13, Tower Street, Hackney.He writes to the LGB to ask if they could let him know if Caroline is entitled, under the circumstances mentioned, to out-door relief from the Parochial Charities of St. Leonard’s Shoreditch.

“Mrs Caroline Norbury, fifty-two years of age [birth est 1834], her husband, Samuel Norbury has been dead about fifteen years [death est. 1871 – about the time her family lost contact with her] They resided at No 2, Bevenden Street, East Road, City Road, paying rates for twelve years and her husband previously kept another house in the same street. Mrs. Norbury, since her husband’s death has been an inmate at several periods in St. Leonard’s Workhouse. At one period she acted as a domestic servant, without salary to a Master and Matron of that establishment. At another she served in a similar capacity to another Master and Matron, Mr & Mrs Roach and lastly she was employed in the Laundry. Mrs Norbury however has never received a single shilling [.05p] from the Parish not even clothing but she has never yet it is true, applied for either. Her age is now a great [hindrance] for employment even where she free to accept it, but her services are absolutely required by her mother who is extremely infirm, eighty-four years of age and has no other female relation to attend her.”

Notes are appended to this from various Gaurdians:

Note 1: Reply that it relies entirely with the Guardians to decide in what manner they will deal with applications for relief which may come before them and that the Board[LGB] are prohibited by Law from interfering for the purpose of or offering relief in individual cases. If he desires it however the Board will send a copy of his letter to the Guardians for their consideration.

Note 2: I think the writer is a man with whom the Board had a long correspondence some time ago relative to his sister in the Shoreditch Workhouse. If I am right I should reply as suggested but I would omit the last sentence.

Note 3: Omit last sentence

Note 4: I think it will be better to proceed with note 1.

23Oct1886 91568A LGB to O’Connor

On the 23^rd October 1886 the LGB wrote to Francis stating that he has to apply to the SHBG.

30Oct1886 91568 O’Connor to LGB

“I beg to respectfully acknowledge the receipt of the Board’s letter of the 23^rd instant.For reasons that must be apparent to the Board I should prefer not to hold anycommunication with the Guardians of the Poor of St. Leonard’s Shoreditch. I need hardly say therefore that I shall feel very thankful if the Board will obtain the desired information from whatever source it may deem proper and make whatever use of this correspondence it may consider necessary for the purpose.[Underlined by Francis in red]

Note appended from a Guardian:

I see no object in starting a correspondence with the Shoreditch Guardians on the subject of Mr O’Connor and his sister.

29Nov1886 91568 O’Connor to LGB

“I have not received any reply to my letter of the 18^th alto and now more than one calendar month and I cannot understand the delay.”

Notes appended from various Guardians:

1. On the 23^rd October the Board promised to send a copy of his letter of the 11^th October to the Guardians.

2. As the Board told O’Connor that it would send a copy of his letter to the Guardians I suppose they must do so.

3. Ask and state that the Board have sent a copy of his letter of 11^th October to the Guardians for consideration.

4. Send copy accordingly.

11Dec1886 LGB to O'Connor

The LGB acknowledge Francis letter of 29Nov ulto and confirm they have sent a copy of his letter of the 11^th October to the Guardians for their consideration.

16Dec1886 111222 SHGB to LGB

“I am directed by the Guardians to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 11^th inst, with the copy of a letter addressed to your honourable Board by Mr Francis O’Connor.

The Guardians are quite ready to give consideration to any application Caroline Norbury may herself make to them, but they desire to point out that the question asked by Mr O’Connor can receive but one answer viz: that Caroline Norbury is not entitled to out-door relief under the circumstances mentioned.”

20Dec1886 113031 O’connor to LGB

“I beg to thankfully acknowledge receipt of the Boards’ letter of the 11^th instant.

May I now beg to be informed whether communications with ref to Mrs Norbury’s case has yet been received by the LGB from the Guardians of the Parish of St. Leonard’s, Shoreditch?

Will the Board be good enough to transmit me a copy or to inform me of the nature and tenor of any such communication asap?”

Notes are appended to this from various Gaurdians:

1. Query inform O’Connor that they have heard from the Shorditch Guardians and that they are not willing to give out-door relief to Caroline Norbury.

2. The Guardians do not precisely say that they are not willing to grant out-door relief in this case. They merely, in reference to O’Connor’s question point out that she is not entitled to it They are however “quite ready to give consideration to any application which Caroline Norbury may herself make to them”.

3. To Hedley from Wodehouse 30Dec1886 Say to Mr O’Connor that the Guardians have informed the Board that they are quite ready to give consideration to any application which Caroline Norbury may herself make to them but that the only reply they can give to the question put by Mr O’Connor is that Caroline Norbury is not entitled to out-door relief under the circumstances mentioned.

05Jan1887 113031A LGB to O’Connor

“I am directed by the LGB to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 20^th ulto and to state that the Guardians of the Parish of St. Leonard’s, Shoreditch have informed the Board that they are quite ready to give consideration to any application which Caroline Norbury may herself make to them but that the only reply they can give to the question contained in your letter of the 11^th October last, is that Caroline Norbury is not entitled to any out-door relief under the circumstances mentioned.”

13Jan1887 4249/87 O’Connor to LGB

This is the final letter from Francis concerning Caroline’s relief, he begins very charmingly but saves his ire for the final sentence.

“I beg to thankfully and respectfully acknowledge the receipt of the Boards letter of the 5^th inst. Having now advised Mrs C Norbury to make personal application for Out-door relief to the Guardians of the Parish of St. Leonard’s, Shoreditch I deem it right to inform the Board to that application and consequently before I can possibly be aware of the Guardians decisions respecting it that I shall consider it my duty to [inform] the LGB at the earliest opportunity a statement relating to the treatment of the inmates of the Workhouse of the Parish of St. Leonard’s, Shoreditch....[and] the behaviour of certain officials thereof and in some measure to the conduct of the Guardians.”

[i] Workhouses.org., Shoreditch (St Leonard's), Middlesex, London, http://www.workhouses.org.uk/Shoreditch/, (2016),(07Apr2016). [Your one-stop shop for Workhouse information]

[ii] Workhouses.org.,The Local Government Board,(2016),(08Apr2016). http://www.workhouses.org.uk/poorlaws/newpoorlaw.shtml#LGB; Royalcollection.org.uk., General Sir Henry Ponsonby (1825-1895), https://www.royalcollection.org.uk/collection/2931062/general-sir-henry-ponsonby-1825-1895, (nd, 10Mar2017).

[iii] Royalcollection.org.uk., General Sir Henry Ponsonby (1825-1895), https://www.royalcollection.org.uk/collection/2931062/general-sir-henry-ponsonby-1825-1895, (nd, 10Mar2017).

[iv] Royalcollection.org.uk., General Sir Henry Ponsonby (1825-1895), https://www.royalcollection.org.uk/collection/2931062/general-sir-henry-ponsonby-1825-1895, (nd, 10Mar2017).