Louisa Clarke Wells

(Louisa Christina Elrington)

This is a copy of a document published online in 1998. Sources are lacking and more information may be available.

Born:      16 April 1845 at Sydney, New South Wales
Father:    Richard Goodall Elrington
Mother:  Louisa Mary Clarke
Married:
1. Henry Peter Lake Ash 1861 in Victoria
2. John Wells
3. Thomas Goodland 1898 in Victoria

Louisa’s story is fascinating, tragic, and at times very confusing.   She chronicled part of her life story in two publications: The Cause and Suffering of Fallen Women, or, A sketch of three years of the life of the authoress (Adelaide, 1887) and The Red Pen. A story for the young (Adelaide, 1887).  The Red Pen is set in a farmyard with animals as the characters, but it is clearly autobiographical. Louisa also published a monthly paper, The Social Reformer,  in Adelaide from July 1887 until at least August 1888.  Published “in the interests of justice and social purity”, The Social Reformer aimed at social reform by publicising the plight of women in unfortunate circumstances, and also the causes of their downfall. The Social Reformer was also a forum for Louisa to campaign for the return of her own children.  Louisa later published another pamphlet in Melbourne in 1903.

Louisa was born in Sydney, New South Wales in 1845. Her elder siblings had been born at Mt Elrington, the property of her grandfather, William Sandys Elrington, near Braidwood.  That same year, her grandfather disposed of all of his holdings in southern New South Wales and returned to England to live.  With her parents and siblings Louisa moved to Victoria, firstly to Geelong and then to Creswick.  At sixteen years of age Louisa married Henry Peter Lake Ash.  Catherine Jane 1862, Louisa Ethel 1865-1867, Christopher Frederick 1868 and Florence Maud 1870 were born into this marriage.   In 1876 Henry Ash died in Victoria.

In 1878 Louisa gave birth to Isabella and Mabel Wells.   Isabella died in 1878.   Two more daughters followed,  Zoe Vere in 1879 and Zulieme Louisa in 1881.  The father of these four girls was John Wells and although there is no record of a marriage, Louisa and the girls all used the surname Wells.  In The Red Pen, Louisa writes of a father who goes away in a ship to get well but did not return, and instead an envelope with black edging appears to tell that he had died.

Louisa, using the name Louisa Clarke Wells, and three of her children, Linnie (Mabel) aged 5 years, Zoe aged 2 and Zella (Zulieme) aged 1 arrived in South Australia in February 1883 on the Franklin.   Also travelling with them was a girl that Louisa calls ‘Marco’ and describes as her young sister ‘who had just reached womanhood’. ¹ However Louisa did not have a younger sister, although she did have a 21 year old daughter, Catherine Jane Ash.

With just 37 pounds to her name, Louisa quickly set up business as a dressmaker in Beulah Road, Norwood, advertising that she was the cheapest and best dressmaker in South Australia. These claims must have been a little strong, as Louisa encountered complaints and not compliments. It became clear that dressmaking would not support a young family and the drift into poverty had well and truly begun. To help the ailing financial situation Marco took work as a barmaid which Louisa describes as ‘that fatal step that must lead to ruin’. ²

In June 1883 Louisa’s health had deteriorated to the point where she could no longer work.  The children were now hungry and their clothes threadbare.  Louisa now took her own fatal step.  A man (Mr Padman, although this may not be his real name) offered to supply food, clothing and shelter to Louisa and her family.  Louisa was to be the barter.  After a few weeks Louisa was evicted from Mr Padman’s house at Glenelg and he took her to court to recover back rent, despite the fact that she had kept up her end of the bargain.  Now even more in need Louisa continued to see men discreetly to provide for her daughters.  By June 1884 the family had settled in Gover Street, North Adelaide and were fairly comfortable. Yet Louisa appears to have yearned for independence and respectability for she left her house and lifestyle to run a shop in Rundle Street and live in two dirty little rooms at the back of the shop.  In her own words, she  ‘commenced the hardest life I had ever known, I did try to be good; but it was a life of continual temptation’.³

After an altercation with another shop owner Louisa moved to Semaphore and attempted to make a living from dressmaking again.  By this time Marco had married, had a baby and her husband, James Sturman Taylor had left her.  Marco went to New South Wales for a while, leaving her baby boy with Louisa, but did return later.  The baby died at Nurmurkah in 1886 with parents names listed as ‘unknown’.   Also entering the story at about this time was Louisa’s thirteen year old daughter whom she had left behind in Victoria, but had now arrived by boat.  This was probably Florence Maud Ash.  Whether this daughter stayed in South Australia is not known.

If we are to take Louisa’s account of the incident that was to change her life forever, she was the victim of a planned setup   In November 1885 she was sentenced to six months hard labour for keeping a disorderly house and her three daughters were taken from her and sent to the Magill Industrial School. On 21 December 1885 she began a 23 week incarceration in the Lunatic Asylum. After her release she attempted to run off with one of her children, but was caught and the child had to be returned.  Louisa maintained that the evidence of the teenage girls which resulted in her sentence was a complete fabrication.  Whether or not it was true is somewhat irrelevant – Louisa was already sentenced by society.  She was an unmarried mother, she was poor and in the past she had engaged in prostitution to survive. 

After her release from prison Louisa took up residence in King William Street, Adelaide.  She also took up the fight to have her children returned to her.  Louisa describes her circumstances in Issue 12 of The Social Reformer, showing  how she had been a victim of unjust treatment.  Her children had been taken from her servant’s custody on 17 November 1885, and despite repeated applications to the State Children’s Council, the children had not been returned to her care.  Louisa’s efforts to prove her innocence and thus have a better chance of having them returned were impeded by the fact that the time had passed to make an appeal. She also had received no reply to her petition to the Governor, and at the time of her writing Issue 12 was considering her next course of action.

In May 1888 The State Children’s Council offered Louisa her children back, but under license, and subject to the conditions of the Council. This offer was vehemently rejected by Louisa, who saw it “as an insult” and stated she would not sign a paper “that would consign either myself or children to bondage”. Louisa’s efforts at social reform appear not have been well received in all quarters. In issue 12 of The Social Reformer she states “if they had listened to me when I lectured at the Town Hall, and taken up the wrongs I then exposed, instead of treating me as they did…”. Louisa does not elaborate on how she was treated, however she does state that her work has “given frightful offence to a large proportion of the community” ⁴

Her criticisms of the inhumanity of the State Children’s Council under its then Board of Management would not have endeared her to the likes of Catherine Helen Spence and Caroline Emily Clark, who were two of the eight members of that board. The Council believed that removal of children from unfavourable conditions would stop the cycle of poverty and lead to social reform. To this end the 1887 Regulations stated that relatives should not have access to children, and it is perhaps only because of Louisa’s vigorous campaigning that she was even offered her children under license, as this method of probationary care was allowed but rarely implemented. In the eyes of the State Children’s Council of the 1880s, Louisa was not considered to be a fit mother. Even if she had been able to clear her name it is unlikely she would ever have been accepted by the well-to-do philanthropists of Adelaide, even though they were seemingly waging the same war. Louisa was well aware of the path which led young girls to their downfall. Tempted by three times the wage they could earn as a servant, girls taking bar work would find that they could not return to “respectable” positions. Louisa saw bar work as the first step to the downfall of young girls, from the bar they would move to the streets and prostitution. The prison conditions which women endured were also well known to Louisa. Issue 12 of The Social Reformer contains chapter XI of “Two Months in the Adelaide Gaol”, a serialised description of life in the gaol which Louisa was well qualified to present, having been an inmate herself.

Louisa was undoubtedly intelligent and articulate.  She did tend to stretch the truth a little at times, but not for any other reason than to improve the life of her family.

In 1898 Louisa married Thomas Goodland in Victoria.  Zoe Vere Wells married Frederick James Freer in Adelaide and Zuleima Louisa Wells married John Thomas Buckett, also  in Adelaide.  What became of ‘Marco’ (Catherine Jane Ash) and Florence Maud Ash is not yet known.

Read the newspaper reports of Louisa’s trial.

[1] The Cause and Suffering of Fallen Women, p. 5.
[2] Ibid, p. 6.
[3] Ibid, p. 14.
[4] The Social Reformer, Issue 12.

Sources
Barbalet, Margaret, Far From a Low Gutter Girl. The forgotten world of state wards: South Australia 1887-1940, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1983.
Daniels, Kay and Murnane, Mary, Uphill All the Way. A Documentary History of Women in Australia, University of Queensland Press, St Lucia, 1980.
Jones, Helen, In Her Own Name. Women in South Australian History, Wakefield Press, 1986.
Wells, Mrs Clarke, The Social Reformer, Volume 1, No. 12, August 15 1888.
State Library of South Australia