Mothers and Infanticide in Nineteenth Century Britain
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
More Deadly Than The Male1...? Mothers and Infanticide In Nineteenth Century Britain Findlay Rosie Pour citer cet article Findlay Rosie, « More Deadly Than The Male...? Mothers and Infanticide In Nineteenth Century Britain », Cycnos, vol. 23.2 (Figures de femmes assassines - Représentations et idéologies), 2006, mis en ligne en novembre 2006. http://epi-revel.univ-cotedazur.fr/publication/item/616 Lien vers la notice http://epi-revel.univ-cotedazur.fr/publication/item/616 Lien du document http://epi-revel.univ-cotedazur.fr/cycnos/616.pdf Cycnos, études anglophones revue électronique éditée sur épi-Revel à Nice ISSN 1765-3118 ISSN papier 0992-1893 AVERTISSEMENT Les publications déposées sur la plate-forme épi-revel sont protégées par les dispositions générales du Code de la propriété intellectuelle. Conditions d'utilisation : respect du droit d'auteur et de la propriété intellectuelle. L'accès aux références bibliographiques, au texte intégral, aux outils de recherche, au feuilletage de l'ensemble des revues est libre, cependant article, recension et autre contribution sont couvertes par le droit d'auteur et sont la propriété de leurs auteurs. Les utilisateurs doivent toujours associer à toute unité documentaire les éléments bibliographiques permettant de l'identifier correctement, notamment toujours faire mention du nom de l'auteur, du titre de l'article, de la revue et du site épi-revel. Ces mentions apparaissent sur la page de garde des documents sauvegardés ou imprimés par les utilisateurs. L'université Côte d’Azur est l'éditeur du portail épi-revel et à ce titre détient la propriété intellectuelle et les droits d'exploitation du site. L'exploitation du site à des fins commerciales ou publicitaires est interdite ainsi que toute diffusion massive du contenu ou modification des données sans l'accord des auteurs et de l'équipe d’épi-revel. EPI-REVEL Revues électroniques de l’Université Côte d’Azur “More Deadly Than The Male”1...? Mothers and Infanticide In Nineteenth Century Britain Rosie Findlay Rosie Findlay est Maître de Conférences à l’Université François- Rabelais de Tours, où elle enseigne la civilisation britannique. Sa thèse, soutenue en 1993, est intitulée « Les stéréotypes sociaux dans la littérature enfantine française et britannique autour de 1900 ». Ses recherches portent sur le statut de l’enfant en Grande-Bretagne depuis 1800. Dans notre culture occidentale, le symbole de la vie est la mère ; cependant, à partir des années 1850 au Royaume-Uni, la société devint de plus et plus consciente du crime d’infanticide, commis soit par la mère naturelle soit par une mère de substitution. Le taux élevé de la mortalité infantile a amené la police à examiner de près les morts “inhabituelles”. Cet article propose une étude de l’infanticide, à travers les archives et la presse de la période, très riches en rapports de police et en procès. In Western culture, the symbol of life-giving is the mother, yet from the middle of the nineteenth century on, British society became more and more aware of the crime of infanticide, committed by the mother-figure, either in the form of the natural mother or that of a surrogate. The high rates of infant mortality led to investigations into infant deaths by “uncommon” means, committed both by the mother herself and by those engaged in the occupation of baby farming. This paper proposes to examine these causes of infant death, through a study of archives and the press of the period, which contained detailed police reports, transcripts of the many trials which took place in the second part of the nineteenth century, as well as editorials and articles on the subject. baby farming, baby farmer, illegitimacy, infant mortality, infanticide, insurance clubs, medical profession, philanthropist, police, state mortalité infantile, philanthrope, l’Etat, médecins, assurance, infanticide, illégitimité, mère de substitution, élevage de bébé Modern British society always seems to react with a sense of outrage to revelations about child abuse or infanticide, as recent news stories amply testify. Where these crimes are committed by adult males such as Ian Huntley or paedophile rings, this outcry is spontaneous, violent and self-justifying. Where they are committed by other children, as in the case of the Liverpool toddler Jamie Bulger, they provoke public soul-searching into the dysfunctions of British society and the disappearance of family values which engulf the whole of the media and parliament as well. When, however, these crimes are the work of women, and particularly where these women are the children’s own mothers, the outrage is mixed with disbelief and condemnation, qualified by a grim need for understanding and reassurance. Mothers give life, they are not expected to take that life away. Children are not expected to die and certainly not from unnatural causes. To suggest differently is to undermine the very foundations of society, for how we cherish and protect innocent and defenceless children has become one of the clearest measures of our self-esteem and of our claim to be a civilised society. 1 Rudyard Kipling, “The Female of the Species”, Rudyard Kipling’s Verse: Inclusive Edition, 1885-1918, verse 1. In these attitudes, as in much else, we bear the inheritance of our Victorian ancestors, but with one major difference. In the Victorian period the precariousness of children’s existence was the rule not the exception and infant mortality was seen as an unfortunate but natural part of the cycle of life itself. The statistics for the period are stark. The infant mortality rates in England and Wales, for instance, which stood at a massive 135/1000 in 1879 had reached 149/1000 by 1886 and 159/1000 by 1893, before climaxing at a staggering 163/1000 in 18992. In this lottery of life legitimate births fared better than those conceived out of wedlock. In the major industrial centres such as Glasgow, for instance, these stood at 137/1000 for the period 1899 to 1903, while the infant death rate for illegitimates was approximately double this at around 276/1000! Nor surprisingly under these circumstances, the common banality of child death was a social reality which parents and society had to accept and, to a certain extent, a fatalistic resignation before the harsh laws of the universe even permeated the medical profession3. Yet, if people were often no longer shocked by a child’s death, society, particularly as the century progressed and the birth rate slowly declined, demanded reassurances as to the causes of this great tragedy. From a medical point of view, the answer to this question was unequivocal if not reassuring: the primary cause, the “physical reason” for the high rates of infant mortality was grinding poverty4. Poverty was the catalyst which generated secondary and preventable causes, such as lack of basic hygiene, disease, endemic illnesses, malnutrition, want of warm clothing, absence of medical care5 and, last but not least, want of proper parental care. In the bleak report prepared by the Registrar-General for the period 1861-18706, the long litany of what was classed as “common causes of child death was laid out from miasma7 and diarrhoea to convulsions, scarlatina, diphtheria, whooping cough and measles”8. Furthermore, he conceded, children were more exposed than adults to the epidemics of cholera, smallpox and typhus which not infrequently visited the population. Yet, if the nation could feel a certain sense of resignation before the inevitability of these natural causes, a great deal of disquiet and outrage was felt by his confirmation of the high levels of unnatural deaths of the very young which had been recorded, especially among the poorer sections of the population. Rumours which had circulated for some time in the press as well as in learned journals about this casual “massacring of the innocent” − The Lancet, for instance, famously claimed that 76 children under the age of one had been murdered in England and Wales in the years 1838- 1840 and that this constituted 34% of all murders for the period9 − now seemed to have been given official confirmation. What was less clear was the full extent of this criminal activity and how this uncertainty fed the press and its appeal to the phantasms of moral indignation. 2 Hugh Tuke ASHBY, Infant Mortality. 3 Edna Robertson, Glasgow's Doctor. James Burn Russell, 1837-1904, p. 48. 4 Cf. For instance, Henry Arthur Albutt, M.R.C.P., Infant Mortality and Premature Death, p. 4. 5 The first Hospital for Sick Children (Great Ormond Street, London) opened in 1853 but children under two were excluded, as was the case in the Yorkhill Hospital in Glasgow, in 1882. F. B. Smith, The People’s Health 1830-1910, pp. 152-155. 6 Supplement to the 35th Registrar-General’s Report, p. xxix, Volume II. Dr Farr, responsible for this list of causes of death, gives a description of the “March of an English Generation through Life”, explaining the life style and reasons for death at each period in life. Thomas B. Curtis, “Infant Mortality. Vital Statistics”, in Albert H. Buck, A treatise on hygiene etc. Vol. 2, pp. 269-348. For more information on individual counties of Scotland, England and Wales, see Helen M. Blagg, Statistical Analysis of Infant Mortality and its Causes in the United Kingdom. 7 Infectious particles or germs floating in the air, popularly known as “Crowd poison”. 8 See also Countess Ebersburg, 6/10. An Awful Bill, p. 2. The title of her book comes from the fact that of all the babies born in any one year, 60% die before they reach the age of 5. 9 The Lancet, 10th October 1863, p. 426. “One in Every Thirty Women…is a Murderess” By the early 1840s the question was being openly asked on the floor of the House of Commons where Thomas Wakley, coroner, surgeon and M.P.