1 Introduction: the Childhood of the Poor

Notes

1 Introduction: The Childhood of the Poor

1. R. H. Tawney (1926) Religion and the rise of capitalism (London: J. Murray), p. 222, quoted in Gertrude Himmelfarb (1984) The idea of poverty: England in the early industrial age (London: Faber), p. 3. 2. Hugh Cunningham (1991) The children of the poor: representations of childhood since the seventeenth century (Oxford: Blackwell), p. 228; Lynn Hollen Lees (1998) The solidarities of strangers: the English poor laws and the people (Cambridge University Press), pp. 39–40. 3. Linda Pollock (1983) Forgotten children: parent–child relations from 1500–1900 (Cambridge University Press); Anthony Fletcher (2008) Growing up in England: the experience of childhood, 1600–1914 (New Haven: Yale University Press); Joanne Bailey (2012) Parenting in England c. 1760–1830: emotions, identities, and generations (Oxford University Press). 4. For example, Alysa Levene (2007) Childcare, health and mortality at the London Foundling Hospital, 1741–1800: ‘Left to the mercy of the world’ (Manchester University Press); Heather Shore (1999) Artful dodgers: youth and crime in early nineteenth-century London (London: RHS); Peter King (1998) ‘The rise of juvenile delinquency in England 1780–1840: changing patterns of perception and prosecution’, Past & Present, 160, 116–66. 5. Patricia Crawford (2010) Parents of poor children in England, 1580–1800 (Oxford University Press); Jane Humphries (2010) Childhood and child labour and the British industrial revolution (Cambridge University Press); Peter Kirby (2003) Child labour in Britain, 1750–1870 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan); Katrina Honeyman (2007) Child workers in England, 1780–1820: parish apprentices and the making of the early industrial labour force (Aldershot: Ashgate). 6. Philippe Ariès (1962) Centuries of childhood (London: Cape) (first published in French as L’Enfant et la vie familiale sous l’Ancien Régime in 1960); Lawrence Stone (1977) The family, sex and marriage in England, 1500–1800 (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson); Edward Shorter (1976) The making of the modern family (London: Collins); Lloyd de Mause (ed.) (1974) The history of childhood (New York: Psychohistory Press). 7. John Sommerville (1982) The rise and fall of childhood (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage), pp. 120–1; Ralph A. Houlbrooke (1984) The English family, 1450–1700 (Harlow: Longman), pp. 140–5. 8. Pollock, Forgotten children. 9. Nicholas Orme (2001) Medieval children (New Haven: Yale University Press); Barbara Hanawalt (1993) Growing up in medieval London: the experience of childhood in history (Oxford University Press). Sommerville describes the period of the Reformation as ‘Childhood becomes crucial’, although the eighteenth century remains the one of ‘kindness towards children’ (Sommerville, Rise and fall of childhood). 10. John Locke (1693) Some thoughts concerning education (London).

184 Notes to Chapter 1 185

11. See Anna Moltchonova and Susannah Ottaway, ‘Rights and reciprocity in the political and philosophical discourse of the eighteenth century’, in Linda Zionkowski and Cynthia Klekor (eds) (2009) The culture of the gift in eighteenth-century England (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 15–36. 12. Ibid., pp. 17–18. 13. Hugh Cunningham (1995) Children and childhood in Western society since 1500 (London: Longman), p. 62. 14. See, for example, J. H. Plumb (1975) ‘The new world of children’, Past & Present, 67, 64–95; Karin Calvert (1994) Children in the house: the material culture of early childhood, 1600–1900 (Boston: Northeastern University Press). 15. Cunningham, Children and childhood, p. 62. 16. Another difference was Locke’s emphasis on the infant’s inherent disposi- tion towards evil. This contrasts with Rousseau’s greater stress on the association between children and uncorrupted nature. The two works were also written in quite different styles: Locke’s as a guide to education; Rousseau’s with a strong narrative thread and a fictional child-subject. On the eighteenth century as the first period of parental advice manuals see Christina Hardyment (1995) Perfect parents: baby-care advice past and present (Oxford University Press), pp. xi–xii, and on Rousseau’s influence, pp. 7–8. On the rise of a scientific approach to childcare in the eighteenth century see Adriana S. Benzaquén (2004) ‘Childhood, identity and human science in the Enlightenment’, History Workshop Journal, 57, 34–57. 17. Margaret Pelling, ‘Child health as a social value in early modern England’, in Pelling (1998) The common lot: sickness, medical occupations and the urban poor in early modern England (London and New York: Longman), pp. 105–33, discussing the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; Steve Hindle (2004) On the parish? The micro-politics of poor relief in rural England, c. 1550–1750 (Oxford University Press), pp. 171, 192–226. 18. Joanna Innes, ‘Power and happiness: empirical social enquiry in Britain, from “political arithmetic” to “moral statistics”, in Innes (2009) Inferior politics: social problems and social policies in eighteenth-century Britain (Oxford University Press). This approach was associated with William Petty, and in fact he included the costs of nursing deserted children in his calculations (Paul Slack (1999) From reformation to improvement: public welfare in early modern England (Oxford: Clarendon Press), pp. 93–4). 19. Donna Andrew (1989) Philanthropy and police: London charity in the eighteenth century (Princeton University Press), esp. pp. 54–7 and 74–97; Sarah Lloyd (2009) Charity and poverty in England c.1680–1820: wild and visionary schemes (Manchester University Press); David Owen (1964) English philanthropy 1660–1960 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), pp. 36–68, esp. 52–61. 20. Jonas Hanway (1770) Advice from a farmer to his daughter, 3 vols (London), vol. 3, p. 426. 21. Jonas Hanway (1766) An earnest appeal for mercy to the children of the poor (London), p. v. 22. Blaug has also pointed out that writers on population theory in this period tend to see children as an investment ‘for the sake of future return’, rather than a current investment for present satisfaction ( John Blaug (1996) Economic theory in retrospect, 5th edn (Cambridge University Press), p. 74). 186 Notes to Chapter 1

23. See Angela M. O’Rand and Margaret L. Krecker (1990) ‘Concepts of the life cycle: their history, meanings, and uses in the social sciences’, Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 241–62, and references. 24. For example, Jonas Hanway (1759) Letters on the importance of the rising generation of the laboring part of our fellow subjects, 2 vols (London); Frederick Morton Eden (1966, facsimile of 1797 edition) The state of the poor, 3 vols (London: Frank Cass), vol. 1, pp. 338–9; Jeremy Bentham, ‘Pauper management improved’, in J. Bowring (ed.) (1843, 1962 reprint) The works of Jeremy Bentham (Edinburgh: William Tait), vol. 8; John Hill Burton (ed.) (1844) Benthamiana: or select extracts from the works of Jeremy Bentham (Philadelphia). Some of Bentham’s ideas were incorporated into the Report on training of pauper children of 1841. See also J. S. Taylor (1979) ‘Philanthropy and empire: Jonas Hanway and the infant poor of London’, Eighteenth-Century Studies, 12:3, 285–305; Ronald L. Meek (1973) Studies in the labour theory of value, 2nd edn (London: Lawrence and Wishart), pp. 11–81; Himmelfarb, The idea of poverty, pp. 42–66. 25. This idea was usually allied to debates about education, and was most famously set out by Bernard Mandeville in his 1714 Fable of the bees: or, private vices, publick benefits (although he did allow for some social mobility). See Andrew, Philanthropy and police, pp. 32–41, esp. 34–5. This continued to be a live issue throughout the century. 26. Hanway, Earnest appeal, p. 73. 27. Jonas Hanway (1760) A candid historical account of the hospital for the reception of exposed and deserted young children, 2nd edn (London), pp. 46–7. 28. Hanway, Earnest appeal, p. 73. See Lloyd, Charity and poverty, on the trend to seeing the young as the nation’s future in contemporary writing from the start of the century (pp. 84–8). 29. Cunningham, Children of the poor, pp. 20–1. 30. See M. G. Jones (1964) The charity school movement: a study of eighteenth- century Puritanism in action (London: Cass); Jeremy Schmidt (2010) ‘Charity and the government of the poor in the English charity-school movement, circa 1700–1730’, Journal of British Studies, 49:4, 774–800; Deborah Simonton (2000) ‘Schooling the poor: gender and class in eighteenth-century England’, Journal for Eighteenth-Century Studies, 23:2, 183–202; Alannah Tomkins (2006) The experience of urban poverty, 1723–82: parish, charity and credit (Manchester University Press), pp. 163–203; Craig Rose (1991) ‘Evangelical philanthropy and Anglican Revival: the charity schools of Augustan London, 1698–1740’, London Journal, 16:1, 33–65. 31. Jones, Charity school movement, p. 57. 32. Sarah Lloyd (2002) ‘Pleasing spectacles and elegant dinners: conviviality, benevolence and charity anniversaries in eighteenth-century London’, The Journal of British Studies, 41:1, 39. 33. Ibid. See also Lloyd, Charity and poverty. 34. Lloyd, ‘Pleasing spectacles’; Cunningham, Children of the poor, pp. 38–49. Cunningham notes in particular that ‘Children’s central role in the ritual [of Holy Thursday in St Paul’s] enhanced its value and gave it an emotional quality which might otherwise have been lacking’ (p. 41). These proces- sions and services could involve thousands of children, which in themselves embodied the sheer quantity of work potential available. Notes to Chapter 1 187

35. See, for example, Paul Slack, ‘Hospitals, workhouses and the relief of the poor in early modern London’, in Ole Peter Grell and Andrew Cunningham (eds) (1997) Health care and poor relief in Protestant Europe, 1500–1700 (London: Routledge), pp. 234–51. 36. This was according to the terms of the 1662 Law of Settlement. See J. S. Taylor (1989) Poverty, migration and settlement in the industrial revolution: sojourners’ narratives (Palo Alto, CA: Society for the Promotion of Science and Scholarship). The principle of work was also upheld by the Vagrancy and Poor Laws. See Tom Percival (1911) Poor law children (London: Shaw) and Hindle, On the parish?, pp. 9–11, 171–2 and 192–218. 37. Honeyman, Child workers. 38. However, factory work was not a majority experience for London pauper apprentices (Alysa Levene (2010) ‘Parish apprenticeship and the Old Poor Law in London’, Economic History Review, 63:4, 915–41). 39. E. A. Wrigley and R. S. Schofield (1981) The population history of England, 1541–1871: a reconstruction (Cambridge University Press), Appendix 3.1, pp. 528–30; E. A. Wrigley, R. S. Davies, J. E. Oeppen and R. S. Schofield (1997) English population history from family reconstitution, 1580–1837 (Cambridge University Press), pp. 214–42; for a slightly more pessimistic view of infant mortality in London see R. Davenport, J. Boulton and L. Schwarz (2011) ‘The decline of adult smallpox in eighteenth-century London’, Economic History Review, 64:4, 1289–314. 40. For example, see Arthur Young (1774) Political arithmetic, containing observations on the present state of Great Britain (London), pp. 62, 65, 346. 41. George Rosen (1944) ‘An C18th plan for a National Health Service’, Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 16, 429–36. See also Charles E. Rosenberg (1983) ‘Medical text and social context: exploring William Buchan’s Domestic Medicine’, Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 57, 22–42 for parallels between some of the new medical works and ideas about (middle-class) childhood and nature. 42. Valerie Fildes (1986) Breasts, bottles and babies: a history of infant feeding (Edinburgh University Press); Ruth Perry (1991) ‘Colonizing the breast: sexuality and maternity in eighteenth-century England’, Journal of the History of Sexuality, 2:2, 204–34. 43. Levene, Childcare, pp. 163–5; Ashley Mathisen (2011) ‘Treating the children of the poor: institutions and the construction of medical authority in eighteenth-century London’ (DPhil. thesis, University of Oxford). 44. Lloyd, Charity and poverty, pp. 65–76 and Owen, English philanthropy, both pointing out the increasing emphasis on usefulness, utility and ‘improvement’ in charitable schemes towards the end of the century, including the Sunday school movement. 45. Cunningham, Children of the poor, passim. See also Jeroen J. H. Dekker, ‘Transforming the nation and the child: philanthropy in the Netherlands, Belgium, France and England’, in Hugh Cunningham and Joanna Innes (eds) (1998) Charity, philanthropy and reform from the 1690s to 1850 (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1998), pp. 130–47. In 1793 three army regiments of 1000 each were formed of pauper boys. This was to meet recruitment targets, and also to take children off the hands of the parish (Humphries, Childhood and child labour, p. 201). 188 Notes to Chapter 1

46. Paul Slack (1998) Poverty and policy in Tudor and Stuart England (London and New York: Longman), pp. 4, 19–26. Himmelfarb, The idea of poverty, pp. 42–66. 47. On the significance of the stable family as a conceptual and social unit, see Jean-Louis Flandrin (1979) Families in former times: kinship, household and sexuality, trans. Richard Southern (Cambridge University Press); Beatrice Gottlieb (1993) The family in the western world: from the Black Death to the industrial age (Oxford University Press). 48. The family overburdened with children was at least a scenario which could not be faked, however; a point made by Nathaniel Collier in 1752, The temporal encouragement and reward of charity: in a sermon preached in the parish church of Croydon (London), p. 9. Under 5 Geo. 1 c. 8 churchwardens or overseers of the poor could seize the goods of people deserting their families in order to discharge the costs of maintaining women and children (Eden, The state of the poor, vol. 1, pp. 266–7). 49. Patrick Colquhoun (1806) A treatise on indigence (London), pp. 10–13. There was a third category of ‘remediable’, which included families whose breadwinner was unemployed or had died. 50. Hindle, On the parish?, p. 195, and more generally on parish apprenticeship, pp. 9–11, 171–2 and 192–218. Wives and children of able-bodied paupers were sometimes made to wear badges to denote their status ( John Styles (2007) The dress of the people: everyday fashion in eighteenth-century England (New Haven: Yale University Press), pp. 272–4). Badging the poor became policy in 1697 (Slack, Poverty and policy, p. 193). 51. There was very little English legislation specifically governing the family. Lloyd Bonfield (2010) ‘Seeking connections between kinship and the law in early modern England’, Continuity and Change, 25:1, 49–82. 52. Bailey, Parenting in England, ch. 1. 53. In other words, at this age the child was no longer considered part of the family under settlement law (Richard Burn (1820) The Justice of the Peace and Parish Officer, 23rd edn (London), vol. IV, p. 212). Burn describes these children ‘as a necessary appendage of the mother, and inseparable from her’ (vol. IV, p. 20). It was possible for illegitimate children not to share a settlement with their mother: see Alysa Levene (2010) ‘Poor families, removals and “nurture” in late Old Poor Law London’, Continuity and Change, 25:1, 233–62. Seven years also appeared as the age of nurture in the 1836 Second Annual Report of the Poor Law Commission in the context of the location of care for children (David R. Green (2010) Pauper capital: London and the poor law, 1790–1870 (Farnham: Ashgate), p. 140). 54. Burn (1820) The Justice of the Peace, vol. IV, p. 208. According to Tomkins, one of the objections to the foundation of a workhouse in Shrewsbury in this period was that it severed natural links of reliance between children and parents (Experience of urban poverty, p. 39). 55. See Levene, ‘Poor families’. Thanks to Joanna Innes for clarifying this point. 56. Eden, The state of the poor, vol. 1, pp. 366–7, and vol. 3, pp. cxciii–cxcvi. I am grateful to Samantha Shave for pointing this clause out to me. A seventeenth- century Justices’ handbook stated that children of vagrant mothers should accompany them to Bridewell, but that illegitimates whose mothers had then turned vagrant should be passed to their place of birth rather than Notes to Chapter 1 189

kept with her (William Sheppard (1663) A sure guide for his Majesties Justices of Peace, p. 251; cited by Crawford, Parents of poor children, p. 66). 57. Lees, Solidarities, pp. 34–41, 82–111. Tomkins has revised the start of this change in attitude to the 1750s rather than the 1780s (Experience of urban poverty, pp. 7–8). On the rising real costs of relief in early nineteenth-century London, see Green, Pauper capital, pp. 25–9 and 36. 58. For an overview of the debates on family allowances see Samantha Williams (2004) ‘Malthus, marriage and poor law allowances revisited: a Bedfordshire case study, 1770–1834’, Agricultural History Review, 52:1, 56–82. Over 90 per cent of parishes in England and Wales claimed to give child allowances to large families in 1824, and 41 per cent offered aid to supplement low wages (cited in Lees, Solidarities, pp. 59–60). 59. On the notion of life-cycle poverty, see Tim Wales, ‘Poverty, poor relief and the life-cycle: some evidence from seventeenth-century Norfolk’, in R. M. Smith (ed.) (1984) Land, kinship and life-cycle (Cambridge University Press), pp. 351–404. Lis and Soly point out that under certain schemes for relief in Europe a minimum number of children was required for a family to be eligible (Catharina Lis and Hugo Soly (1979) Poverty and capitalism in pre-industrial Europe (Hassocks: Harvester Press), p. 176). This could be inter- preted as an incentive to having children one could not support: a criticism which was also made of the English allowances system at the turn of the century. 60. Thomas Malthus’ influential Essay on Population was first published in 1798 and popularised the ideas that the poor naturally tended to increase their numbers beyond sustainable levels. Giving indiscriminate poor relief thus harmed the nation by encouraging this further. See Himmelfarb, The idea of poverty, pp. 100–32. 61. (n.d.) The case of the Parish of St James Westminster as to their poor and a workhouse designed to be built for employing them (London). The document is undated, but precedes the building of a workhouse in the parish in 1725. The phrase ‘on the pension book’ probably relates to those receiving regular relief. If all of the other categories consisted of adults then ‘children’ formed around a third of the parish paupers. 62. Sara Horrell, Jane Humphries and Hans-Joachim Voth (2001) ‘Destined for deprivation: human capital formation and intergenerational poverty in nineteenth-century England’, Explorations in Economic History, 38, 354. Dasgupta found that almost all of the relief disbursed in the City parish of St Matthew Friday Street through the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries went on children, including the nursing of foundlings (Anisha Dasgupta (2003) ‘Poverty, pauperism and parish relief in seventeenth-century intramural London’ (PhD thesis, University of Cambridge), p. 280). 63. Lloyd, Charity and poverty, passim, quotation on p. 6. See also Julian Hoppit (2006) ‘The contexts and contours of British economic literature, 1660– 1760’, Historical Journal, 49:1, 79–110. 64. Innes, Inferior politics, pp. 78–105 on the range of local Acts of Parliament, among which those concerning the poor were prominent, especially in London. The only major Acts concerning the poor law to make it on to the Statute Books were Knatchbull and Gilbert’s Acts of 1723 and 1782 respectively. Also see Tomkins, Experience of urban poverty. 190 Notes to Chapter 1

65. (1797) Sketch of the state of the children of the poor in the year 1756, and of the present state and management of all the poor in the Parish of St James Westminster, in January 1797 (London). 66. Himmelfarb, The idea of poverty, p. 74. Eden, The state of the poor, vol. 1, pp. 227–410. The implication of this scheme that large families were to be regarded as a national asset rather than a drain probably made it unpalatable to many. 67. Bentham, ‘Pauper management improved’. See also Himmelfarb, The idea of poverty, pp. 78–85. A much earlier example was John Cary (1719) An essay towards regulating the trade and employing the poor of this Kingdom, 2nd edn (London). 68. Colquhoun, A treatise on indigence, pp. 98–100, quote on p. 141. Parents who refused to let their children participate would forfeit their right to any but casual relief (pp. 159–60). 69. (1817) Report from the Select Committee on the Poor Laws: with the minutes of evidence taken before the committee; and an appendix (London), p. 15. Further smaller- scale schemes were publicised by the Society for Bettering the Condition of the Poor – see, for example, (1800) Rules and regulations of the Society for Bettering the Condition of the Poor, at Clapham, Surrey (London), pp. 9, 13. 70. See Ruth McClure (1981) Coram’s children: the London Foundling Hospital in the eighteenth century (New Haven: Yale University Press); Levene, Childcare; Andrew, Philanthropy and police, pp. 57–65. 71. This was known as the General Reception, and lasted from June 1756 to March 1760. See Chapter 7. 72. James S. Taylor (1985) Jonas Hanway, founder of the Marine Society: charity and policy in eighteenth-century Britain (London: Scolar Press); R. W. W. Pietsch (2003) ‘Ships’ boys and charity in the mid-eighteenth century: the London Marine Society (1756–1772)’ (PhD thesis, Queen Mary, University of London); Lloyd, Charity and poverty, pp. 56–61, 195–204. 73. Both Andrew and Lloyd have used Hanway’s own stress on compassion alongside utility to illustrate a continuity in philanthropy between the first and second halves of the century. Andrew, Philanthropy and police, pp. 75–6 and 92–7, esp. 93; Lloyd, Charity and poverty, pp. 147–65. 74. Hanway, Earnest appeal, pp. 4–5. George quotes the parish of St Giles and St James in an SPCK report on the effects of founding workhouses under Knatchbull’s Act of 1723 to support the earlier move away from parish nursing: ‘[a]ll the poor children now kept at parish nurses, instead of being starv’d or misus’d by them, as is so much complained of, will be duly taken care of, and be bred up to Labour and Industry, Virtue and Religion’ (M. Dorothy George (1927) London life in the eighteenth century (Harmondsworth: Penguin), p. 216). 75. James S. Taylor, ‘The unreformed workhouse, 1776–1834’, in E. W. Martin (ed.) (1972) Comparative development in social welfare (London: Allen & Unwin), pp. 57–84. 76. Taylor, Jonas Hanway, pp. 102–17. 77. Levene, Childcare, pp. 90–117. 78. 2 Geo. III c. 22 and 7 Geo. III c. 39. Hanway, Earnest appeal, p. iv. The latter did not cover the 97 parishes of the City of London, or four other parishes in Middlesex and Surrey. Notes to Chapter 1 191

79. Hanway, Earnest appeal, p. iv; George, London life, pp. 58–60. See Chapters 3–5. 80. George, London life, p. 59. George also notes that some babies would have died in the country rather than in London, and also attributes the reduction partly to the reduction in gin drinking among the poor. 81. For example, John Welshman (1996) ‘In search of the “problem family”: public health and social work in England and Wales 1940–70’, Social History of Medicine, 9, 447–65; Alysa Levene (2006) ‘Family breakdown and the “welfare child” in 19th and 20th century Britain’, History of the Family, 11, 67–79. 82. Hanway, Candid historical account, p. 50. 83. Hanway, Earnest appeal, p. iv. 84. Hanway, Candid historical account, pp. 46–7. See also Bailey, Parenting in England, ch. 2 on the powerful cultural motif of childrearing as a spur to providing for one’s family. 85. Samuel Hartlib (1650) Londons charity inlarged, stilling the orphans cry (London), p. 10; Humanus (1773) Considerations on the present state of the poor in Great Britain, with some proposals for making the most effectual provisions for them (London), p. 4. See also Bailey, Parenting in England, chs 1 and 3. 86. David Davies (1796) The case of labourers in husbandry stated and considered (London), passim. 87. Humanus, Considerations, p. 4. Bailey also makes this point about family relationships and rural labourers (Parenting in England, ch. 2). 88. Bentham, ‘Pauper management improved’, p. 405. 89. Hanway referred to the elders of the parish in these terms: for example, Earnest appeal, p. 69. Taylor, ‘The unreformed workhouse’, p. 71. See also Naomi Tadmor (2001) Family and friends in eighteenth-century England: households, kinship and patronage (Cambridge University Press), pp. 157–8 for a discussion of the ‘immense cultural significance’ of the language of kinship, which ‘served as a matrix for diffusing models of kinship in many areas of life’. 90. Crawford, Parents of poor children, pp. 193–239, esp. 208–10. 91. Philip Barton (1736) The superiour excellency of charity: a sermon preach’d before the sons of the clergy at their anniversary-meeting in the cathedral church of St Paul, Thursday February 19, 1735 (London), p. 15. 92. Hanway, Candid historical account, p. 13. 93. Ibid., p. 15. 94. Green, Pauper capital, p. 82. There were more than 150 separate poor law authorities in London prior to the passing of the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834, and at least 51 local acts for poor relief in operation by 1795 (Green, Pauper capital, pp. 75–6). See also Vanessa Harding (1990) ‘The population of London, 1550–1700: a review of the published evidence’, London Journal, 15:2, 111–28 on the ambiguity about what constituted ‘London’. In this study a broad view is taken; much of the material reported is from the area within the Bills of Mortality, but it sometimes strays outside (for example to take in St Marylebone), where clear similarity of practice is observed within a wider metropolitan area. 95. www.londonlives.org/; www.oldbaileyonline.org/. 96. The data-collection phase of this study predated the launch of the London Lives website, but I am grateful to Tim Hitchcock for allowing me early access to the digitised data for St Thomas’ Hospital. 192 Notes to Chapter 1

97. See L. Beier and Roger Finlay, ‘Introduction: the significance of the metropolis’, in Beier and Finlay (eds) (1986) The making of the metropolis: London 1500–1700 (London and New York: Longman); E. A. Wrigley (1967) ‘A simple model of London’s importance in changing English society and economy 1650–1750’, Past & Present, 37, 44–9, noting that in 1750 London housed around 11 per cent of the national population, and one in six adults may have ‘had direct experience’ of life in the capital. Also John Landers (1993) Death and the metropolis: studies in the demographic history of London, 1670–1830 (Cambridge University Press). On socio-economic profile, see Jeremy Boulton, ‘The poor among the rich: paupers and the parish in the West End, 1600–1724’, in P. Griffiths and M. S. R. Jenner (eds) (2000) Londinopolis: Essays on the cultural and social history of early modern London (Manchester University Press), pp. 195–223; Leonard Schwarz (1992) London in the age of industrialisation: entrepreneurs, labour force and living conditions, 1700–1850 (Cambridge University Press), pp. 125–55; Schwarz, ‘Hanoverian London: the making of a service town’, in Peter Clark and Raymond Gillespie (eds) (2001) Two capitals: London and Dublin 1500–1840 (Oxford University Press), pp. 93–110; Peter Earle (1994) A city full of people: men and women of London, 1650–1750 (London: Methuen); E. A. Wrigley (1985) ‘Urban growth and agricultural change: England and the Continent in the early modern period’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 15:4, 683– 728; Andrew, Philanthropy and police. On poor relief see Green, Pauper capital. London only started to produce its own natural increase (rather than growing through immigration) in 1775 (Wrigley and Schofield, Population history, pp. 166–70, esp. 169). 98. Shore, Artful dodgers, p. 14. Shore’s emphasis is particularly on crime, but levels of indigence were high generally. Richard Smith finds that up to 8–9 per cent of people were in receipt of relief there (higher than elsewhere) (‘Charity, self-interest and welfare: reflections from demography and family history’, in M. Daunton (ed.) (1996) Charity, self-interest and welfare in the English past (London: Routledge), pp. 23–50). Schwarz calculates that two-thirds of London’s population were not liable for assessed taxes in the later eighteenth century, but this was much higher in some parts of the city (particularly the east and parts of the south) (L. D. Schwarz (1982) ‘Social class and social geography: the middle classes in London at the end of the eighteenth century’, Social History, 7:2, 167–85, esp. 169 and figure 3 on p. 175). 99. Green, Pauper capital. Early in the nineteenth century the capital housed one in six of all indoor paupers, and in Surrey and Kent the figure was one in three (pp. 38–41). 100. Andrew, Philanthropy and police. 101. Beier and Finlay, ‘Introduction’, p. 25. 102. A. James and A. Prout, ‘Introduction’, in James and Prout (eds) (1990) Constructing and reconstructing childhood: contemporary issues in the sociological study of childhood (Basingstoke: Macmillan), pp. 1–5; Sommerville, Rise and fall of childhood, pp. 10–20. The lack of appreciation of the social construction of childhood is one of the criticisms made of Philippe Ariès’ work. 103. See Lisa Petermann (2007) ‘From a cough to a coffin: the child’s medical encounter in England and France, 1762–1882’ (PhD thesis, University of Notes to Chapter 1 193

Warwick), pp. 26–62 for a fuller discussion of the different ways childhood was defined in the past. 104. Levene, ‘Parish apprenticeship’, 924–6. 105. Anna Davin (1996) Growing up poor: home, school and street in London, 1870–1914 (London: Rivers Oram Press), p. 4. Ragged Schools for the poor emerged in the 1840s, but were not compulsory to attend. Crawford uses the same spirit of definition, taking the point of parish apprenticeship to denote the start of adolescence (although this could sometimes be as young as seven) (Crawford, Parents of poor children, pp. 136–7). 106. Kirby, Child labour. The average age at starting work for working-class autobiographers born between 1627 and 1790 was 12, falling to 10 for those born 1791–1820 (Humphries, Childhood and child labour, pp. 175–7, see also 173–5). 107. The average age at leaving home was around 14, although with considerable variation (Richard Wall (1978) ‘The age at leaving home’, Journal of Family History, 3:2, 191–202). 108. Gottlieb, The family in the Western world, pp. 154–8; Petermann, ‘From a cough to a coffin’, pp. 26–62, particularly noting the significance of mul- tiples of the age seven in dentition – a physical sign of development. The terms of the vagrancy laws did not apply to under-sevens, although Slack has found children under 15 (both alone and with parent/s) in vagrancy records for the seventeenth century (Richard Burn (1764) The history of the poor laws: with observations (London), p. 43, and also pp. 33 and 57); P. A. Slack (1974) ‘Vagrants and vagrancy in England, 1598–1664’, Economic History Review, 27:3, 360–79. 109. Shore, Artful dodgers. For example, seven-year-old Eliza Jones was asked during an 1809 case if she knew the catechism before confirming whether it was ‘a bad thing, or a good thing to tell a lie’. She made the correct reply and was allowed to proceed (Old Bailey Proceedings Online, www. oldbaileyonline.org, version 6.0, 8 June 2011, February 1809, trial of SUSANNAH HARWOOD (t18090215-103)). In the 1821 trial of Mary Ford for kidnapping a five-year-old child, another child was called as a witness, ‘but on examining her, she did not appear to understand the nature of an oath, and was not examined’ (Old Bailey Proceedings Online, 21 April 2011, September 1821, trial of MARY FORD (t18210912-114)). 110. Richard Burn (1837) The Justice of the Peace, 28th edn, vol. V, pp. 340, 318, 146–7. 111. Joanna Innes, ‘Origins of the Factory Acts: the Health and Morals of Apprentices Act, 1802’, in Norma Landau (ed.) (2001) Law, crime and English society, 1660–1830 (Cambridge University Press), pp. 30–55. See Chapter 6 on age-segregated accommodation in workhouses. 112. The period of ‘youth’ has been comparatively little studied by historians; exceptions are Paul Griffiths (1996) Youth and authority: formative experiences in England, 1560–1640 (Oxford University Press); Ilana Krausman Ben-Amos (1994) Adolescence and youth in early modern England (New Haven: Yale University Press), and John R. Gillis (1981) Youth and history: tradition and change in European age relations, 1770 – present (New York: Academic Press). None specifically consider the poorer sorts. Gillis does note, however, that physical maturity came later in the past, and that youths might remain 194 Notes to Chapter 2

in a semi-dependent state into their twenties (Youth and history, pp. 6–7, 16–27). 113. Green, Pauper capital, p. 28. See also Himmelfarb, The idea of poverty, pp. 77–8. The ‘conjunctural’ or potentially poor were approximately 20 per cent of the early modern community; those actually on relief were about 5 per cent. There is evidence that the former group was growing in size while the latter was shrinking over the early modern period (Hindle, On the parish?, p. 4; Slack, Poverty and policy, p. 53). 114. Slack, Poverty and policy, p. 53. 115. Schwarz, London, p. 50, based on figures from the east London occupational census of 1813. The figures have been corrected for seasonality. 116. Barry Stapleton (1993) ‘Inherited poverty and life-cycle poverty: Odiham, Hampshire, 1650–1850’, Social History, 18:3, 339–55. 117. Lees, Solidarities, p. 15. According to Hindle at least up to the end of the seventeenth century, and perhaps longer, parish relief was not enough to support a family (On the parish?, p. 4). 118. Tomkins, Experience of urban poverty, pp. 42–56, 84–6. See Chapters 7 and 8. 119. K. D. M. Snell (2006) Parish and belonging: community, identity and welfare in England and Wales, 1700–1950 (Cambridge University Press), pp. 96–114. 120. See Tim Hitchcock (2004) Down and out in eighteenth-century London (London: Hambledon and London). 121. See notes 5 and 30. On education also see Owen, English philanthropy, pp. 23–35; the contributors to Mary Hilton and Jill Shefrin (eds) (2009) Educating the child in Enlightenment Britain: beliefs, cultures, practices (Farnham: Ashgate); George, London life, pp. 217–20. 122. The Old Bailey Online is an excellent way to produce quantitative information on child victims or those accused of crime. However, it is much harder to build in the appearance of child witnesses which is equally worthy of study, and children brought to trial under the age of 13 are relatively rare – a maximum of six per decade up to the 1780s, and rising only to 184 in the 1810s (Old Bailey Proceedings Online). For a partly quantitative study based on autobiography see Humphries, Childhood and child labour. However, these sources are rare for the eighteenth century and are heavily skewed towards males. 123. All examples from St Mary Lambeth, List of children at Norwood nursery, 1810–21, LMA, P85 MRY1 323.

2 Poor Children and their Families

1. According to Hindle, ‘Having more children at home “than was needful” for them ... evidently rendered the poor vulnerable to the disciplinary sanctions of the civil parish’ (On the parish?, p. 226). On the history of the family see, especially, Peter Laslett (1965) The world we have lost (London: Methuen) (and later revised editions); Richard Wall, ‘Mean household size in England from printed sources’, in Peter Laslett with Richard Wall (eds) (1972) Household and family in past time (Cambridge University Press), Notes to Chapter 2 195

pp. 159–203; Richard Wall, Jean Robin and Peter Laslett (eds) (1983) Family forms in historic Europe (Cambridge University Press); R. M. Smith (1981) ‘Fertility, economy and household formation in England over three centuries’, Population and Development Review, 7, 595–621; Keith Wrightson, ‘The family in early modern England: continuity and change’, in S. Taylor, Richard Connors and Clyve Jones (eds) (1998) Hanoverian Britain and Empire: essays in memory of Philip Lawson (Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer), pp. 1–22. Laslett and Slack have both found some evidence for poor households being smaller than gentry ones, but taking a broader view of poverty (based on liability to pay tax), Slack finds that poor households become larger (Peter Laslett, ‘Mean household size in England since the sixteenth century’, in Laslett with Wall, Household and family, pp. 125–58; Slack, Poverty and policy, pp. 76–7). 2. David Kent (1990) ‘“Gone for a soldier”: family breakdown and the demography of desertion in a London parish, 1750–91’, Local Population Studies, 45, 27–42; Pamela Sharpe (1990) ‘Marital separation in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries’, Local Population Studies, 45, 66–70; Jeremy Boulton (2001) ‘“It is extreme necessity that makes me do this”: some “survival strategies” of pauper households in London’s West End during the early eighteenth century’, International Review of Social History, Supplement 9, 47–69. On the importance of the breadwinner wage in the eighteenth century and its fragility, see Humphries, Childhood and child labour, pp. 96–7. 3. Crawford, Parents of poor children, p. 17. 4. See Wales, ‘Poverty’; Stapleton, ‘Inherited poverty’. This is closely connected with the notion of ‘nuclear hardship’ and the availability of co-resident kin (see Peter Laslett (1988) ‘Family, kinship and collectivity as systems of support in pre-industrial Europe: a consideration of the nuclear hardship hypothesis’, Continuity and Change, 3, 153–75). 5. Susannah Ottaway (2004) The decline of life: old age in eighteenth-century England (Cambridge University Press); Lynn Botelho (2004) Old age and the English poor law, 1500–1700 (Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer); Richard M. Smith, ‘Ageing and well-being in early modern England: pension trends and gender preferences under the English Old Poor Law c.1650–1800’, in Paul Johnson and Pat Thane (eds) (1998) Old age from antiquity to post- modernity (London: Routledge), pp. 64–95. 6. Stapleton, ‘Inherited poverty’. 7. Wall, ‘The age at leaving home’; Richard Wall (1987) ‘Leaving home and the process of household formation in pre-industrial England’, Continuity and Change, 2:1, 77–101. On the relationship between age, leaving home and work, see Michael Anderson, ‘Family, household and the industrial revolution’, in Michael Gordon (ed.) (1978) The American family in social-historical perspective, 2nd edn (New York: St Martin’s Press), pp. 38–50; Humphries, Childhood and child labour, pp. 73–80. 8. The household is usually taken to refer to all those living in a social or productive unit, including people who were not related by blood, like lodg- ers, servants and apprentices. See Peter Laslett, ‘Introduction’, in Laslett with Wall, Household and family, pp. 23–8. The results reported here are not exactly comparable to demographic measures of completed family size either, since they cannot reliably account for children who were no longer 196 Notes to Chapter 2

dependent on the parents making the application for relief, or who had already died. 9. G. S Holmes (1977) ‘Gregory King and the social structure of pre-industrial England’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th series, 27, 41–68. 10. P. E. Jones and A. V. Judges (1935–36) ‘London’s population in the later C17th’, Economic History Review, 1st series, 6, 53. The inner parishes had average household sizes of 6 people, and the outer, 5. The national average was 4.75 (Laslett, ‘Mean household size’, p. 126). See also Harding, ‘The population of London’. 11. Wrigley, ‘A simple model’, p. 53. 12. The age at marriage was 20.5, with immigrant brides up to four years older (Vivien Brodsky Elliott, ‘Single women in the London marriage market: age, status and mobility, 1598–1619’, in R. B. Outhwaite (ed.) (1981) Marriage and society: studies in the social history of marriage (New York: St Martin’s Press), pp. 86–7). Richard Wall, ‘Regional and temporal variations in English household structure from 1650’, in John Hobcraft and Philip Rees (eds) (1979) Regional demographic development (London: Croom Helm), pp. 101–3. Figures for the late seventeenth century show a mean of 1.2 children per household compared with up to 2 in other parts of England (p. 103). 13. Jeremy Boulton (1987) Neighbourhood and society: a London suburb in the seventeenth century (Cambridge University Press), pp. 122–7. Overall averages for household sizes were small here: 3.8 persons, but it was 3.1 among the poor, who were more likely to live as solitaries. The average number of children per house among households with children was 2.3. Schwarz also finds evidence of small proportions of children in eighteenth-century London (Schwarz, ‘Hanoverian London’, pp. 104–6). 14. Mark Merry and Philip Baker (2009) ‘“For a house her self and one servant”: family and household in late seventeenth-century London’, The London Journal, 34:3, 205. Also see Vanessa Harding (2007) ‘Families and housing in seventeenth-century London’, Parergon, 24:2, 115–38. This arises from the University of London/University of Cambridge project on ‘People in place: families, households and housing in early modern London’ (www.history. ac.uk/cmh/pip/index.html). In particular, it examines ‘housefuls’ as well as ‘households’. 15. Studies using these documents to discuss adult poverty include: K. D. M. Snell (1985) Annals of the labouring poor: social change and agrarian England, 1660– 1900 (Cambridge University Press); N. Landau (1988) ‘The laws of settlement and the surveillance of immigration in eighteenth-century Kent’, Continuity and Change, 3:3, 391–420; K. D. M. Snell (1991) ‘Pauper settlement and the right to poor relief in England and Wales’, Continuity and Change, 6:3, 384–99; N. Landau (1991) ‘The eighteenth-century context of the laws of settlement’, Continuity and Change, 6:3, 417–39; N. Landau (1996) ‘Who was subjected to the laws of settlement? Procedure under the settlement laws in eighteenth-century England’, Agricultural History Review, 43:11, 139–59. 16. A completed apprenticeship or a year’s continuous service were the only way a child could gain a new settlement in their own right. If their (legitimate) father gained a settlement elsewhere it would apply to the whole family, but children did not adopt their mother’s new settlement upon a remarriage. Taylor, Poverty. Notes to Chapter 2 197

17. Levene, ‘Poor families’; see Lees, Solidarities, pp. 30–1 on the process of taking a settlement examination. 18. This was done by linking settlement examinations to removal orders, which were made for non-settled paupers in need of assistance from the parish. See Levene, ‘Poor families’. After 1795 it was only those actually in need of relief who were liable to examination and removal. Also see the debates between Landau and Snell cited in note 15. 19. Taylor, Poverty, p. 50. This also depended on local property values and thus rental potential (Green, Pauper capital, p. 56). 20. All population figures for this year are from ‘Table of population 1801–1901’, by George S. Minchin, in William Page (ed.) (1911) The Victoria county history of Middlesex, 12 vols (London: Constable), vol. 2, pp. 112–20. 21. Thanks to Tracey Bassett for carrying out the counting and classify- ing exercise. The data are those contained in two complete volumes of settlement examinations (digitised as part of the Archive CD Books/Parish Records Series). The originals are held at COWAC, under reference STM/ F/1/5028. They are also now available as transcriptions at www.londonlives. org/index.jsp. 22. Tanya Evans (2005) ‘Unfortunate objects’: lone mothers in eighteenth-century London (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan); see also the contributions to A. Levene, T. Nutt and S. Williams (eds) (2005) Illegitimacy in Britain, 1700– 1920 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan). 23. There were 879 adults in the sample, based on the data on family size shown in Tables 2.1 and 2.2. There were 389 children. Precise comparison is difficult because of the way the data are expressed. Around 1730, children under 10 made up 17.4 per cent of the population in London; 10–19-year-olds formed 67.5 per cent (Landers, Death and the metropolis, pp. 180–3). National figures are expressed differently, but at a similar period the under-5s comprised 13.5 per cent of the national population, and 5–14-year-olds 19.0 per cent (figures are for 1736 and based on aggregative back projection using fixed population schedules, from Wrigley and Schofield, Population history, p. 529). This would equate to approximately 50 per cent for those aged 0–13. For London’s demographic profile more generally see ibid., pp. 166–70. 24. In 1831, 16 per cent of female inhabitants of St Martin’s were servants, the first census which recorded information on occupation. This was significantly higher than that found in some of the other parishes studied here. Census enumeration abstract, Part 1, PP 1833. See note 35. 25. These patterns are paralleled across the total set of examinations (that is, including those without children). Half of the total concerned single women, but of these 48.9 per cent (112) were widows, 28.8 per cent (66) were unmarried, 17.5 per cent (40) were deserted and 4.8 per cent (11) were married but without their husbands at the time of the examination. 26. Snell, Annals, pp. 360–1; Humphries, Childhood and child labour, p. 55. There were 89 autobiographies in this part of the sample, and the analysis also reveals some variations in family size by the father’s occupation. Significantly for the current study, it was agricultural families, along with those in mining and domestic manufacture, which had the largest families, while those in the ‘casual’, ‘trade’ and ‘service’ categories – those probably most akin to the families studied here – were below average (pp. 56–7). 198 Notes to Chapter 2

27. Snell, Annals, pp. 359–64. The average number of children in families where the mother had been abandoned in the eighteenth century was 2.10 for the period 1751–80, and 2.30 for 1781–1800. In both cases the average was still higher than that found here. See pp. 56–7 for a correction to make these figures more comparable to mean completed family sizes. 28. Joanne Bailey (2003) Unquiet lives: marriage and marriage breakdown in England, 1660–1800 (Cambridge University Press), pp. 36–8, 170–8. Desertion was the cause of 608 of 1582 cases of marital break-up (Appendix 1, p. 207). 29. Widowed mothers had an average of 2.3 children each; deserted mothers 2.1. 30. This distinction is examined further by Humphries (Childhood and child labour, pp. 56–7). She explains that there is a difference between the average number of children borne by a group of women and the average sibling group of the children of those women because ‘[w]omen contribute equally to the former while women with large families contribute disproportionately to the latter’ (p. 56). 31. As noted above, larger families sometimes also included children over the age of 13, but they have not been counted in these calculations because of the increased chance that they were no longer dependent on their parent/s. They were in any case small in number: only 13 out of a total of 402 aged 16 or under. 32. R. B. Outhwaite (1999) ‘“Objects of charity”: petitions to the London Foundling Hospital, 1768–72’, Eighteenth Century Studies, 32:4, 497–510; R. Trumbach (1998) Sex and the gender revolution: heterosexuality and the third gender in Enlightenment London (Chicago University Press), pp. 240–3, 280–2. Those with least resources may have turned to their families before the birth of the child. They would not be captured here, since the focus is on people with children already born. 33. The population of St Clement’s had risen to 15,442 in 1831, and of St Luke’s to 32,371. Census enumeration abstract, Part 1, PP, 1833. For 1801 see note 20. For more details on the socio-economic profile of the parish, and the implications that this had for settlement and removal, see Levene, ‘Poor families’, and John Black, ‘Who were the putative fathers of illegitimate children in London, 1740–1810?’, in Levene et al., Illegitimacy, pp. 50–65. 34. These differences are addressed in greater detail in Levene, ‘Poor families’. The St Luke’s data include removals both in and out of the parish. That for St Clement’s consists almost entirely of removals from the parish. They are based on registers of removals which were then linked to settlement examinations to provide more details on family composition. 35. In St Luke’s 10.4 per cent of female inhabitants were servants in 1831. For St Martin’s see note 24 (Census enumeration abstract, Part 1, PP 1833). Less than 16 per cent of the single mothers in the St Luke’s dataset were unmarried. 36. Wrigley et al., Population history, pp. 228–57, 265–9; Wall, ‘Regional and temporal variations’, p. 90. 37. Crawford singles out unmarried mothers, who were ‘paradoxically’ always supported despite being disapproved of (Parents of poor children, p. 67); Humphries draws attention to widows as being particularly deserving Notes to Chapter 2 199

(Childhood and child labour, pp. 68–72). Fissell finds that broken families, the elderly and unwed mothers got the lion’s share of relief in Bristol parishes, too: together nearly half of all relief recipients, and accounting for 75 per cent of the money disbursed (Mary E. Fissell (1981) Patients, power and the poor in eighteenth-century Bristol (Cambridge University Press), pp. 98–9). 38. See Trumbach, Sex and the gender revolution, pp. 232–75 on the differences in the character of illegitimacy in different London parishes. 39. This bequest was made by William Hickes, and it also supported some boys after the end of the Seven Years War. Taylor, Jonas Hanway, pp. 96–9. On the boys, see Pietsch, ‘Ships’ boys’, p. 257. 40. Marine Society Register of Poor Girls Placed Out Apprentice, NMM MSY/T/1; 24 of the placements had no date recorded. The largest single number bound in one year was 27 in 1771 (the first year with information) but the annual average was 7, and no records were made of any bindings between 1777 and 1782. 41. A mother only was mentioned in 33 cases, and a further 22 stated specifically that the mother was widowed. In another two cases the father was described as either dead or widowed, respectively, and in 13 the relative was someone other than a parent. In total, 16 girls were described as orphans. 42. More skilled trades included a goldbeater, a chair maker and a schoolmaster. 43. The remainder had no information, or were labelled as ‘never out’ or ‘at home’. The Society typically bound the girls to skilled or semi-skilled manu- facturing trades like mantua making or millinery. The employments used were all distinctively female (also including stay making, embroidery, book binding and tambour working). 44. There is no evidence in the registers of how many other applications were rejected, or why. All those listed include details of where the girl was placed as an apprentice. 45. P. King, ‘Destitution, desperation and delinquency: female petitions to the London Refuge for the Destitute 1805–1830’, in A. Gestrich, S. King and L. Raphael (eds) (2006) Being poor in modern Europe: institutions, surveillance and experiences (Oxford: Lang), pp. 157–78. See also P. King, ‘Introduction’, in King, Institutional responses: the refuge for the destitute, in A. Levene (general ed.) (2006) Narratives of the poor in eighteenth-century Britain, 5 vols (London: Pickering and Chatto), vol. 4, pp. vii–xxviii. The applicants’ details were taken as part of a narrative life history, but one which was potentially skewed by the charity official’s questioning and recording as well as the desire to fulfil its model of transgressive but penitent ‘object’. 46. King, Institutional responses, No. 25, p. 88, 23 December 1812. 47. Ibid., No. 30, p. 91, 3 February 1813. 48. Ibid., No. 22, p. 87, 9 December 1812. 49. Ibid., No. 160, p. 152, 14 January 1815. 50. See Chapter 1. This was out of a total of around 18,500 babies and young children who were admitted to the Hospital between its opening in 1741 and the end of the century. 51. For example, D. Kertzer (1993) Sacrificed for honor: Italian infant abandonment and the politics of reproductive control (Boston: Beacon Press); P. P. Viazzo, A. Zanotto and M. Bortolotto, ‘Five centuries of foundling history in 200 Notes to Chapter 2

Florence’, in C. Panter-Brick and M. T. Smith (eds) (2000) Abandoned children (Cambridge University Press), pp. 70–91; J. Boswell (1988) The kindness of strangers: the abandonment of children in western Europe from late antiquity to the Renaissance (New York: Pantheon Books). George characterises foundlings as being held in particularly cheap regard by parish officers in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries (London life, pp. 213–15). 52. V. Fildes, ‘Maternal feelings re-assessed: child abandonment and neglect in London and Westminster, 1550–1800’, in Fildes (ed.) (1990) Women as mothers in pre-industrial England (London: Routledge), pp. 140–68. Dasgupta has largely reinforced this point for several City parishes in the seventeenth century (Dasgupta, ‘Poverty’, pp. 276–7, 79–80); however, Griffiths finds a rise in the numbers of foundlings mentioned in the records of Bridewell after 1620 (Paul Griffiths (2008) Lost Londons: change, crime and control in the capital city, 1550–1660 (Cambridge University Press), pp. 61–5). 53. V. Pearl, ‘Social policy in early modern London’, in H. Lloyd Jones, V. Pearl and B. Worden (eds) (1981) History and imagination: essays in honour of H. R. Trevor-Roper (London: Duckworth), p. 126. Griffiths also highlights the efforts parishes went to to find the mothers of abandoned babies, if necessary paying for examinations, warrants and court fees to prosecute them (Lost Londons, pp. 379–80, 397). 54. R. Adair (1996) Courtship, illegitimacy and marriage in early modern England (Manchester University Press), pp. 190–1; see also Chapter 1. 55. Alysa Levene, ‘The mortality penalty of illegitimate children: foundlings and poor children in eighteenth-century England’, in Levene et al., Illegitimacy, p. 37. The term ‘casual’ is ambiguous as far as children are concerned, and it would be necessary to link cases to other parish records to establish whether parents were with them. It is also possible that high rates of neonatal mortality meant that other abandoned children are not recorded in these registers. 56. St Botolph without Aldgate, Minute Book of the Guardians of the Parish Poor Children, 1767–1803, GL, MS 2690/1; St Botolph Aldersgate Guardians Visiting Book 1805–11, GL, MS 2689; St Dunstan in the West, Minute Book of the Committee of the Guardians of Poor Children, 1789–1806, GL, MS 2985. 57. St Dunstan in the West Minute Book, 22 April 1793; St Clement Danes Minutes of Assistants, 1779–98, COWAC, B1147, microfilm 394, 5 July 1808, 12 July 1808, 14 December 1808. 58. Levene, ‘Poor families’. 59. Quoted by B. Weisbrod (1985) ‘How to become a good foundling in early Victorian London’, Social History, 10, 206. 60. Green, Pauper capital, esp. pp. 18–20. One of the clearest examples was the use of specialist and separate provision for certain groups of paupers – including children. 61. Kertzer, Sacrificed for honor. 62. Humphries, Childhood and child labour, pp. 73–80. See also Chapter 8. 63. It should be stressed that abandonment did not necessarily equate with indifference either in this period or earlier; in fact notes left with babies at the Foundling Hospital indicate that many parents gave their children up with extreme reluctance and distress. Evans, ‘Unfortunate objects’, pp. 127–44. Notes to Chapter 2 201

64. Roger Finlay and Beatrice Shearer, ‘Population growth and suburban expansion’, in Beier and Finlay, The making of the metropolis, p. 51. Van Poppel finds that step-parents could alleviate the risks of poor health and social isolation after the death of a parent, but that they did bring the risk of differential neglect compared to the new parent’s own children (Frans van Poppel (2000) ‘Children in one-parent families: survival as an indicator of the role of the parents’, Journal of Family History, 25, 277–8). Also see Crawford, Parents of poor children, pp. 173–9, and Chapter 8 in this book. 65. See, for example, King, Institutional responses, No. 52, p. 101, 28 July 1813 (Frances Weatherall); No. 63, p. 107, 6 October 1813 (Elizabeth Day); No. 72, p. 112, 10 November 1813 (Sarah Brown). 66. St Clement Danes settlement examination, COWAC, B1184 (microfilm 2277), Elizabeth Davis, taken 27 June 1777. 67. Humphries, Childhood and child labour, p. 163. Also Crawford, Parents of poor children, pp. 122–4. 68. E. Blunden (1923) Christ’s Hospital: a retrospect (London: Christophers). Being a member of a Company did not necessarily equate with wealth, but it is an indicator of status and required a not insubstantial investment in the freedom itself. 69. Christ’s Hospital Presentation Papers, 1705–1805, GL, 12818A. A full year’s presentations for successful admissions were transcribed, for every tenth year between 1705 and 1805. Unsuccessful presentations are not preserved with any regularity, and it is impossible to know the grounds for rejection beyond the age of the child or the parent being in receipt of poor relief. It is possible that some of the widow/ers had remarried but that this was not recorded. 70. However, the average length of a marriage in early modern London has been estimated at only ten years because of the high risk of widowing (Earle, A city full of people, p. 162). 71. Friends or relatives petitioning on behalf of the child have not been included in this count, since the loss of their own partner was less likely to be the trigger for the application unless they were actually caring for the child. This will be explored further in Chapter 8. 72. It was somewhat lower in petitions made by friends or guardians, which probably arose as a result of the parents’ death. 73. Among widowers, 15 per cent pleaded poverty compared with 85 per cent of widows and 82 per cent of the non-widowed. 74. Almost all of these cases were written after 1785, although this could also reflect a change in the information recorded. The average was probably drawn up by a small number of male petitioners with nine or more children (seven cases). 75. Alysa Levene, ‘Charity apprenticeship and the building of social capital in eighteenth-century England’, in N. Goose and K. Honeyman (eds) (2012) Children and childhood in Britain, c. 1650–1900 (Aldershot: Ashgate). 76. Peter Laslett, ‘Parental deprivation in the past: a note on orphans and step- parenthood in English history’, in Laslett (ed.) (1977) Family life and illicit love in earlier generations (Cambridge University Press), pp. 160–73. The upper figure includes some servants. In the community of Ardleigh in 1796 7.7 per cent of 0–3-year-olds were resident orphans, and 9.5 per cent of 0–5s. 202 Notes to Chapter 3

77. Of the 617 autobiographers in her sample (all male), 14.3 per cent were without their mother in childhood, almost all because she had died; 25.9 per cent were without a father, 18.2 per cent because of their death. In total, 28.2 per cent of writers who gave information on both parents had lost one or both by the age of 14 (Humphries, Childhood and child labour, pp. 61–8). She finds that this reflects findings in other studies including microsimula- tions based on fixed population schedules. 78. Kent, ‘“Gone for a soldier”’; Sharpe, ‘Marital separation’. 79. Colin Pooley and Jean Turnbull (1998) Migration and mobility: Britain since the eighteenth century (London: UCL Press), pp. 109–12, 161–6. 80. See Davenport et al., ‘The decline of adult smallpox’. 81. Humphries, Childhood and child labour, pp. 67–72. 82. Widowers had higher rates of remarriage than widows. Wrigley et al. have found that a woman with three or more dependent children took twice as long to remarry as those without young children, regardless of her age at bereavement (Population History, pp. 177–8). 83. Crawford, Parents of poor children, passim. 84. Peter Laslett (1969) ‘Size and structure of the household in England over three centuries’, Population Studies, 23, 199–223. Earle suggests a similar average figure for London marriages in the eighteenth century (A city full of people, p. 163). 85. Report from the Select Committee on the Poor Laws, 1817, p. 13. However, Snell notes that families needed to have three or more children in order to be eligible for family allowances, although this was particularly a feature of responses to rural poverty (Annals, p. 358). 86. Stapleton, ‘Inherited poverty’. 87. Snell calculates that men aged around 34 with 2.1 to 2.6 children under eight were most at risk of becoming chargeable to the parish rates in south- eastern rural parishes around this time (Annals, p. 358). Crawford also suggests that by the time parents were in their early-to-mid-30s the family could be in ‘serious poverty’ (Parents of poor children, p. 150). This also fits with Rowntree’s findings for late nineteenth-century York (B. Seebohm Rowntree (2000) Poverty: a study of town life, centennial edition (Bristol: Policy Press)). See Chapter 6 for further discussion of the workhouse population. 88. Evans, ‘Unfortunate objects’; Outhwaite, ‘“Objects of charity”’. 89. For example, an enriched reconstitution, as King has carried out for Calverley. See Steve King (1997) ‘”Dying with style”: infant death and its context in a rural industrial township, 1650–1830’, Social History of Medicine, 20:1, 3–24. 90. Both Bailey and Stapleton find evidence of greater levels of marital separation and family hardship in the later decades of the century which affected areas outside London. Bailey, Unquiet lives, pp. 174–8; Stapleton, ‘Inherited poverty’.

3 The Development of Parish Nursing

1. Hanway, Candid historical account, p. 85. 2. Jeremy Boulton (2007) ‘Welfare systems and the parish nurse in early modern London, 1650–1725’, Family & Community History, 10:2, 127–51. Notes to Chapter 3 203

3. George, London life, p. 58. 4. Hanway, Earnest appeal, p. 8. 5. Hanway stated this aim for the 1762 Act in his Earnest appeal, p. 14. See also George, London life, p. 58. 6. This was cited by Hanway in his Candid historical account, p. 17. 7. Quoted by George, London life, p. 215. 8. Alysa Levene (2005) ‘The estimation of mortality at the London Foundling Hospital, 1741–99’, Population Studies, 59:1, 89–99 and references. Most of these other institutions did not screen their infants for ill health as the London Foundling Hospital did outside the General Reception. 9. Levene, Childcare, pp. 91–4. On private nursing by London families see Gillian Clark (1988) ‘The nurse children of London, 1540–1750: a population study’ (PhD thesis, University of Reading). 10. George, London life, p. 59. Jeremy Bentham was also later to emphasise the importance of giving nurses a stake in successfully raising their charges (‘Pauper management improved’, pp. 381, 391). Hanway’s recommendation was for a premium of ten shillings, again, like practice at the Foundling Hospital. His preference had also been for more distant placements – at least ten miles from London. Children not nursed by their mothers were also to be sent five miles or further, rather than three (Taylor, Jonas Hanway, pp. 112–13, 116). 11. For Hanway’s criticisms of the General Reception period, see Candid historical account, pp. 24–7. 12. Taylor, Jonas Hanway, pp. 12–13; Jonas Hanway (1767) Letters to the guardians of the infant poor to be appointed by the Act of the last session of Parliament (London), pp. 46–54. 13. Clark, ‘The nurse children’, pp. 233–5. In 1556, 150 infants were being nursed in the country, but after 1674 no children under seven were admitted (p. 243). See also Marjorie K. McIntosh, ‘Networks of care in Elizabethan English towns: the example of Hadleigh, Suffolk’, in P. Horden and R. Smith (eds) (1998) The locus of care: families, communities, institutions and the provision of welfare since antiquity (London: Routledge), pp. 77–85, and Valerie Fildes (1988) ‘The English wet-nurse and her role in infant care, 1538–1800’, Medical History, 32, 142–73. 14. Anon. (1787) An account of the General Nursery; an appeal to the governors of the Foundling Hospital on the probable consequences of covering the Hospital lands with buildings (London), p. 4. 15. Samantha Williams, ‘Caring for the sick poor: poor law nurses in Bedfordshire, c. 1770–1834’, in Penelope Lane, Neil Raven and K. D. M. Snell (eds) (2004) Women, work and wages in England, 1600–1850 (Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer), pp. 141–69. 16. St Martin in the Fields, List of Extraordinary Poor and Orphans, 1716, COWAC, F4539, microfilm 1853. Ages were not always recorded with clarity: 31, for example, probably meant 31 days. Only ages which were unambigu- ously of children were used to calculate the average. Only 5 of the 30 nurse- children with unambiguous ages were five or under; 57 per cent of those on the list were girls although it is impossible to tell whether this reflected a preference for keeping boys by relatives, or a chance result of the conditions of parental death. See Chapter 7 for more on this source. 204 Notes to Chapter 3

17. Three were definitely in Mayfair, Westminster. 18. St Martin in the Fields Orphan Register, 1721, COWAC, F4313, microfilm 1851. There were fewer ambiguous ages in this list. The sex ratio of the children listed was almost even: 52 per cent were female. 19. St Clement Danes Payments to Monthly Pensioners and Nurses, 1719–21, COWAC, B1233, microfilm 408. 20. St Clement Danes ‘Payment for nursing of children, Anno 1719’, COWAC, B1233. 21. St Clement Danes Vestry Minutes, 1715–21, COWAC, B1063, microfilm 275. 22. St Stephen Coleman Street, Account of Children and Nurses, 1695–1729, GL, MS 4468. The term ‘permanent paupers’ probably refers to those receiving regular relief. Of these, 26 were outside the house, and 15 within. Abstract of the returns made pursuant to an Act … intituled, ‘An Act for procuring Returns relative to the Expense and Maintenance of the Poor in England’ (PP, 1804). 23. Five had the surname ‘Coleman’, which strongly suggests that they were foundlings, and another two were marked ‘found’. It was common to name abandoned children after the parish (or street, or location) where they were discovered. 24. George, London life, p. 216. 25. The case of the parish of St James Westminster, p. 3. 26. Hanway, Earnest appeal, p. 68. St Martin in the Fields was Hanway’s own parish, and he received encouragement in his endeavours from the Earl of Shaftesbury, who was interested in St George Hanover Square. This may explain the early adoption of the new methods of childcare in these parishes (Earnest appeal, p. 64). 27. Ibid., p. 137. 28. Ibid., pp. 137–8. 29. See www.londonlives.org/static/ParishNurses.jsp (accessed 25 August 2010). 30. Hanway, Earnest appeal, pp. 34–5. St George Hanover Square paid the highest rate; both lowest and highest were paid by St James Westminster, presumably for different types of children or different locations. Some parishes stated that they were finding it hard to recruit enough nurses. 31. Ibid., pp. 22, 25. 32. Ibid., pp. 29–30; 22 per cent of the Westminster children sent to the country died, compared with 34 per cent from Middlesex and Surrey. 33. Ibid., p. 20. 34. For example, in St Luke Middlesex. Ibid., pp. 54–5. Failure to file a return brought a fine, but the record itself could scarcely be checked against the reality. 35. It is also often hard to tell if a child was temporarily discharged to parents and then returned to parish care. The linkage exercise was carried out by giving every separate entry an identification number, and then compiling them into a master list which could be alphabetised to locate repeat entries for the same child. These were then cross-referenced by a unique master ID so that each child’s complete record could be linked together. This was the process followed for each of the parishes analysed here. 36. For an exception see Levene, ‘The mortality penalty’. 37. These are the years covered by surviving Annual Registers. Other records, such as those on the nursery at Enfield commented on below, make it clear Notes to Chapter 3 205

that external nursing did continue beyond these years, albeit at least partially in a different form. 38. Of these, 610 had more than one entry, although 38 of these were changes of nurse/location in the same year rather than being duplicates; 698 were with a nurse at some stage. 39. St Martin’s had a population of 25,752 in 1801; St Clement’s of 12,861 (‘Table of population’: see Chapter 2, note 20). 40. The annual returns for St Martin’s continue after this date. 41. St Martin in the Fields, Guardians of the Poor Minutes, 1767–1812, COWAC, F2100, microfilm 1768, 10 December 1779. 42. In St Martin’s, 47 per cent of children in the registers were female; in St Clement’s 49. 43. The two series showed a positive correlation of 0.602, which was significant at a 99 per cent level of certainty. 44. Three-quarters compared with 35 per cent in St Martin’s. 45. Double entries of the same child in the same year have been removed. A child returning some time later is treated as a new entry for counting purposes. 46. St Martin in the Fields, List of Parish Poor Children with Names and Addresses of Nurses, 1779–95, COWAC, F4327–36, microfilms 1851–2. These records were stated to be kept according to the terms of the 1767 Act. Ages are not recorded, and data are missing for 1791. 47. This should not be due to accounting differences; in both cases the child had to appear twice in two separate years to be counted twice. 48. The proportion of children spending only one year on the parish’s nursing rolls for St Clement’s was even higher for the whole dataset (including those not sent to nurses): over half. As already noted, however, the figure for the nurse-children includes time spent at the workhouse as well. 49. In the St Clement’s registers, 148 children were marked as bastards and 26 as foundlings, although many of the other children in the register were also illegitimate (3 were recorded variously as bastards or foundlings in different years). The foundlings were only just over a year old on average, and a higher proportion were under six months than would be expected from their presence as a part of this sub-group. If they, the illegitimates and the children marked as ‘casualties’ (probably the casual or occasional poor) were all born out of wedlock this would represent 14.5 per cent of all children in the register; significantly higher than illegitimacy rates calculated for London or elsewhere. All three categories were bracketed together in the registers. See Laslett, ‘Introduction’; Wilson, ‘Illegitimacy’. 50. See Levene, ‘The mortality penalty’. 51. This also includes the small number of casualty children (see note 49). 52. The St Clement’s children who were not sent out to nurses at all had a much lower death toll of only 4.8 per cent, suggesting that they were not held back because they were ill. It is impossible to know what the impact of the lack of precision in this dataset was: children returned from nurses were probably somewhat older and so less at risk of dying; but they were also returning to a less healthy environment. 53. St Martin in the Fields Annual List of Nurses, 1776–88, COWAC, F4338, microfilm 1852. Of these children, 61 per cent were returned to the workhouse, 19 per cent died and 11 per cent were sent to another nurse (probably 206 Notes to Chapter 3

not their final mode of discharge); 5 per cent were discharged to their mothers, and the remainder were apprenticed (often to the nurse), or returned to another family member, including grandparents and aunts and uncles as well as fathers. 54. This also matches the separate Annual Lists of Nurses, which reveal an average age at death at nurse of 1.8 years, and of death in the workhouse of 4 years. There is some uncertainty over the final appearances in this dataset as well, however, so these results are indicative of trend only. 55. Reclaiming mothers were more likely to be single; if a husband had been present it is likely that he would have been recorded as the claimant as household head. 56. On earlier periods see Roger Finlay (1981) Population and metropolis: the demography of London 1580–1650 (Cambridge University Press); Dasgupta, ‘Poverty’. Recent work on parish welfare for the eighteenth century has tended to focus on the workhouse. 57. Annual Register of Poor Children, 1767, GL, MS 1646. Children from Southwark parishes account for 26 per cent of the total. 58. Schwarz, London, p. 28. 59. Abstract of returns on the poor, 1804. St Botolph was part of the City but lay without its walls. 60. Of the 181 children, 33 (18 per cent) were from parishes with no workhouse, or 43 per cent of all those from parishes without workhouses. This may be an underestimate; as previously, lack of information cannot be taken as abso- lute evidence that there was none. These houses were probably either small institutions not labelled as workhouses, or were joint endeavours supported by several parishes. 61. Just under 30 per cent were under one year in St Clement’s and 35 per cent in St Martin’s. 62. This was the mean and modal (most common) average. Work on the Foundling Hospital nurses suggests that it took nursing two children simul- taneously to make a significant contribution to the household income. However, it was work which could be combined with other domestic tasks, including the care of the nurse’s own children. Levene, Childcare, pp. 134–6. 63. Hanway, Letters to the guardians, p. 66. 64. Boulton, ‘Welfare systems’. Information on type of feeding is very patchy. Of the St Clement’s children, 83 were noted to have been dry nursed (fed on artificial foods rather than breastfed). 65. Again, as at the Foundling Hospital, Hanway advocated nurses not being allowed to take more children in the same year that they had lost two (Letters to the guardians, p. 66). However, as at the Hospital, governors seem to have realised that such a record was not necessarily due to poor care and overrode it. 66. This may be an overestimate; for example, two nurses with the same surname are recorded separately from a ‘Mrs’ of the same surname and it is impossible to tell which of the two she was, or another woman altogether. St Martin in the Fields, List of Parish Poor Children. 67. St Martin in the Fields Annual List of Nurses; 37.7 per cent of nurses had four children, 15 per cent took either three or five, 11 per cent took one and 9 per cent took two. Notes to Chapter 3 207

68. St Clement Danes Minutes of Assistants, 30 August 1785. Those with nurses comprised 32 per cent of the total being relieved by the workhouse committee. The location of Overton could not be definitively decided. The closest modern Overton is in Hampshire, which is not impossible in this case, but is considerably further away than the other places used for nursing by the parish. 69. Hanway, Earnest appeal, p. 34. 70. Hammersmith was close to Turnham; Battersea was closer to London, and south of the Thames. All of these places are also listed in the parish’s workhouse register for children being placed with nurses (Leonard Schwarz, per- sonal communication). 71. Boulton shows that people living in seventeenth-century Boroughside (also on the south side of the river, although further east) had functional ties outside the area, both towards the City and further afield (Boulton, Neighbourhood and society, pp. 228–61). 72. St Mary Lambeth Nursing Registers, 1771–78, LMA, P85/MRY1/284. 73. E. Murphy (2002) ‘The metropolitan pauper farms, 1722–1834’, London Journal, 27:1, 1–18. Mr Overton of Mile End, Messrs Robertson and Simpson of Hoxton, and Mr Jonathan Tipple also of Hoxton all provided services for the poor of City parishes. 74. See Levene, Childcare, pp. 134–6 for the impact of the London Foundling Hospital’s demand for nurses on local communities. 75. Pauper lunatics were also farmed, but not on this scale. By the end of the century pauper farming was increasingly used only for the refractory poor, for lunatics and for children. Green, Pauper capital, pp. 65–8. 76. St Botolph without Aldgate Minute Book of the Guardians of the Parish Poor Children, 23 February 1780. 77. Ibid., 28 October 1778. 78. Ibid., 16 March 1796. 79. St Botolph Aldersgate Guardians Visiting Book, 12 May 1806. 80. Hanway, Earnest appeal, p. 79. 81. The Hospital governors had been privy to some of Hanway’s information on parish pauper children as well as the heads of the 1767 Bill prior to it being submitted to Parliament (London Foundling Hospital General Court Minutes, LMA, A/FH/K01, 14 May 1766, 25 June 1766, 11 March 1767). Hanway explicitly recommended ‘that probably this Corporation may be of the greatest use in relief of these, and other objects [of charity]’ (General Court Minutes, 14 May 1766). The General Committee had mooted setting up a similar relationship in the 1740s and again at the start of the General Reception (General Committee Minutes, 24 December 1740, 21 April 1756). 82. These were: St Andrew Holborn, St George the Martyr, St Luke Old Street, St Giles in the Fields, St George Bloomsbury, St George Middlesex, Christ Church Surrey, St John Southwark, St Leonard Shoreditch, the Hamlets of Ratcliff and Poplar and St Dunstan Stepney. London Foundling Hospital General Committee Minutes, LMA, A/FH/K01, 25 February 1767, 24 June 1767, 11 July 1767, 15 July 1767. A nursing wage of 2s 6d translates to £6 6s over a year, but there would have been additional costs such as clothing on top of this. 208 Notes to Chapter 3

83. London Foundling Hospital General Court Minutes, 4 March 1767. For example, St Andrew above Bars and St George the Martyr both agreed to pay 15s and 12s 6d of the monthly pay in advance (ibid., 1 July 1767). In 1772 the General Court recorded that a deposit of 20s was to be required (ibid., 22 July 1772). Hanway suggested that if the parish could not afford these costs the charges should be reduced, or funded by a parish collection (Earnest appeal, p. 85). Of the children, 59 per cent were contracted to remain to age 6 and 23 per cent to age 7. London Foundling Hospital Parish Register, 1767–98, LMA, A/FH/A9/3/1. 84. St Mary Lambeth Nursing Registers. This may explain why the children nursed by the parish were kept relatively close by, although this pattern continued after they stopped sending children to the Foundling Hospital. 85. In July 1767 the Hospital ordered that ‘no child be rec[eive]d into this Hospital, that in the Opinion of the Physicians ... shall be suspected to have any contagious distemper, unless by their order’ (General Committee Minutes 22 July 1767). The parish which demanded their children back again was St Leonard Shoreditch (ibid., 22 July 1767). The order was refused, presumably on the grounds that it broke the original agreement. 86. London Foundling Hospital General Court Minutes, 27 November 1771; London Foundling Hospital General Committee Minutes, 10 July 1793. 87. Taylor, Jonas Hanway, p. 112. 88. St Sepulchre Holborn, Minutes of the Meetings of the Guardians of the Parish Poor, 1767–1806, GL, MS 3242/1–2, 26 March 1773. 89. The children who died were younger when they were sent to the Hospital than those returned: 1.4 years compared with 2.6 years, and also had a young age at death (2.5 years). 90. Green, Pauper capital, pp. 65–8. See also Frank Crompton (1997) Workhouse children (Stroud: Sutton). 91. Owen, English philanthropy, pp. 91–6, 134–51. 92. St Botolph without Aldgate, Minute Book of the Guardians of the Parish Poor Children, 19 July 1767. 93. Ibid., for example on 31 August 1791, 12 March 1798. 94. St Clement Danes Minutes of Assistants, 17 June 1813. 95. Ibid., 25 June 1813. 96. Ibid., 28 November 1817. 97. ‘Appendix to the First Report from the Commissioners on the Poor Laws, Answers to Town Queries’ (PP 1834 (44), xxxv (hereafter, Town Queries)). 98. Ibid. 99. Ibid. 100. Different parishes seem to have negotiated different terms with Messrs Aubin, ranging from four to five shillings per child, and sometimes specify- ing that ‘instruction, board and clothing’ was included. This was similar to the costs of keeping a child in the workhouse once these associated expenses were included (Town Queries). 101. ‘Report from the Committee on the State of the Parish Poor Children &c Reported by Owen Salisbury Brereton Esquire’, 1 May 1778 (PP 1778). 102. Taylor, Jonas Hanway, p. 115. Hanway’s Acts were one of the reasons George put forward for declining mortality in London, alongside the reduction in gin drinking and the rise of smallpox inoculation (London life, pp. 54–60). Notes to Chapter 4 209

103. Hanway, Earnest appeal, p. 30. 104. Ibid., p. 8. 105. Town Queries.

4 The Supervision of Parish Nursing

1. ‘Report from the Committee on the Parish Poor Children’. 2. Hanway, Earnest appeal, p. 43. This comment was made about a nurse employed by St George Middlesex, where 7 of 18 parish children on the books in 1765 had lived. 3. Levene, Childcare, pp. 90–114, esp. 92–4. Some inspectors were responsible for overseeing several hundreds of children during the period of the General Reception, sometimes scattered over a wide geographical area. 4. Taylor, Jonas Hanway, p. 113. 5. Ibid. 6. St Botolph without Aldgate, Minute Book of the Guardians of the Parish Poor Children, 14 July 1767, 5 August 1778. 7. Ibid., 6 September 1786. 8. Ibid., 1 August 1787, 12 September 1787. 9. Ibid., 18 December 1797. 10. The population of St Sepulchre was 8082 in 1801; that of St Botolph was 8689. 11. The Guardians of St Paul Covent Garden spent a similarly high proportion of their time organising children to be sent to nurses from the workhouse, although they met frequently. St Paul Covent Garden Guardians and Overseers of Infant Poor, Minutes, 1768–95, COWAC, H883A, microfilm 2028. 12. St Sepulchre Holborn, Minutes of the Meetings of the Guardians of the Parish Poor, 2 September 1813. 13. Ibid., 7 December 1770. 14. Ibid., 3 March 1775. 15. Its population size was 3012 in 1801. 16. For example, at a meeting on 31 October 1792, the London Guardians voted to send a letter of thanks to Mr Whipham for his efforts in representing the children’s interests, ‘In which they particularly observe your humanity towards the Poor Children and at the same time your especial care to prevent any imposition on the Parish’ (St Dunstan in the West, Committee of the Guardians of Poor Children, 31 October 1792). 17. Ibid., 27 April 1790. 18. St Martin in the Fields, Guardians of the Poor Minutes, 14 July 1767. 19. Ibid., 1 October 1767. 20. Ibid., 8 March 1791. 21. Ibid., 27 January 1773. 22. Earle suggests that a common wage for domestic service in London in 1750 was £5–6 per year (A city full of people, pp. 124–5). 23. St Dunstan in the West, Committee of the Guardians of Poor Children. 24. See Steve Hindle (2004) ‘Dependency, shame and belonging: badging the deserving poor, c.1550–1750’, Cultural and Social History, 1, 6–35. St Sepulchre 210 Notes to Chapter 4

Holborn also noted badging the children as part of the 1767 statute (St Sepulchre Holborn, Minutes of the Meetings of the Guardians of the Parish Poor, 8 August 1768). 25. St Botolph Aldgate Guardians Visiting Book, 4 February 1806. 26. Ibid., 16 June 1806. 27. St Dunstan in the West, Committee of the Guardians of Poor Children, 31 October 1792. One of the older children was also suffering from whooping cough. 28. St Sepulchre Holborn, Minutes of meetings of the Guardians of Poor Children, 1806–33, MS 3266, 4 November 1816. 29. Hanway, Earnest appeal, p. 137, though see Chapter 3, p. 50, for a milder view of this parish nurse. 30. St Martin in the Fields, List of Parish Poor Children. The Annual List of Nurses for the same parish suggests an even higher degree of turnover: a quarter of the children listed experienced care by two or more different women. 31. St Dunstan in the West, Committee of the Guardians of Poor Children, 26 April 1802. See also 23 August 1793, 5 July 1799, 1 December 1801, 19 March 1806, and, for evidence of improvement, 2 April 1794. 32. St Botolph Aldersgate Guardians Visiting Book, undated meeting, 1809. 33. Ibid., 5 September 1809. This meeting is recorded after the one where the children were requested to be moved. 34. Ibid., 3 September 1807. 35. St Sepulchre Holborn, Minutes of Meetings of the Guardians of Poor Children, 22 August 1806. 36. Ibid., 22 July 1813. 37. Ibid., 10 March 1797. In fact there was no maximum distance; Hanway simply remarked that it was harder to inspect women at a great distance from London (Letters to the guardians, p. 66). 38. St Botolph without Aldgate, Minute Book of the Guardians of the Parish Poor Children, 4 April 1803. 39. St Botolph Aldgate Guardians Visiting Book, 16 June 1806. 40. St Clement Danes Minutes of Assistants, 3 March 1815; St Dunstan in the West, Committee of the Guardians of Poor Children, 30 June 1790, and see also 22 November 1797, 12 January 1798. 41. St Dunstan in the West, Committee of the Guardians of Poor Children, 6 April 1791. 42. Ibid., 30 September 1803. 43. Levene, Childcare, pp. 160–3. 44. St Botolph Aldgate Guardians Visiting Book, 5 November 1809. 45. St Sepulchre Holborn, Minutes of Meetings of the Guardians of Poor Children, 29 May 1816; St Dunstan in the West, Committee of the Guardians of Poor Children, 2 April 1794, 18 August 1794. 46. For example, see St Dunstan in the West, Committee of the Guardians of Poor Children, 2 June 1790; St Botolph Aldgate Guardians Visiting Book, 3 September 1807 for cases of nurses with children of their own at home. By linking nurses’ details to a partial family reconstitution it was possible to study the families of women who worked for the London Foundling Hospital. This showed them to be generally in their late twenties or Notes to Chapter 4 211

thirties, with one or two young children of their own (Levene, Childcare, pp. 129–34). 47. St Dunstan in the West, Committee of the Guardians of Poor Children, 26 April 1802. 48. Ibid., 26 April 1802. 49. Ibid., 31 October 1792 (describing a visit made on 12 September). 50. Ibid., 10 July 1793. 51. St Sepulchre Holborn, Minutes of the Meetings of the Guardians of the Parish Poor, 27 November 1769. 52. St Dunstan in the West, Committee of the Guardians of Poor Children, 11 October 1799. 53. St Dunstan gave such a payment to the local apothecary when some of the parish children came down with smallpox (ibid., 1 December 1801). A similar payment was ordered to the schoolmistress on 31 October 1792. It was common for parishes and charities to pay rewards to medical officers and other workhouse staff, especially those on honorary contracts. 54. For example, St Botolph Aldgate ordered wine and porter for one nurse, as well as medicines. St Botolph Aldgate Guardians Visiting Book, 17 May 1808, 3 September 1811. Also see Williams, ‘Caring for the sick poor’. 55. St Dunstan in the West, Committee of the Guardians of Poor Children, 12 December 1792. 56. St Martin in the Fields, Guardians of the Poor minutes, 2 July 1781. In 1816 the duties of the apothecary in St Martin’s specifically covered attending the parish’s officers when they visited the pauper children at nurse ( Jeremy Boulton and Leonard Schwarz (forthcoming), ‘The parish workhouse, the parish and parochial medical provision in eighteenth-century London’, in S. King and A. Gestricht (eds) Narratives of sickness and poverty in Europe (Berghahn: Clio Medica)). 57. St Clement Danes Minutes of Assistants, 2 November 1819, 3 July 1810. 58. St Sepulchre Holborn Minutes of Meetings of the Guardians of Poor Children, 29 May 1816; St Clement Danes Minutes of Assistants, 30 September 1794. 59. Fissell has also found that the poor law was increasingly using commercial relationships with health-care providers by the later eighteenth century, although it was still willing to employ lay people just for care (Fissell, Patients, p. 102). See also E. G. Thomas (1980) ‘The Old Poor Law and medicine’, Medical History, 24:1, 1–19; Hilary Marland (1987) Medicine and society in Wakefield and Huddersfield 1780–1870 (Cambridge University Press), pp. 55–61. 60. For example, St Botolph Aldgate Guardians Visiting Book, 17 May 1779, 28 April 1779, 1 December 1779 (see also 12 January 1780 for the same child being sent on to a hospital), 27 July 1796; St Sepulchre Holborn, Minutes of the Meetings of the Guardians of the Parish Poor, 2 April 1770, 17 April 1770. 61. St Botolph Aldgate Guardians Visiting Book, 16 July 1788, 18 April 1803. In fact, another meeting three months later noted that they had not been sent to nurse because they had a ‘scrophulous disorder’ (27 June 1803). 62. St Dunstan in the West, Committee of the Guardians of Poor Children, 10 July 1793. 63. St Botolph Aldgate Guardians Visiting Book, 4 February 1806. 212 Notes to Chapter 4

64. St Dunstan in the West, Committee of the Guardians of Poor Children, 20 July 1792. 65. St Sepulchre Holborn, Minutes of the Meetings of the Guardians of the Parish Poor, 20 December 1771. 66. St Botolph without Aldgate, Minute Book of the Guardians of the Parish Poor Children, 5 May 1769. 67. Levene, Childcare, pp. 163–5. Peter Razzell (1977) The conquest of smallpox: the impact of inoculation on smallpox mortality in eighteenth-century Britain (Firle: Caliban Books). 68. St Dunstan in the West, Committee of the Guardians of Poor Children, 21 July 1791, 23 September 1791. 69. Ibid., 2 December 1791. St Dunstan also responded to a local outbreak of smallpox in April 1802, when the apothecary warned them that the suscepti- ble parish children ‘are in great Danger of catching the disease’ (ibid., 15 May 1793, 26 April 1802). 70. This question was raised early in 1812 by the surgeon who attended the children from St Clement Danes at their nursery in Enfield. St Clement Danes Minutes of Assistants, 4 February 1812, 30 March 1813. 71. St Botolph Aldgate Guardians Visiting Book, 25 November 1805. 72. Ibid., 15 September 1808. 73. Ibid., 5 September 1809. 74. Ibid., 4 February 1806. 75. Ibid., 3 September 1807. 76. Honeyman, Child workers, pp. 215–38. There is some overlap of parishes between this study and the current one: St Martin in the Fields and St George Hanover Square were found to be ‘averagely protective’ of their apprentices, for example, while St Clement Danes was ‘protective’ (although it also showed ‘high’ levels of negligence in other respects). St Paul Covent Garden, which was quite assiduous in inspecting nurse-children, was ‘not very protective’ of its apprentices, suggesting that this was not part of an overall commitment to child welfare. It did not exhibit many of the signs of negligence either, however. Only St James Piccadilly and St Mary Newington among the London parishes studied by Honeyman were in the ‘most protective’ category, alongside the Foundling Hospital, and were not deemed to be particularly negligent either (St Mary Newington lacked information on this). Almost all of her London parishes did visit, inspect and report on their apprentices, however, which was the measure of protection most akin to the nursing regime. 77. This was taken as grounds to limit external nursing to those under the age of six (St Sepulchre Holborn Minutes of the Meetings of the Guardians of the Parish Poor, 13 August 1779). It was confirmed again at the meeting on 28 January 1780. 78. Fildes, Breasts, bottles and babies; E. A. Wrigley (1998) ‘Explaining the rise in marital fertility in England in the “long” eighteenth century’, Economic History Review, 51:3, 459–60; E. A. Wrigley (2004) Poverty, progress and population (Cambridge University Press), pp. 404–6. See also George on the cessa- tion of gin drinking (London life, pp. 41–55). On the relationship between smallpox and infant and child mortality, see Davenport et al., ‘The decline of adult smallpox’. Notes to Chapter 5 213

79. Hoppit, ‘Contexts and contours’. Another way to read this was that parish officers did not have a good understanding of how to measure good care, and looked simply for the most obvious outward signs. However, this is somewhat anachronistic for this period. St James Westminster had noted early in the century that it was difficult to get people to implement consist- ent policies – or any policies at all – on behalf of poor children (Sketch of the state of the children of the poor, p. 1). 80. St Botolph Aldgate Guardians Visiting Book, 1 February 1809.

5 Parents and Parish Childcare

1. Maternal bonding, or its absence in the form of maternal deprivation, is most clearly associated with the work of the twentieth-century psychologist John Bowlby. See Michael Rutter (1981) Maternal deprivation reassessed, 2nd edn (Harmondsworth: Penguin). See also Chapter 1. 2. Hindle, On the parish?, pp. 9–11, 171–2 and 192–218. See also Chapter 1. There is, however, another longer-standing reference to parental choice in the use of parish apprenticeship placements which were initially ‘on liking’, allowing either party to break the contract in the early stage. The workhouse records from St Botolph Aldgate show us a parent invoking their rights under this clause: William Williams was sent out from the workhouse ‘on liking’ in 1819, aged 13, but his mother ‘refused consent and took him away’ (St Botolph without Aldgate, Children Sent to Workhouse, 1807–34, GL, MS 2659). 3. The same argument was made of so-called ‘savages’ in other lands, who breastfed their children as a matter of course, and brought them up to be hardy and healthy (Perry, ‘Colonizing the breast’). 4. V. Fildes (1980) ‘Neonatal feeding practices and infant mortality during the eighteenth century’, Journal of Biosocial Science, 12, 313–24; J. Rendle-Short (1960) ‘Infant management in the eighteenth century with special reference to the work of William Cadogan’, Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 34:2, 97–122; Sommerville, Rise and fall of childhood, p. 156; Taylor, Jonas Hanway, pp. 112–13, 116. 5. Crawford, Parents of poor children, passim; Humphries, Childhood and child labour, pp. 128–50. See also Bailey, Parenting in England. 6. Hanway, ‘Genuine sentiments of an English country gent upon the present plan of the Foundling Hospital’ (published as part of his Candid historical account), p. 11. 7. Hanway, Candid historical account, pp. 103–4 and 106. 8. Hanway, Earnest appeal, p. 82. 9. Humphries, Childhood and child labour, p. 49. 10. Tim Hitchcock, ‘“Unlawfully begotten on her body”: illegitimacy and the parish poor in St Luke’s Chelsea’, in T. Hitchcock, P. King and P. Sharpe (eds) (1997) Chronicling poverty: the voices and strategies of the English poor, 1640–1840 (Basingstoke: Macmillan), pp. 70–86. 11. C. Corsini (1976) ‘Materiali per lo studio della famiglia in Toscana nel secoli XVII–XIX: gli esposti’, Quaderni Storici, 33, 998; Kertzer, Sacrificed for honor, p. 83. 214 Notes to Chapter 5

12. This has also been illustrated by David Green, although not in the context of childcare (D. Green (2006) ‘Pauper protests: power and resistance in early nineteenth-century London workhouses’, Social History, 31, 137–59. 13. In the 1730s the parish was still relatively rural and sparsely populated, but metropolitan expansion meant that by 1801 its population numbered 63,982 (A. R. Neate (1967) The St Marylebone Workhouse and Institution 1730–1965 (London: St Marylebone Society), pp. 3 and 5). 14. The registers are held at the LMA, P89 MRY 618–21 (and on microfilm X23/101). Two-thirds of its permanently relieved paupers were supported there in 1804 – similar to the proportion in St Martin in the Fields, but sub- stantially higher than the average for London as a whole which was just over 50 per cent. Abstract of returns relative to the poor. 15. Of the children subsequently sent to a nurse, 88 had entered the workhouse alone, and another 16 were without parents but with one or more siblings; 83 were with one parent (including 29 who were born in the house and were subsequently entered into the registers as new admissions), and 3 were with both parents. 16. St Martin in the Fields Annual List of Nurses; 22 per cent of the total were sent to a nurse within one month, but only 8 per cent of those born to the parish (39 children in total were born and had the necessary date information). 17. This was 265 out of a total of 425 children with information; 27 of these children were from parishes where there was no workhouse. All of the children from St Giles Cripplegate were nursed by their mothers, and 83 per cent of those from St Botolph Bishopsgate (Annual Register of Poor Children). It is unclear exactly what ‘nursed’ meant. Babies were slightly less likely to be with their mothers, suggesting that it was not necessarily related to breastfeeding. 18. Crawford, Parents of poor children, pp. 158, 160–3. 19. Town Queries. 20. See also Alysa Levene (2008) ‘Children, childhood and the workhouse: St Marylebone, 1769–81’, London Journal, 33:1, 37–55. 21. Siblings were identified by matching surnames and entry dates. This exercise revealed 120 sibling groups in the St Clement’s Register of Poor Children (consisting of 280 individuals). 22. St Botolph without Aldgate, Minute Book of the Guardians of the Parish Poor Children, 13 March 1793. 23. St Dunstan in the West, Committee of the Guardians of Poor Children, 8 April 1789. 24. Ibid., 18 August 1794. 25. St Botolph without Aldgate, Minute Book of the Guardians of the Parish Poor Children, 27 August 1798. See also 20 August 1788. One of the month- old infants was sent to a nurse three months later (see 18 November 1798). 26. Ibid., 8 October 1788. The five-month-old (Louisa Owen) had remained initially so that her mother could wean her, and she was sent to a nurse in February 1789. The second child ( James Garrard) had remained ‘at the particular request of his mother’, and was still in the house with her in March 1789 (see minutes for 11 February 1789, 24 March 1789). 27. This was the response by St Laurence Pountney. Notes to Chapter 5 215

28. St Dunstan in the West, Committee of the Guardians of Poor Children, 17 February 1796. 29. Ibid., 12 October 1796. 30. St Paul Covent Garden Guardians and Overseers of Infant Poor, Minutes, 31 December 1790, 7 May 1792. 31. St Botolph without Aldgate, Minute Book of the Guardians of the Parish Poor Children, 17 March 1779. See also Burn (1820) The Justice of the Peace, vol. IV, pp. 140–1 for several cases where the mother’s right to determine her child’s care was upheld. Some of these decisions hinged on whether the parent was seeking relief for the whole family or just for the children. 32. St Botolph without Aldgate, Minute Book of the Guardians of the Parish Poor Children, 28 April 1779. For other similar examples in this parish see minutes for 23 January 1782, 20 March 1782 and 1 May 1782. 33. St Sepulchre Holborn, Minutes of the Meetings of the Guardians of the Parish Poor, 4 April 1768. 34. Ibid., 18 January 1771. 35. In October 1768, the parish had made a clear statement that ‘all the Children now in the Workhouse that are under the age of six years, & are not Nursed by their Mothers, be forthwith put out to Nurse’. Ibid., 31 October 1768. 36. Ibid., 24 May 1771. 37. Ibid., 13 March 1772. 38. Ibid., 17 July 1772. See also 5 August 1774, and St Botolph without Aldgate, Minute Book of the Guardians of the Parish Poor Children, 24 February 1800, for a similar case. 39. St Sepulchre Holborn, Minutes of the Meetings of the Guardians of the Parish Poor, 8 October 1784. 40. St Clement Danes Minutes of Assistants, 27 June 1811. 41. Ibid., 31 January 1815. 42. Examples are from the Annual Registers of Poor Children. 43. St Botolph without Aldgate, Minute Book of the Guardians of the Parish Poor Children, 14 July 1767. 44. Seven other children were ordered to be returned to one or other of their parents in the same meeting, and a further 11 in a meeting dated the follow- ing day (ibid., 14 and 15 July 1767. See also minute for 18 March 1778 for similar examples). 45. Two of these children were probably siblings as they share a surname and dates of entering and leaving. 46. Crawford, Parents of poor children, p. 66. 47. Hanway, Letters to the guardians, pp. 56–7, 65. 48. Stapleton, ’Inherited poverty’. 49. St Botolph without Aldgate, Minute Book of the Guardians of the Parish Poor Children, 28 October 1778; St Paul Covent Garden, Guardians and Overseers of Infant Poor, Minutes, 12 March 1770 and 4 March 1776. 50. Fletcher, Growing up, passim, citing sources such as letters written while a child was at school. 51. St Dunstan in the West, Committee of the Guardians of Poor Children, 8 June 1792. 52. Hanway, Earnest appeal, p. 81. 216 Notes to Chapter 6

53. St Dunstan in the West, Committee of the Guardians of Poor Children, 8 June 1792, 2 April 1794. 54. M. A. Crowther (1981) The workhouse system, 1834–1929: the history of an English social institution (London: Batsford Academic), p. 43. Crowther cites St Marylebone as a parish which enforced premature weaning on mothers.

6 Children and the Metropolitan Workhouse

1. Slack, ‘Hospitals’; Green, Pauper capital, passim, and esp. p. 52 on the relationship with population size. See also the 1732 An account of several work-houses for employing and maintaining the poor, 2nd edn (London). The average proportion of relief given to indoor paupers by the London parishes included in the Abstract of returns relative to the poor of 1804 was just over 50 per cent. 2. George, London life, pp. 215–17. 3. Green, Pauper capital, pp. 59–61, citing House of Lords papers. The figure for the 1730s includes charity schools. 4. Taylor, ‘The unreformed workhouse’. See Hitchcock, Down and out, pp. 132–3 for the range of services offered by eighteenth-century metropolitan workhouses, including those of crèche and orphanage for the young. 5. Murphy, ‘The metropolitan pauper farms’. 6. See, for example, Green, ‘Pauper protest’; Hitchcock, ‘“Unlawfully begotten”’; Kevin P. Siena (2004) Venereal disease, hospitals and the urban poor: London’s ‘foul wards’, 1600–1800 (University of Rochester Press); Tomkins, Experience of urban poverty; Ottaway, Decline of life; Botelho, Old age. 7. Hitchcock, ‘“Unlawfully begotten”’, p. 76. 8. Dianne Payne (2007) ‘Children of the poor in London, 1700–80’ (PhD thesis, University of Hertfordshire); Tomkins, Experience of urban poverty. Up to 60 per cent of inmates were children in St Mary Shrewsbury. 9. Colquhoun, Treatise on indigence, p. 223. 10. 14- to 16-year-olds formed only 2 per cent of admissions to the workhouse in St Sepulchre Holborn between 1725 and 1752 as well, and 3 per cent at St Marylebone between 1769 and 1781. Where they were present they tended to be either sick, or out of work. 11. St Marylebone Workhouse Admissions Registers, 1769–81, LMA, P89/ MRY/618–21; Chelsea Workhouse Admissions and Discharges, 1743–99, LMA, P74/LUK/110; St Clement Danes Alphabetical List of the House, 1785, COWAC, B1247, microfilm 409; St Sepulchre Holborn Workhouse Daily Journal from 1725, GL, MS3173–1 (covering 1725–52 (when children made up 26 per cent of admissions) and 1766–71 (24 per cent)). Only individuals with ages recorded were included in the calculations. 12. St Pancras Register of Inmates in Workhouse, LMA, P90/PAN1/211, microfilm, NX030/068 covering the period 1783–87. This is based on twice- monthly accounts of paupers in the house. The figure of 51 per cent might even slightly underestimate the proportion of children, since those who were not given an age were not included, even if they were in a children’s ward. 13. Several of the St Clement’s admissions did not have an age recorded. This explains the slight discrepancy with the number reported in Figure 6.1. Notes to Chapter 6 217

14. There was also a much higher proportion of people aged 50 and over in St Clement’s workhouse compared with St Marylebone. 15. This was particularly the case in St Botolph Aldgate, where a number of children were marked as nursed by ‘the women in the workhouse’ or ‘the poor in the workhouse’, and in St Giles Cripplegate, where Ann Shaw had responsibility for 18 children in the workhouse, and Ann Byworth for 17 (Annual Register of Poor Children). 16. St Leonard Shoreditch Workhouse Admissions and Discharges, 1788–89, LMA, P91/LEN/1335, microfilm X020/156. 17. Of these, 9 per cent of the total were with nurses; 11 per cent were girls in the house, and 9 per cent boys in the house. 18. According to their return to the Poor Law Commissioners’ Town Queries, in this parish ‘[t]he infant poor, destitute of friends or relations, are provided for in the workhouse, where separate wards are appropriated for them’. The wording leaves some ambiguity as to children whose parents were present, however. 19. St Mary Lambeth Workhouse Admission Registers of Children from 1787, LMA, P85/MRY1/280. This is clear partly from the small proportion of children described as sent to a nurse (but the larger proportion who apparently died while at a nursing placement), and also from a note by one child’s entry ‘sent to nurse therefore entered rong [sic]’, which implies that there was a separate register. 20. This includes births inside the workhouse where they were recorded (see Chapter 5). The proportion of infants was higher among nurse-children from St Clement Danes (29 per cent) and St Martin in the Fields (35 per cent), but the fall to the next age category was not as marked as here. 21. Counting readmissions has little impact in artificially inflating the proportion of children in the workhouse population: when return entries of the same person are identified via nominal linkage and removed, children are 31 per cent of all entrants. 22. St Luke Chelsea Removal Orders; Chelsea Workhouse Admissions and Discharge Register, 1743–99, LMA P74/LUK/110. There were 4352 admissions to the workhouse in this period. 23. It was rare to give indoor relief to the non-settled (Green, Pauper capital, pp. 41–8. See also Chapter 7). 24. St Giles Cripplegate Workhouse, Children’s Admissions, 1797–1816, GL, MS 6099. The majority of these admissions were after 1806, suggesting that the register was not regularly kept until then. 25. St Mary Lambeth Workhouse Admission Register of Children. The total number in the register was 3382. Children marked born in the house were assumed to have been born on the date of entry. 26. This body of entrants was identified by removing return entries of the same person (using nominal linkage of standardised names, verified by age and date information), and numbers 5775 individuals. Among those aged 25 to 40 the ratio was 240.2:100, and among those over 60 it was 157.8:100. The Alphabetical List of the House made in St Clement Danes in 1785 also reveals an almost even split between the sexes for child inmates: 48 per cent were girls and 52 per cent boys. 27. Two-thirds of those aged 14 to 16 in this sample were female, and the ratio was more skewed among 15- and 16-year-olds than 14-year-olds. 218 Notes to Chapter 6

28. This was out of 2108 child entries with the relevant information. This analysis is based on all entrants, including repeat entries, since people may have had different reasons for entering the workhouse on different occasions. See Levene, ‘Children, childhood and the workhouse’, for more details on the composition of this sample. 29. See note 20. 30. See also J. Boulton, ‘“Extreme necessity”’. 31. Pelling finds a similarly low level of sickness as a cause of poverty among children in the Norwich Census of the Poor of 1570 (M. Pelling, ‘Illness among the poor in early modern English towns’, in Pelling, The common lot, pp. 63–78). 32. Boulton suggests that this was the case in St Martin in the Fields (‘“Extreme necessity”’). Wider family support is considered in Chapter 8. 33. These figures are based on all entries, including return appearances. This could down weight mortality somewhat, since repeat users of the workhouse could be discharged several times, but could clearly only die once. Treating the single-time entrants only, however, affected the breakdown of fates very little in percentage terms. 34. Wrigley et al., English population history, pp. 214–42. 35. Neate, The Marylebone workhouse, p. 11. Hanway’s Acts covered the Bills of Mortality. 36. St Botolph without Aldgate, Children Sent to Workhouse. 37. Hanway, Letters to the guardians, p. 52. 38. This part of the analysis is based on single entries to remove the impact of people returning several times. 39. Tomkins, Experience of urban poverty, p. 48. 40. St Giles Cripplegate Workhouse, Children’s Admissions; St Leonard Shoreditch, Children in the Workhouse, 1839–40, LMA, P91/LEN/1340. This comprises the first two years of this register, which covers 1107 entries, relat- ing to 917 individual children. Around half of the St Giles’ children left with mothers, and around 40 per cent in St Leonard’s. 41. This was Joseph Burdett. See Humphries, Childhood and child labour, pp. 198–9. 42. Siena, Venereal disease, p. 140. 43. Ibid., pp. 135–80. The 1732 Account of several work-houses cited the house at St George Hanover Square as a model for other parishes, with such good medical care ‘that few have died out of the great Numbers of small Children, and of other Persons that have had the Small-Pox, Fevers and other Distempers’ (p. 27). The same source also noted that St Martin in the Fields had a surgeon attending the workhouse gratis, and an apothecary who gave advice and medicines at a modest rate (pp. 65–6). 44. See Alysa Levene, Jonathan Reinarz and Andrew Williams (forthcoming, 2012) ‘Child patients, medicine and the home in eighteenth-century England’, Family and Community History. Parishes were obliged to treat even the non-settled if they were at risk of death (George, London life, pp. 66–7). 45. S. A. King (2005) ‘“Stop this overwhelming torment of destiny”: negotiating financial aid at times of sickness under the English Old Poor Law, 1800–1840’, Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 79:2, 228–60. King sees medical relief as expected and often delivered, but not yet an entitlement under the Old Poor Notes to Chapter 6 219

Law. See also Thomas, ‘The Old Poor Law’ on the variety of contracted medical treatments used by parishes, and Marland, Medicine and society, pp. 55–61. Pelling finds that parishes in sixteenth-century Norwich were paying for a variety of treatments for children as well (Pelling, ‘Child health’). 46. St Sepulchre Holborn, Minutes of the Meetings of the Guardians of the Parish Poor, 22 October 1773, 20 January 1775. The governors of the London Foundling Hospital complained that many infants were sent in dying during the General Reception period. 47. St Botolph without Aldgate, Minute Book of the Guardians of the Parish Poor Children, 18 March 1795. 48. Ibid., 9 October 1767. St Bartholomew’s and St Thomas’ were the only London hospitals which took fever cases ( John Woodward (1974) To do the sick no harm: a study of the British voluntary hospital system to 1875 (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul), p. 61). 49. St Martin in the Fields, Guardians of the Poor Minutes, 29 August 1783. The deaths took place between January and August, but only those of child inmates were reported to this committee. 50. Of these, 47 had smallpox (30 per cent of all cases of smallpox on admission, or almost exactly in proportion with the presence of children among workhouse admissions generally). Itch, fever and venereal cases numbered 38, 35 and 11 cases each. 51. St Clement Danes Minutes of Assistants, 3 October 1820. 52. St Dunstan in the West, Committee of the Guardians of Poor Children, 22 April 1796, 3 June 1796. The case is particularly interesting as this child did not actually belong to the parish, but he still received fairly extensive treatment. In August the Guardians ordered that he be removed to his own parish or undergo the cure privately (ibid., 2 August 1796). 53. The meeting noted their intent to inquire into the family’s settlement before making a decision. St Clement Danes Minutes of Assistants, 5 August 1806. 54. Also see St Dunstan in the West, Committee of the Guardians of Poor Children, 2 August 1796 and 12 October 1796. 55. Levene et al., ‘Child patients’. St George Hanover Square informed the Poor Law Commissioners in its responses to the Town Queries in 1834 that it had a local Act allowing its board to subscribe to hospitals (among other provisions). On the workhouse infirmaries as part of a wider medical system see Siena, Venereal disease, passim. In particular, he sees the poor law medical service as expanding by necessity to fill the gap left by the greater economic exclusiveness of the hospital sector (p. 6). See also Boulton and Schwarz, ‘The parish workhouse’. 56. St Dunstan in the West, Committee of the Guardians of Poor Children, 7 August 1789, 9 December 1789, 2 June 1790. 57. St Clement Danes Minutes of Assistants, 14 May 1789. For details on how parish sponsorship worked, see Amanda Berry, ‘Community sponsorship and the hospital patient in late eighteenth-century England’, in Horden and Smith, Locus of care, pp. 128–34, 138–9. 58. See Levene et al., ‘Child patients’. 59. St Botolph without Aldgate, Minute Book of the Guardians of the Parish Poor Children, 10 June 1795. William’s precise age is not given. St Clement Danes Minutes of Assistants, 1 February 1803. The minute states that ‘[t]hey 220 Notes to Chapter 6

were both called in and declared their minds were made up to have them taken off and wished the Operation to be performed by Mr Crowther in the House rather than go to an Hospital’. Their ages are not given. 60. St Paul Covent Garden Guardians and Overseers of Infant Poor, Minutes, 8 September 1783. 61. Anne Digby (1994) Making a medical living: doctors and patients in the English market for medicine, 1720–1911 (Cambridge University Press), p. 85. 62. For example, St Thomas’ and St Bartholomew’s had a long relationship with the City (Susan C. Lawrence (1996) Charitable knowledge: hospital pupils and practitioners in eighteenth-century London (Cambridge University Press), p. 43). Transport was another factor: Boulton and Schwarz note that patients from St Martin in the Fields could be carried by coach to St Bartholomew’s in the 1720s, but that a river trip was necessary to reach institutions in Southwark (‘The parish workhouse’). 63. An account of several work-houses, p. 54. 64. See Green, Pauper capital, pp. 61–2 on workhouse expansion, although he characterises the enlargements in some parishes as piecemeal and not necessarily conducive to classification. 65. For more details see Levene, ‘Children, childhood and the workhouse’. 66. For example, see Calvert, Children in the house. 67. Green, Pauper capital, p. 62. This was apparently the largest expansion in workhouse stock in London in this period, with the new workhouse being replaced again in 1832 with a building which could accommodate over 1000 (the old workhouse, which had been built in 1776, could accommodate 120. Ibid., p. 62). 68. Town Queries. The clearest example is St Marylebone, which accommodated men and women in separate wards, dining rooms and yards. 69. Cited in George, London life, pp. 216–17. Also see Payne, ‘Children of the poor’, pp. 58–80. See also John Strype (1720) A survey of the Cities of London and Westminster by John Stow, 6 vols (London), on the Bishopsgate workhouse, describing a child who told the Queen on a royal visit that ‘we are all daily employed on the staple Manufacture of England, learning betimes to be useful to the world’ (vol. 1, p. 202). The rhetoric of usefulness is very clear. 70. See also Payne, ‘Children of the poor’. 71. For example, Schmidt, ‘Charity and the government of the poor’; George, London life, pp. 216–17; Payne, ‘Children of the poor’, pp. 72–5, 91–132; Peter Maplestone (2000) St Clement Danes School: three hundred years of history (London: Trustees of the St Clement Danes Educational Foundation). 72. An account of several work-houses, p. 19. 73. Hanway, Letters to the guardians, p. 9. 74. See Humphries, Childhood and child labour, pp. 14–23, and references. 75. Samuel Bamford, Early days, http://gerald-massey.org.uk/bamford/c_radical_ (1).htm) (accessed 17 May 2011). 76. John Brown (1977 [orig. 1832]) A memoir of Robert Blincoe, an orphan boy (Firle, Sussex: Caliban Books), pp. 7–15. Honeyman also describes children returning to their parish workhouse when running away from apprenticeship placements (Child workers, pp. 205–9). 77. Alannah Tomkins (2010) ‘At home in the workhouse? The view from working-class autobiographies, 1780–1920’, conference paper presented at Notes to Chapter 7 221

‘Inhabiting Institutions in Britain, 1700–1950’, Royal Holloway, University of London, 14–15 September 2010. Cited with permission. 78. It was also a haven when he got lost as a younger child, as it was for his younger brother for whom he was searching. Josiah Bassett (1850) The life of a vagrant, or, the testimony of an outcast (London, 1850), pp. 2–5. 79. George, for example, notes that children might use the parish workhouse when they could not get seasonal work in summer (London life, p. 251). 80. Hitchcock Down and out, p. 134. 81. Taylor, ‘The unreformed workhouse’, p. 65.

7 Making Shift: Outdoor Relief and Charity

1. Olwen Hufton (1974) The poor of eighteenth-century France, 1750–1789 (Oxford: Clarendon Press), passim, esp. pp. 15–17. 2. For example, see Hindle, On the parish?, pp. 27–36; the contributions to Steve King and Alannah Tomkins (2003) The poor in England, 1700–1850: an economy of makeshifts (Manchester University Press); Peregrine Horden, ‘Household care and informal networks: comparisons and continuities from antiquity to the present’, in Horden and Smith, Locus of care, pp. 21–67; Joanna Innes, ‘The “mixed economy of welfare” in early modern England: assessments of the options from Hale to Malthus (c.1683–1803)’, in Daunton, Charity, pp. 139–80; Ilana Krausman Ben-Amos (2008) The culture of giving: informal support and gift exchange in early modern England (Cambridge University Press). 3. Tomkins states that old age rather than childrearing was ‘the more critical stage in the life-cycle for suffering acute financial hardship’ (Experience of urban poverty, p. 241), but bearing or struggling to rear a child could also bring a whole family into poverty. It is also possible, however, that this reflects the way that welfare was targeted to certain groups. 4. Davin, Growing up poor. 5. Humphries, Childhood and child labour, pp. 73–80; see also Horden, ‘Household care’, pp. 38–9. 6. Kirby, Child labour, pp. 26–37; Humphries, Childhood and child labour, pp. 172–209, although she notes the distinction between casual work and the start of formal employment, which occurred at nearer age ten. 7. Tomkins, Experience of urban poverty, p. 241. 8. Ben-Amos, Culture of giving, pp. 82–142. These included parishes, guilds and charitable gifts. 9. Marco van Leeuwen (1994) ‘Poor relief in preindustrial Europe’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 24, 589–618. 10. Martin Dinges, ‘Self-help and reciprocity in parish assistance: Bordeaux in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries’, in Horden and Smith, Locus of care, pp. 111–25. 11. Colquhoun, Treatise on indigence, pp. 7–8. 12. Andrew gives another example in the form of begging letters published in the press (Donna T. Andrew, ‘“To the charitable and humane”: appeals for assistance in the eighteenth-century London press’, in Cunningham and Innes, Charity, philanthropy and reform, pp. 87–107). 222 Notes to Chapter 7

13. This point is also made by Hufton, The poor, p. 126. Boulton, however, notes that those receiving outdoor relief were liable to forfeiting their goods on their death ( Jeremy Boulton, ‘Going on the parish: the parish pension and its meaning in the London suburbs, 1640–1724’, in Hitchcock et al., Chronicling poverty, pp. 35–6). 14. See Steve King (2000) Poverty and welfare in England 1700–1850: a regional perspective (Manchester University Press). Hindle has also pointed out that poor relief might be contingent on other sources of support being exhausted (Hindle, On the parish?, pp. 11–12). 15. S. A. King (1997) ‘Migrants on the margin: mobility, integration and dual occupation production in West Yorkshire, 1650–1820’, Journal of Historical Geography, 23, 304–26. 16. Slack calculates that outdoor relief generally only formed around a third of a pauper’s total income in the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (Poverty and policy, p. 83). Lees, however, suggests that families were better supported than individuals (Lynn Hollen Lees, ‘The survival of the unfit: welfare policies and family maintenance in nineteenth-century London’, in Peter Mandler (ed.) (1990) The uses of charity: the poor on relief in the nineteenth- century metropolis (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press), p. 79). Doles for the elderly may have been a partial exception, although they seem not to have risen in line with costs of living at the end of the eighteenth century, making them worth progressively less (Smith, ‘Charity’, p. 39). 17. Andrew, Philanthropy and police; Green, Pauper capital, both passim. 18. Ben-Amos, Culture of giving, pp. 333–75. 19. Abstract of the returns on the poor. 20. King, Poverty and welfare, pp. 186–8; Green, Pauper capital, p. 55. None of the paupers included in the sources used here were listed as being non-resident, although see the comments from some parishes in 1834 to indicate that it was a feature of relief in London. 21. Green, Pauper capital, esp. pp. 41–8. The parish was obliged to relieve anyone who had spent the previous night in the parish (p. 42). See also Slack, Poverty and policy, pp. 173–4. 22. Green, Pauper capital, p. 43. By 1813–15 the figure was 70 per cent or more. 23. Slack, Poverty and policy, p. 180. 24. Green, Pauper capital, pp. 37, 74–8. 25. A. W. Coats (1960) ‘Economic thought and poor law policy in the eighteenth century’, Economic History Review, 13:1, 46. 26. Sketch of the state of the children, p. 17. At age seven all children were to go to the parish’s School of Industry. 27. J. S. Taylor (1960) ‘The mythology of the Old Poor Law’, Journal of Economic History, XXIV, 295. See also Green, Pauper capital, p. 40, citing costs of approximately £12 4s per year per head as an indoor pauper in London in 1803 compared with £3 4s for the permanent outdoor and occasional poor. Taylor cites the workhouse as being used only for ‘those categories of poor that were sometimes difficult to provide for cheaply through outdoor relief’ (Taylor, ‘The unreformed workhouse’, p. 65). 28. Michael J. D. Roberts, ‘Head versus heart? Voluntary associations and charity organisation in England c. 1700–1850’, in Cunningham and Innes, Charity, philanthropy and reform, p. 69. Notes to Chapter 7 223

29. An example is the overseers’ accounts. See Boulton, ‘Going on the parish’. 30. St Martin in the Fields Orphan Register. 31. Boulton, ‘Welfare systems’, p. 131. 32. Ibid., p. 136. 33. Slack, Poverty and policy, p. 179. Orphans could apparently represent a third of the relieved population in some towns, although the proportion was generally much lower (around 5 per cent of those on permanent relief ). 34. St Clement Danes Register of Casual Poor, c. 1730, COWAC, B1230, microfilm 408. Another 54 per cent were lone females, several aged 60 or over. 35. Similar patterns were found in a list of 1733, although the proportion of families with children was smaller, at 21 per cent (mainly consisting of single mothers). St Clement Danes Register of Casual Poor, 1733, COWAC, B1231, microfilm 408. 36. St Botolph without Aldgate, Manor of West Smithfield, List of Pensioners, 1793–1827, GL, MS 2666. 37. Of these recipients, 331 people had ages recorded, of whom children were 30 per cent. A further 3 per cent were aged between 13 and 16. It is probable that some pensioners were recorded twice, but there is not enough common evidence to establish this for certain. 38. St Mary Lambeth, Register of Cash Payments to the Outdoor Poor, 1817, LMA, P85/MRY1/174. Registers of Weekly Payments for this parish for 1811 to 1813 show a similar pattern (LMA, P85/MRY1/172), and children are occasionally listed in the Register of Casual Relief for the Out-Liberty for 1819–20 as well, receiving cash doles or clothing, or being admitted to the house (LMA, P85/MRY1/185). Lees finds similar doles given to families in St George in the East, Whitechapel in 1830, with amounts ranging from one shilling and threepence to three shillings and sixpence (Lees, ‘Survival of the unfit’, p. 79). 39. Siena, Venereal disease, p. 145. 40. Styles, The dress of the people; S. A. King (2002) ‘Reclothing the English poor, 1750–1840’, Textile History, 33:1, 37–47; P. Jones (2006) ‘Clothing the poor in early-nineteenth-century England’, Textile History, 37:1, 17–37. Styles finds that 85 per cent of the 382 items of clothing given out by Wimbledon parish between 1745 and 1748 went to 23 children, often approaching apprenticeship age (The dress of the people, pp. 267–9). 41. On the pawning of clothing, see Tomkins, Experience of urban poverty, pp. 204–34, esp. 218–19. 42. See also Styles, The dress of the people, who sees this link between clothing and respectability as part of a reconceptualisation of poverty in the later eighteenth century (p. 252, see also 271–2 on social status). 43. St Clement Danes Minutes of Assistants, 4 November 1817. 44. Vestry of St Marylebone, Workhouse Accounts, 1752–65, COWAC, I/90/5, 1 July 1754. 45. The 1813–15 Abstract of returns on the poor (PP 1818, XIX) also shows that around 45 per cent of all paupers nationally were supported via outdoor relief (Karel Williams (1981) From pauperism to poverty (London: Routledge), pp. 39–40). 46. These were the numbers as published; they were questions 22–24 ‘as sent out’ to parishes. 224 Notes to Chapter 7

47. Of this total, 528 were under seven years (21 per cent of the total, and 55 per cent of all children under 12), of whom two-thirds were girls. A similar sex imbalance was seen among those aged 7 to 12, of whom 62 per cent were girls. 48. St Mary Woolchurch and St Michael Cornhill both made this point. 49. St Bennet Sherehog stated that they took this latter course for the idle and dissolute. 50. Green notes that casual relief was only given in Spitalfields once a visit had been made; a policy which uncovered many false addresses (Pauper capital, p. 78). See Chapter 8 on home-visiting. 51. Report from the Select Committee on the Poor Laws, 1817, p. 20. 52. Slack, Poverty and policy, p. 180. 53. Tomkins’ study suggests that charity was seen as a preferable form of support to the poor law on both sides: recipients began to receive it ‘between the two poles of full employment and parish dependency’, while donors could use it to encourage self-reliance and humility (Experience of urban poverty, pp. 79–80, 111). 54. Andrew, Philanthropy and police; Lloyd, Charity and poverty; Owen, English philanthropy; McClure, Coram’s children; Levene, Childcare; Pietsch, ‘Ships’ boys’; Taylor, Jonas Hanway. 55. Levene, Childcare, pp. 18, 33–5. One reason was the high mortality of the foundling children, but another disincentive was the requirement to pay the costs of raising the child to that point. This was waived in 1764, leading to a greater number of petitions to reclaim. Mothers whose babies had been taken from them by force by fathers or parish officers were not required to repay any costs. 56. McClure, Coram’s children, pp. 76–8. 57. Levene, ‘The estimation of mortality’. 58. Corsini, ‘Materiali’, p. 998; Kertzer, Sacrificed for honor, p. 83. The risks of the child dying were evidently felt to be outweighed by the benefits of free nursing and the freeing of the mother for work. 59. For example, Trumbach believes that babies were commonly given up because they were incompatible with the mother earning a living as a pros- titute (Sex and the gender revolution, p. 278). 60. Evans, ‘Unfortunate objects’; Outhwaite, ‘Objects of charity’. On the different motivations for using the charity by both married and unmarried parents, and also parish officers, see Levene, ‘The origins’. 61. Around a third of children were legitimate (Levene, ‘The origins’). 62. Foundling Hymn, reproduced in A. Levene, Institutional responses: the London Foundling Hospital, in Levene (general ed.), Narratives of the poor, vol. 3, pp. 114–20. 63. Crawford, Parents of poor children, passim, esp. ch. 5. In other cases God was referred to as the children’s father. 64. It also bound out small numbers of girls as apprentices. See Chapters 2 and 8, and also Taylor, Jonas Hanway, pp. 96–9. 65. Jonas Hanway (1759) An account of the Marine Society (London), pp. 11–12, though Pietsch notes that this was not always true, and that other boys ran away from the charity subsequently (‘Ships’ boys’, pp. 180–92, 105–12). Notes to Chapter 7 225

66. Marine Society Entry books, 1756–62 (NMM, MSY/H/1–2). See also Pietsch, ‘Ships’ boys’, and for the post-war period, Dianne Payne (2005) ‘Rhetoric, reality and the Marine Society’, London Journal, 30:4, 66–84. 67. This manufactory had started during the General Reception and made flan- nel and blankets as well. For a note of children being sent to work in the enterprise, see General Committee Minutes, 16 July 1760. 68. King, ‘Juvenile delinquency’; King, ‘Destitution’; Shore, Artful dodgers, esp. Introduction. 69. Andrew, Philanthropy and police, pp. 119–27. This was another charity in which Hanway was heavily involved. 70. (1769) An account of the asylum or House of Refuge ... for the Reception of Orphan Girls (London). On the Philanthropic Society see Crawford, Parents of poor children, p. 231. 71. P. King, ‘The making of the reformatory: the development of informal reformatory sentences for juvenile offenders, 1780–1830’, in King (2006) Crime and law in England 1750–1850: remaking justice from the margins (Cambridge University Press), pp. 142–64. See also the editor’s introduction and the primary narratives and accounts in King, Institutional responses. On the London Female Penitentiary see A. Highmore (1810) Pietas londinensis: the history, design and present state of the various public charities in and near London (London), pp. 237–53. 72. Twenty were aged 16, fifteen aged 15, fifteen aged 14, six aged 13, one aged 12 and two aged 11. At least one of the younger children was not admitted specifically because of their age (King, Institutional responses, No. 9, p. 81, 29 July 1812). Only six were boys. This sample is not necessarily representative of all cases, however: see ibid., p. 75. The sample used here is that of male and female narratives between May 1812 and July 1815. 73. This was to become a much more contentious arena later in the nineteenth century, when parents exerted considerable resistance to outside interference (for example, see George K. Behlmer (1982) Child abuse and moral reform in England, 1870–1908 (Stanford University Press)). 74. P. M. Dunn (2002) ‘George Armstrong MD (1719–1789) and his Dispensary for the Infant Poor: perinatal lessons from the past’, Archives of Disease in Childhood, Fetal & Neonatal Edition, 87:3, F228–F231; H. Bloch (1989) ‘George Armstrong (1719–1787): founder of the first dispensary for children’, American Journal of Diseases of Children, 143:1, 239–41. 75. It is estimated that the sector in total saw approximately 50,000 people in London every year by the end of the eighteenth century. The hospitals catered for a further 20–30,000. I. S. L. Loudon (1981) ‘The origins and growth of the dispensary movement in England’, Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 55, 322–42. R. Kilpatrick, ‘“Living in the light”: dispensaries, philanthropy and medical reform in late eighteenth-century London’, in A. Cunningham and R. French (eds) (1990) The medical Enlightenment of the eighteenth century (Cambridge University Press), pp. 254–80. 76. George Armstrong (1777) An account of the diseases most incident to children, from their birth until the age of puberty. Also a general account of the Dispensary for the Infant Poor (London), p. 212. He also felt that it would be impossible to accommodate a nurse for every child treated as an inpatient without giving rise to crowding and tainted air. 226 Notes to Chapter 7

77. Ibid., pp. vii–viii, 183–4. Children were apparently brought from eight to ten miles away (p. 181). 78. Ibid., pp. 181, 203. 79. Like many of the other mid-to-late-century charities, the dispensaries were funded on a joint-stock model, with individual subscribers making regular donations in return for the right to recommend patients. 80. Armstrong, A general account, pp. 200, 205. This did have to be waived at times of high demand, such as the spring of 1772, when only those with subscribers’ recommendations were accepted. 81. J. C. Lettsom (1775) Of the improvement of medicine in London on the basis of public good, 2nd edn (London), pp. 4–5. These comments were made in the context of the General Dispensary, established in 1770. Lettsom’s moniker was coined by Loudon, ‘The origins’. The contemporary author Highmore made a similar point about the care given in specialist smallpox and inoculation hospitals: ‘in many of the cases presented to the house committee we find some useful manufacturer restored to his loom and to his family; some brave mariner again enabled to augment the surge of national glory; some intrepid soldier again ready to animate his comrades by his example; some servant preparing to renew his fidelity, many a mother hastening with unspeakable joy to the duties of her household, and many a child restored to the anxious bosoms of its parents’ (Pietas londinensis, p. 273). 82. Surrey Dispensary Minutes, LMA, A/SD/2, 1 September 1777, p. 3; (1771) An account of the General Dispensary for Relief of the Poor, instituted 1770 (London), p. 5. 83. This was 1294 child records, although they were not all unique individuals (it is difficult to be more precise because of variant spellings and the reap- pearance of common names). In total the Dispensary saw over 4000 patients per year in the early 1780s, and in 1788 the publicity literature stated that 36,580 people had been cured or relieved since the charity’s foundation (Surrey Dispensary Minutes, notice prepared for the papers and reported 9 January 1788). 84. See Woodward, To do the sick, pp. 123–65. Patients whose conditions wors- ened may have been more likely to give up treatment and stop attending. 85. The most common disease recorded for child patients was fever, but this was only seven cases. 86. Children being treated in a sample of provincial hospitals did not have conditions of longer standing prior to admission than those of adult patients (Levene et al., ‘Child patients’). 87. The records only cover those whose recommendations were successful; rejection rates are unknown. 88. Exact figures are impossible to ascertain because of doubts about the identity of people with similar or common names. 89. John Bunnell Davis founded the Universal Dispensary for Children, St Andrew’s Hill, Doctor’s Commons; Charles West was the founder of Great Ormond Street Hospital. Davis had been a physician to the Surrey Dispensary (I. S. Loudon (1979) ‘John Bunnell Davis and the Universal Dispensary for Children’, BMJ, 5 May, 1, 1191). 90. For exceptions, see Levene et al., ‘Child patients’; Elizabeth Lomax (1996) Small and special: the development of hospitals for children in Victorian Britain Notes to Chapter 7 227

(London: Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine). More generally, see B. Abel-Smith (1964) The hospitals, 1800–1948 (London: Heinemann); Woodward, To do the sick. 91. Lawrence, Charitable knowledge, pp. 42–5. On the mid-century hospitals as examples of charitable giving, see Andrew, Philanthropy and police, pp. 53–4. 92. These are available at www.londonlives.org. Children’s names are often not ‘tagged’ in this database, and the label ‘child’ is never so, making it impossible to identify them using the search functions. Each transcribed page therefore had to be searched individually by eye for entries which record a patient as a child. These names (or more usually the name of the parent) were then linked via the database search function to any previous or later entries of the same person. This was valuable where the child was not named in another entry, but the parent was. This facilitated the building up of mini patient histories for child patients. 93. See Levene et al., ‘Child patients’. Generally children were permitted as outpatients or surgical patients. The brief 1707 Abstract of the orders of St. Thomas’s Hospital in Southwark lists the excluded categories only as those with itch, plague, smallpox, scald head ‘or other infectious Disease’. 94. Annual admissions were 7000 to 8800. ‘Easter reports ... of the great number of poor children and other poor people, maintain’d in the several hospitals, under the pious care of the Lord Mayor, commonalty and citizens in the City of London’, LMA, H01/ST/A41. The ‘children’ in the title refer to those at Christ’s Hospital, one of the original body of London hospitals refounded by Edward VI in 1553. St Thomas’ admitted more inpatients per year than any other London hospital (Lawrence, Charitable knowledge, p. 39). Outpatient numbers in the surviving registers are very small in number compared with these overall tallies. 95. Only 25 were named as lone individuals. Risse notes cases of parents and children entering the hospital in Edinburgh together for treatment, often suffering from the same ailment. This practice had ceased in Edinburgh by the 1790s, however. Guenter B. Risse (1986) Hospital life in Enlightened Scotland: care and teaching at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh (Cambridge University Press), p. 86, also example on 7–8. 96. These cases were marked ‘PP’. Siena believes that parish use of the hospitals declined over time (Siena, Venereal disease, p. 105, discussing both St Thomas’ and St Bartholomew’s). Both became increasingly focused on the working poor rather than the destitute. The workhouse in St Thomas Southwark was smaller than the others (An account of several work-houses, p. 77; Highmore, Pietas londinensis, p. 406). 97. Benjamin Golding (1819) History of St Thomas’s Hospital (London), p. 109. Golding cites this as standard practice for child patients at this hospital, and also relates a policy of children being accommodated two to a bed ‘when the complaints did not present any great objection’ (pp. 226, 230). The same policy operated at Guy’s Hospital in the nineteenth century. This hospital made a trial of separate children’s wards, but reverted to the mixed system (cited in Peterman, ‘From a cough to a coffin’, p. 220). 98. Susannah ward was only partially given over to foul patients, and in 1781 became a men’s ward (Siena, Venereal disease, p. 111). 228 Notes to Chapter 7

99. Elizabeth Richardson of St Botolph’s was reported as having died in St Thomas’ Hospital in March 1781 ‘whither she had been sent by the Churchwardens with her Mother who was ill with the foul Disease’ (St Botolph without Aldgate, Minute Book of the Guardians of the Parish Poor Children, 7 March 1781). There is a gap in the surviving registers for St Thomas’ in this year so the patient cannot be traced. 100. Siena, Venereal disease, pp. 42, 110–11, making the treatment of these diseases one of the hospital’s ‘primary functions’. 101. Golding, History of St Thomas’s, p. 225. Siena, Venereal disease, pp. 12, 102–4. Patient fees were abolished at St Thomas’ between 1758 and 1768, but when they were reinstated it was with a large discrepancy between clean and foul patients: 2s 6d compared with 17s 6d (dropped to 10s 6d in 1771). St Bartholomew’s Hospital made an even greater distinction, and the London charged 10s 6d while other treatments were free (Siena, Venereal disease, pp. 103–4, 221–3). 102. Kevin P. Siena (1998) ‘Pollution, promiscuity, and the pox: English venere- ology and the early modern medical discourse on social and sexual danger’, Journal of the History of Sexuality, 8:4, pp. 553–74. 103. Highmore, Pietas londinensis, p. 142. According to Woodward, the governors of Leeds General Infirmary also decided in 1775 to admit ‘innocent victims’ of venereal infection and their children (Woodward, To do the sick, p. 48). 104. Siena, Venereal disease, p. 193; Trumbach, Sex and the gender revolution, pp. 210–18. 105. Crawford, Parents of poor children, pp. 142–3. 106. London Foundling Hospital Infirmary Book 1758–60, LMA, A/FH/A18/1/2. I am grateful to Kevin Siena for sending me this information. At least two nurses were admitted to the Hospital’s infirmary for treatment, and their families were recompensed for their absence (General Committee minutes, 22 September 1756). 107. Andrew, Philanthropy and police, pp. 69–71; Siena, Venereal disease, pp. 192–3. Children featured prominently in fundraising literature, but formed only a small proportion of patients. 108. Highmore, Pietas londinensis, pp. 275–89, 298, and more generally 273–310. Examples of charities offering vaccination after its discovery in 1796 are the Vaccine-Pock Institution in Golden Square (established 1799 and vac- cinating the children of the poor for free); the Royal Jennerian Society in Salisbury Square; the London Vaccine Institution, and the National Vaccine Establishment in Leicester Square (ibid., pp. 414–31). 109. Crawford, Parents of poor children, p. 231. 110. The founder of the Infirmary for the Eye, Mr Saunders, specified that infants made the best patients for these operations, as the movement of their eyes still operated by instinct (Highmore, Pietas londinensis, pp. 356–67). The Sea-bathing Infirmary charged reduced costs for the under-12s (ibid., pp. 270–3). 111. See Tomkins, Experience of urban poverty, pp. 79–80; Lloyd, Charity and poverty, pp. 74–6, allying the soup kitchens with the Sunday schools in the movement promoting ‘usefulness’. In years of extreme need the kitchens might operate for longer. Schwarz cites 1811/12 as one such, when the soup kitchens continued selling into June (London, p. 112). Notes to Chapter 8 229

112. Society for the Relief of the Industrious Poor (1800) The economy of an institution established in Spitalfields London, for the purpose of supplying the poor with a good meat soup (Dublin), p. 4. Another author in 1801 commented on the encouragement soup kitchens offered to domestic economy among the poor (Anon. (1801) Practical oeconomy, or, A proposal for enabling the poor to provide for themselves, by a physician (London), p. 4. 113. Economy of an institution, p. 6. 114. Anon. (1800) General Report of the committee of subscribers to a fund for the relief of the industrious poor resident in the Cities of London and Westminster the Borough of Southwark and the several out parishes of the Metropolis (London), p. 8. 115. For example, General Report of the Committee of Subscribers, p. 9; Patrick Colquhoun (1800) A treatise on the police of the metropolis, 6th edn (London), pp. 81–2. Also see Anna Maerker (2010) ‘Political order and the ambiva- lence of expertise: Count Rumford and welfare reform in late-eighteenth- century Munich’, Osiris, 25, 213–30. 116. See, for example, ‘Account of the Spitalfields soup kitchen’, in Society for Bettering the Condition of the Poor (1799) Extracts from the reports of the English Society for Bettering the Condition of the Poor (Dublin). 117. This was the Rev. Mr Gisborne’s charity in rural Staffordshire, reported as one of the initiatives publicised by the Society for Bettering the Condition of the Poor in 1798 in The Gentleman’s Magazine, 84:2, 600. I am grateful to Alannah Tomkins for highlighting this type of charity to me. 118. Evans, ‘Unfortunate objects’. 119. Siena, Venereal disease, p. 132.

8 Making Shift: Community, Friends and Family

1. Davin, Growing up poor, esp. pp. 57–61. 2. Hufton, The poor, esp. p. 126. 3. Alysa Levene, ‘Family and community’, in Elizabeth Foyster and James Marten (eds) (2010) A cultural history of childhood and family in the age of Enlightenment (Oxford: Berg), pp. 33–48; Richard Dennis and Stephen Daniels, ‘“Community” and the social geography of Victorian cities’, in Michael Drake (ed.) (1994) Time, family and community: perspectives on family and community history (Oxford: Blackwell), pp. 201–4. Dennis and Daniels note that the term community can be both descriptive (location) and evaluative (concerning relationships), but that it is always used in a positive sense. 4. Keith Wrighton (1982) English society, 1580–1680 (London: Routledge), pp. 61–4. 5. Davin, Growing up poor, passim; Boulton, Neighbourhood and society, pp. 228–61; Ben-Amos, Culture of giving, pp. 45–81, and especially 47–58. This early modern gift economy included familial lending and advice, church doles, and parish and guild support, and ranged across social boundaries. 6. Edward Shorter (1971) ‘Illegitimacy, sexual revolution, and social change in modern Europe’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 2, 237–72. On London see also Earle, A city full of people, pp. 41–2, and Evans, ‘Unfortunate objects’. 230 Notes to Chapter 8

7. Trumbach, Sex and the gender revolution, pp. 281–2, but see Evans, ‘Unfortunate objects’, pp. 98–144 for a more sympathetic reading of the help offered by employers. 8. Hindle, On the parish?, p. 22. 9. Wrightson, English society, p. 51. 10. Ibid., pp. 44–6, 51–63; Keith Wrightson, ‘The politics of the parish in early modern England’, in Paul Griffiths, Adam Fox and Steve Hindle (eds) (1996) The experience of authority in early modern England (Basingstoke: Macmillan), pp. 10–46; Snell, Parish and belonging. 11. Laslett, ‘Family, kinship and collectivity’. The inclination to assist could be based on a sense of love or duty or, more instrumentally, on a sense of mutual benefit (Smith, ‘Charity’, 44–5). 12. For syntheses see P. Horden and R. Smith, ‘Introduction’, in Horden and Smith, Locus of care, pp. 1–18; Naomi Tadmor (2010) ‘Early modern English kinship in the long run: reflections on continuity and change’, Continuity and Change, 25:1, 15–48. 13. Laslett, ‘Family, kinship and collectivity’. According to Horden, kin were most dependable for long-term commitments, while friends and neighbours were used for emergencies, or lighter tasks. Family thus formed the ‘inner circle’ of support (Horden, ‘Household care’, pp. 35–6). See also Richard Wall (1999) ‘Beyond the household: marriage, household formation and the role of kin and neighbours’, International Review of Social History, 44, 55–67; Katherine A. Lynch (2010) ‘Kinship in Britain and beyond from the early modern to the present: a postscript’, Continuity and Change, 25:1, 185–90; R. Houston and R. M. Smith (1982) ‘A new approach to family history’, History Workshop Journal, 14, 120–31. 14. Laslett, ‘Family, kinship and collectivity’; Smith, ‘Charity’. 15. M. A. Crowther (1982) ‘Family responsibility and state responsibility in Britain before the Welfare State’, Historical Journal, 25:1, 131–45; also Hindle, On the parish?, pp. 48–58. 16. Smith, ‘Charity’, 34–5. 17. Pelling, ‘Child health’. In 1819 kin obligations were further reinforced by a law empowering Justices of the Peace to order parents or grown children to provide relief for kin (Burn (1820) The Justice of the Peace, vol. IV, p. 119, citing 59 Geo. 3 c. 12 and 26). 18. Boulton, Neighbourhood and society, pp. 236–61. Also see Wall, ‘Regional and temporal variations’, p. 103. 19. Boulton, Neighbourhood and society, pp. 253, 259. 20. Wrightson, English society, pp. 55–7; Beier and Finlay, ‘Introduction’, pp. 20–2. See also Steve King (1997) ‘Reconstructing lives: the poor, the poor law and welfare in Calverley, 1650–1820’, Social History, 22:3, 318–38. 21. Robert B. Shoemaker, ‘Gendered spaces: patterns of mobility and perceptions of London’s geography, 1660–1750’, in J. F. Merritt (ed.) (2001) Imagining early modern London: perceptions and portrayals of the city from Stow to Strype, 1598–1720 (Cambridge University Press), pp. 144–65. 22. On chain migration and the assistance of kin, especially in moves to London, see Kevin Schürer, ‘The role of the family in the process of migration’, in Colin G. Pooley and Ian D. Whyte (eds) (1991) Migrants, emigrants and immi- grants: a social history of migration (London: Routledge), pp. 106–42. Notes to Chapter 8 231

23. Vanessa Harding, ‘City, capital, and metropolis: the changing shape of seventeenth-century London’, in J. F. Merrit (2001) Imagining early modern London: perceptions and portrayals of the city from Stow to Strype, 1598–1720 (Cambridge University Press), p. 127. See also Wrigley, ‘A simple model’, p. 51, for the view that London life brought more casual contacts than elsewhere. 24. Louis Wirth, ‘Urbanism as a way of life’, in Paul K. Hatt and Albert J. Reiss, Jr (eds) (1957) Cities and society: the revised reader in urban sociology, 2nd edn (Glencoe, IL: Free Press), p. 54. 25. Michael Anderson (1971) Family structure in nineteenth-century Lancashire (Cambridge University Press). 26. For example, Bernard Capp (2003) When gossips meet: women, family and neighbourhood in early modern England (Oxford University Press); Laura Gowing (1996) Domestic dangers: women, words and sex in early modern London (Oxford University Press). 27. Wall, ‘The age at leaving home’. 28. Humphries, Childhood and child labour, pp. 73–80. In this study 16.4 per cent of the households were extended at some stage during the writer’s childhood, often involving the movement of children. See also Alannah Tomkins, ‘Poverty, kinship support and the case of Ellen Parker, 1818–1827’ (unpub- lished paper) on the range of kinship ties revealed in pauper letters which supported families with children. 29. Anderson, Family structure, pp. 68–102, quotation on p. 101. 30. T. M. Engelman (1979) The Jews of Georgian England, 1714–1830: tradition and change in a liberal society (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America). 31. Boulton, Neighbourhood and society, p. 233. 32. Kilpatrick, ‘“Living in the light”’, pp. 257–64 for examples of medical charities. 33. The Irish were also prominent among recipients of casual relief in London, partly because they could not be removed (until a legal change in 1819). In St Giles, two-thirds of poor relief expenditure went on the Irish (Green, Pauper capital, p. 43). For a contrasting example from the Welsh community in London see Sarah Lloyd, ‘“Agents in their own concerns”? Charity and the economy of makeshifts in eighteenth-century Britain’, in King and Tomkins, The poor in England, pp. 100–36. 34. This was true of the Quakers as well. Arnold Lloyd (1950) Quaker social history, 1669–1738 (London: Longman), pp. 32–5. 35. Highmore, Pietas londinensis, p. 94 (and 87–94 on this institution generally). It was founded in 1795, although it did not open until 1807. 36. Ibid., pp. 85–6. 37. For example, the Sephardic Bevis Marks synagogue ran three for boys and one for girls in 1810 (ibid., p. 86). 38. Ibid., pp. 314–16; T. Hitchcock (1987) Richard Hutton’s complaints book: the notebook of the steward of the Quaker workhouse at Clerkenwell, 1711–1737 (London Record Society). 39. Hitchcock, Richard Hutton’s complaints book, p. viii. Other committees which collected charity were the Meetings of Twelve and the Women’s Meetings. 40. Gareth Lloyd, ‘Eighteenth-century Methodism and the London poor’, in Richard P. Heitzenrater (ed.) (2002) The poor and the people called Methodists 232 Notes to Chapter 8

(Nashville, TN: Kingswood Books), pp. 127–30. The London Society had more than 2500 members in 1760 (ibid., p. 122). The decline in spending on the poor is explained by the diversion of funds to overseas missionary work, Sunday and day schools, ministers and preachers (ibid., pp. 129–30). For an example of Methodist schools see Mary Clare Martin, ‘Marketing religious identity: female educators, Methodist culture, and eighteenth-century childhood’, in Hilton and Shefrin, Educating the child, pp. 57–76. 41. Lloyd, ‘Eighteenth-century Methodism’; Richard P. Heitzenrater, ‘The poor and the people called Methodists’, in Heitzenrater, The poor, pp. 15–38; Himmelfarb, The idea of poverty, pp. 31–3. It should be noted that Wesley’s views of charity were not necessarily shared among the wider Methodist lead- ership. ‘Need’ was always a relative and qualitative term for Methodists. 42. See T. S. A. Macquiban (2000) ‘British Methodism and the poor: 1785–1840’ (DPhil. thesis, University of Birmingham). The characterisation of the Methodist attitude to charity is culled from the same source; any errors in interpretation are my own (pp. 5–11). The Methodist position on poverty and charity should rightfully be situated in a much more detailed context of the Evangelical revival and Wesley’s own teachings. For more detail see ibid., passim; Heitzenrater, ‘The poor and the people’. 43. Macquiban, ‘British Methodism’, pp. 68 and 179–83 on how the aims of the Methodists contrasted with those of the poor law; Owen, English philanthropy, pp. 93–6. 44. Macquiban, ‘British Methodism’, p. 2. 45. Ibid. 46. Ibid., pp. 84–5, 88, 120. 47. The Society was, however, adamant that it did not try to proselytise for any particular sect, but instead simply taught the lessons of the New Testament generally (Annual Report of the Strangers’ Friend Society (hereafter SFS), London, 1803, Oxford Centre for Methodism and Church History Archive, Westminster Institute of Education, Oxford Brookes University (hereafter OCMCH), 261.85 STR, p. 7). 48. SFS Annual Report, 1803. This states that ‘DISTRESS, wherever found, is the only recommendation required’ (p. 7). Each report covers activities carried out the previous year. 49. Ibid., p. 6. 50. Ibid., p. 8. 51. Ibid. 52. Ibid., p. 11. 53. Ibid., p. 25. 54. Roberts, ‘Head versus heart’, p. 77. 55. Society for Bettering the Condition of the Poor (1801) Remarks on the situ- ation of the poor in the metropolis, as contributing to the progress of contagious diseases (London), pp. 7–8. 56. Macquiban, ‘British Methodism’, pp. 72–3. 57. Roberts, ‘Head versus heart’, pp. 70–4; Owen, English philanthropy, p. 92. 58. Report from the Select Committee, p. 47. Macquiban cites the Spitalfields Benevolent Association which found employment and gave out food and soup tickets as a competitor with the London SFS (‘British Methodism’, p. 93). Notes to Chapter 8 233

59. Report from the Select Committee, p. 47. It was common to find a couple and three to four children per room in this parish; those in employment might have two rooms: one for the family, and one for the loom. Crawford also notes the crowding among poor families evident in statements made to the Old Bailey (Parents of poor children, pp. 125–6). 60. Macquiban, ‘British Methodism’, pp. 72–3. 61. Tomkins, Experience of urban poverty, pp. 204–34, esp. 206. According to Tomkins there were around 250 large pawnshops in London by 1750 and many smaller ones, with rapid growth thereafter. 62. Hitchcock, Down and out, pp. 97–123, esp. 117–19. 63. Ibid., pp. 3, 6–8, 45. Hitchcock notes that these beggars shared many of the same characteristics as workhouse inmates, including the skew towards women. 64. This was commented on by Patrick Colquhoun (Treatise on indigence, pp. 38–9). 65. Hitchcock, Down and out, pp. 75–96, 110–12. 66. Hufton, The poor, pp. 107–27. 67. Cary, An Essay, p. 103. 68. Hitchcock also makes the point that beggars were not necessarily divorced from community; many had a settlement in London (‘The publicity of poverty in early eighteenth-century London’, in Merritt, Imagining early modern London, p. 181). 69. Hindle, On the parish?, p. 56. 70. Poppel, ‘Children in one-parent families’. Results from nineteenth-century data show that parental death in a child’s first year of life reduced its survival chances for that year by 97 to 50 per cent (p. 273). 71. Ibid. 72. Humphries, Childhood and child labour, pp. 68–72, 191–6. 73. Horden and Smith, ‘Introduction’, p. 5; Laslett, ‘Parental deprivation’, pp. 162–3. The figures for paternal deaths are based on life table analysis using a paternal age of 35 at the child’s birth; 27 per cent of children would lack a father by the age of 15. Humphries finds that 14 per cent of boys in her sample of working-class autobiographers grew up without a mother (almost all because of her death), and 26 per cent without a father (18 per cent because of his death) (Childhood and child labour, pp. 61–2). 74. Horden, ‘Household care’; Poppel, ‘Children in one-parent families’. 75. Horden, ‘Household care’, p. 48. 76. Levene, ‘Charity apprenticeship’. 77. See Chapter 2 for more notes on this sample. 78. Humphries, Childhood and child labour, pp. 76–80. 79. These were labels used in the admissions books. See Pietsch, ‘Ships’ boys’, p. 164. Payne finds similar proportions for the 1770s (Payne, ‘Rhetoric’, p. 72). 80. Levene, ‘Charity apprenticeship’. 81. Marine Society Register of Poor Girls. See Chapter 2 for more information on this source. Out of 143 girls, 139 had background information on family. 82. King, ‘Destitution’, pp. 157–78. 83. King, Institutional responses, No. 50, p. 100, 16 June 1813. 84. Ibid., No. 72, p. 112, 10 November 1813. 234 Notes to Chapter 9

85. Ibid., Nos 122 and 123, p. 136, 3 September 1814. 86. Ibid., No. 150, p. 148, 10 December 1814. 87. Ibid., No. 198, p. 170, 27 May 1815. 88. Tomkins, ‘Ellen Parker’. 89. King, Institutional responses, No. 28, p. 90, 20 January 1813. 90. Ibid., No. 29, p. 90, 20 January 1813. 91. Williams sees this as part of the economy of makeshifts (‘Caring for the sick poor’, passim, and esp. p. 158). 92. Of these, 39 per cent were being nursed by their mother. St Mary Newington Southwark, Register of Bastard Children, LMA, P92 MRY/357. 93. St Sepulchre Holborn, Minutes of the Meetings of the Guardians of the Parish Poor, 29 July 1785; St Paul Covent Garden Guardians and Overseers of Infant Poor, Minutes, 23 December 1776. 94. St Paul Covent Garden Guardians and Overseers of Infant Poor, Minutes, 11 May 1778. 95. Either these mothers had a settlement there, or were in work and so could support themselves. See Levene, ‘Poor families’. 96. See Houston and Smith, ‘A new approach’; David Cressy (1986) ‘Kinship and kin interaction in early modern England’, Past & Present, 113, 38–69, although the latter is based on sources for more elite parts of the population. 97. Burn (1820) The Justice of the Peace, vol. IV, p. 122. 98. Lees believes that the New Poor Law promoted a greater degree of family break-up, so dissolving kin bonds. She attributes this to a lack of sympathy for the poor family under this regime (‘The survival of the unfit’, pp. 79–82). 99. This point is also made in Lynch, ‘Kinship’. 100. Owen, English philanthropy, pp. 134–46.

9 Conclusions

1. Eden, The state of the poor, vol. 1, p. 338. 2. Quoted by Himmelfarb, The idea of poverty, p. 74. 3. Colquhoun, Treatise on indigence, pp. 159–60. 4. Slack, ‘Hospitals’, p. 243. He sees the seventeenth century as the period where children were adopted as deserving. 5. An account of several work-houses, p. 64. 6. For other examples see Anne Stott, ‘Evangelicalism and enlightenment: the educational agenda of Hannah More’ (pp. 41–56), and Martin’s ‘Marketing religious identity’, both in Hilton and Shefrin, Educating the child. 7. Hanway, Candid historical account, p. 92. The branch of the Foundling Hospital at Shrewsbury was called the Orphan Hospital in accordance with Hanway’s suggestion. 8. Hindle, On the parish?, pp. 57–8. 9. Hogarth’s portrayal is in his 1751 Gin Lane. Unfortunately there are no children depicted in the accompanying Beer Street for comparison. On gin drinking, see George, London life, pp. 41–55, 68. 10. The questions asked about the size and occupation of poor families in the Town and Rural Queries in 1834 were infused with an assumption that Notes to Chapter 9 235

large households were indicative of ‘social decay’ (S. G. Checkland and E. O. A. Checkland (1974) The Poor Law Report of 1834 (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1974), p. 34). 11. Bentham, ‘Pauper management improved’, pp. 425–6. 12. Hitchcock, Down and out, p. 61, and also 226–8 on an increasingly senti- mentalised view of beggars; James Christian Steward (1995) The new child: British art and the origins of modern childhood, 1730–1830 (Berkeley: University Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive, University of California, Berkeley), pp. 173–89. 13. Shore, Artful dodgers. 14. Bailey, Parenting in England. 15. Lloyd, Charity and poverty, pp. 58–9, 175–6, 200–2. 16. King, ‘Destitution’. See also Shore, Artful dodgers. 17. Schwarz, London, p. 225, also citing the increased pressure brought about by higher marital fertility. 18. Cunningham, Children of the poor, pp. 4–5. 19. Ibid., esp. p. 7; Clark Nardinelli (1990) Child labor and the industrial revolution (Bloomington: Indiana University Press). For revisions see, for example, Sara Horrell and Jane Humphries (1995) ‘”The exploitation of little children”: child labour and the family economy in the Industrial Revolution’, Explorations in Economic History, 32, 485–516; Humphries, Childhood and child labour; Levene, ‘Parish apprenticeship’. 20. See David Vincent (1981) Bread, knowledge and freedom: a study of working- class autobiography (London and New York: Methuen), for a fuller reflection on the tensions between the reproductive and productive functions of families of the labouring classes (esp. p. 40). Humphries has also pointed out the degree of ‘breadwinner frailty’ even among families with two parents present in industrial England (Humphries, Childhood and child labour, esp. pp. 96–7). 21. Horrell et al., ‘Destined for deprivation’. See also Jane Humphries, ‘English apprenticeship: a neglected factor in the first Industrial Revolution’, in Paul A. David and Mark Thomas (eds) (2006) The economic future in historical perspective (Oxford University Press), pp. 73–102. 22. Cunningham, Children of the poor, p. 225. 23. Hanway, Letters to the guardians, p. 89. Select Bibliography

Manuscript primary sources

City of Westminster Archive Centre (COWAC) St Clement Danes Alphabetical List of the House, 1785. St Clement Danes Annual Register of Parish Poor Children. St Clement Danes Minutes of Assistants, 1779–98. St Clement Danes ‘Payment for nursing of children, Anno 1719’. St Clement Danes Payments to Monthly Pensioners and Nurses, 1719–21. St Clement Danes Register of Casual Poor, c. 1730. St Clement Danes Register of Casual Poor, 1733. St Clement Danes Settlement Examinations. St Clement Danes Vestry Minutes, 1715–21. St Martin in the Fields Annual List of Nurses, 1776–88. St Martin in the Fields Annual Register of Parish Poor Children, 1767–97. St Martin in the Fields, Guardians of the Poor Minutes, 1767–1812. St Martin in the Fields, List of Extraordinary Poor and Orphans, 1716. St Martin in the Fields, List of Parish Poor Children with Names and Addresses of Nurses, 1779–95. St Martin in the Fields Orphan Register, 1721. St Paul Covent Garden Guardians and Overseers of Infant Poor, Minutes, 1768–95. Vestry of St Marylebone, Workhouse Accounts, 1752–65.

Guildhall Library (GL) Annual Register of Poor Children, 1767. Christ’s Hospital Presentation Papers, 1705–1805. St Botolph Aldersgate Guardians Visiting Book 1805–11. St Botolph without Aldgate, Children Sent to Workhouse, 1807–34. St Botolph without Aldgate, Manor of West Smithfield, List of Pensioners, 1793–1827. St Botolph without Aldgate, Minute Book of the Guardians of the Parish Poor Children, 1767–1803. St Dunstan in the West, Minute Book of the Committee of the Guardians of Poor Children, 1789–1806. St Giles Cripplegate Workhouse, Children’s Admissions, 1797–1816. St Sepulchre Holborn, Minutes of the Meetings of the Guardians of the Parish Poor, 1767–1806. St Sepulchre Holborn, Minutes of Meetings of the Guardians of Poor Children, 1806–33. St Sepulchre Holborn Workhouse Daily Journal from 1725. St Stephen Coleman Street, Account of Children and Nurses, 1695–1729.

236 Select Bibliography 237

London Metropolitan Archive (LMA) Chelsea Workhouse Admissions and Discharges, 1743–99. Easter Reports … of the great Number of Poor Children and other Poor People, Maintain’d in the several Hospitals, under the Pious Care of the Lord Mayor, Commonalty and Citizens in the City of London. London Foundling Hospital General Committee Minutes. London Foundling Hospital General Court Minutes. London Foundling Hospital Infirmary Book 1758–60. London Foundling Hospital Parish Register, 1767–98. St Leonard Shoreditch, Children in the Workhouse, 1839–40. St Mary Lambeth, List of children at Norwood nursery, 1810–21. St Mary Lambeth Nursing Registers, 1771–78. St Mary Lambeth, Register of Cash Payments to the Outdoor Poor, 1817. St Mary Lambeth Register of Casual Relief for the Out-Liberty for 1819–20. St Mary Lambeth Registers of Weekly Payments, 1811–13. St Mary Lambeth Workhouse Admission Registers of Children from 1787. St Mary Newington Southwark, Register of Bastard Children, 1802–35. St Marylebone workhouse admissions registers, 1769–81. St Pancras Register of Inmates in Workhouse, 1783–87. Surrey Dispensary Minutes, 1777–99.

Archive of the National Maritime Museum (NMM) Marine Society Entry books, 1756–62. Marine Society Register of Poor Girls Placed Out Apprentice.

Oxford Centre for Methodism and Church History Archive, Westminster Institute of Education, Oxford Brookes University (OCMCH) Annual Report of the Strangers’ Friend Society, 1803.

Printed primary sources

(n.d.) The case of the Parish of St James Westminster as to their poor and a workhouse designed to be built for employing them (London). (1797) Sketch of the state of the children of the poor in the year 1756, and of the present state and management of all the poor in the Parish of St James Westminster, in January 1797 (London). (1804) Abstract of the returns made pursuant to an Act … intituled, ‘An Act for procuring Returns relative to the Expense and Maintenance of the Poor in England’ (London). (1804) Report from the Committee on the state of the parish poor children &c. (London). (1817) Report from the Select Committee on the Poor Laws: with the minutes of evidence taken before the committee; and an appendix (London). (1834) ‘Appendix to the First Report from the Commissioners on the Poor Laws, Answers to Town Queries’ (PP 1834 (44)), xxxv. 238 Select Bibliography

Armstrong, George (1777) An account of the diseases most incident to children, from their birth until the age of puberty. Also a general account of the Dispensary for the Infant Poor (London). Bentham, Jeremy, ‘Pauper management improved’, in J. Bowring (ed.) (1843, 1962 reprint) The works of Jeremy Bentham (Edinburgh: William Tait), vol. 8. Burn, Richard (1820) The Justice of the Peace and Parish Officer, 23rd edn (London). Cary, John (1719) An essay towards regulating the trade and employing the poor of this Kingdom, 2nd edn (London). Colquhoun, Patrick (1806) A treatise on indigence (London). Eden, Frederick Morton (1966, facsimile of 1797 edition) The state of the poor, 3 vols (London: Frank Cass). Hanway, Jonas (1759) An account of the Marine Society (London). Hanway, Jonas (1760) A candid historical account of the hospital for the reception of exposed and deserted young children, 2nd edn (London). Hanway, Jonas (1766) An earnest appeal for mercy to the children of the poor (London). Hanway, Jonas (1767) Letters to the guardians of the infant poor to be appointed by the Act of the last session of Parliament (London). Highmore, A. (1810) Pietas londinensis: the history, design and present state of the various public charities in and near London (London).

Secondary sources

Andrew, Donna (1989) Philanthropy and police: London charity in the eighteenth century (Princeton University Press). Bailey, Joanne (2012) Parenting in England c. 1760–1830: emotions, identities, and generations (Oxford University Press). Beier, L. and Roger Finlay, ‘Introduction: the significance of the metropolis’, in Beier and Finley (eds) (1986) The making of the metropolis: London 1500–1700 (London and New York: Longman), pp. 1–34. Ben-Amos, Ilana Krausman (2008) The culture of giving: informal support and gift exchange in early modern England (Cambridge University Press). Botelho, Lynn (2004) Old age and the English poor law, 1500–1700 (Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer). Boulton, Jeremy (1987) Neighbourhood and society: a London suburb in the seventeenth century (Cambridge University Press). Boulton, Jeremy, ‘The poor among the rich: paupers and the parish in the West End, 1600–1724’, in P. Griffiths and M. S. R. Jenner (eds) (2000) Londinopolis: essays on the cultural and social history of early modern London (Manchester University Press), pp. 195–223. Boulton, Jeremy (2001) ‘“It is extreme necessity that makes me do this”: some “survival strategies” of pauper households in London’s West End during the early eighteenth century’, International Review of Social History, Supplement 9, 47–69. Boulton, Jeremy (2007) ‘Welfare systems and the parish nurse in early modern London, 1650–1725’, Family & Community History, 10:2, 127–51. Boulton, Jeremy and Leonard Schwarz (forthcoming) ‘The parish workhouse, the parish and parochial medical provision in eighteenth-century London’, Select Bibliography 239

in S. King and A. Gestricht (eds) Narratives of sickness and poverty in Europe (Berghahn: Clio Medica). Calvert, Karin (1994) Children in the house: the material culture of early childhood, 1600–1900 (Boston: Northeastern University Press). Corsini, C. (1976) ‘Materiali per lo studio della famiglia in Toscana nel secoli XVII–XIX: gli esposti’, Quaderni Storici, 33. Crawford, Patricia (2010) Parents of poor children in England, 1580–1800 (Oxford University Press). Cunningham, Hugh (1991) The children of the poor: representations of childhood since the seventeenth century (Oxford: Blackwell). Cunningham, Hugh (1995) Children and childhood in Western society since 1500 (London: Longman). Cunningham, Hugh and Joanna Innes (eds) (1998) Charity, philanthropy and reform from the 1690s to 1850 (Basingstoke: Macmillan). Dasgupta, Anisha (2003) ‘Poverty, pauperism and parish relief in seventeenth- century intramural London’ (PhD thesis, University of Cambridge). Daunton, M. (ed.) (1996) Charity, self-interest and welfare in the English past (London: Routledge). Davenport, R., J. Boulton and L. Schwarz (2011) ‘The decline of adult smallpox in eighteenth-century London’, Economic History Review, 64:4, 1289–1314. Davin, Anna (1996) Growing up poor: home, school and street in London, 1870–1914 (London: Rivers Oram Press). Earle, Peter (1994) A city full of people: men and women of London, 1650–1750 (London: Methuen). Evans, Tanya (2005) ‘Unfortunate objects’: lone mothers in eighteenth-century London (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan). Fildes, V. (1986) Breasts, bottles and babies: a history of infant feeding (Edinburgh University Press). Fildes, V., ‘Maternal feelings re-assessed: child abandonment and neglect in London and Westminster, 1550–1800’, in Fildes (ed.) (1990) Women as mothers in pre-industrial England (London: Routledge), pp. 140–68. Fissell, Mary E. (1981) Patients, power and the poor in eighteenth-century Bristol (Cambridge University Press). Fletcher, Anthony (2008) Growing up in England: the experience of childhood, 1600–1914 (New Haven: Yale University Press). George, M. Dorothy (1927) London life in the eighteenth century (Harmondsworth: Penguin). Green, David R. (2010) Pauper capital: London and the poor law, 1790–1870 (Farnham: Ashgate). Harding, Vanessa (1990) ‘The population of London, 1550–1700: a review of the published evidence’, London Journal, 15:2, 111–28. Harding, Vanessa, ‘City, capital, and metropolis: the changing shape of seventeenth-century London’, in J. F. Merrit (2001) Imagining early modern London: perceptions and portrayals of the city from Stow to Strype, 1598–1720 (Cambridge University Press), pp. 117–43. Harding, Vanessa (2007) ‘Families and housing in seventeenth-century London’, Parergon, 24:2, 115–38. Hilton, Mary and Jill Shefrin (eds) (2009) Educating the child in Enlightenment Britain: beliefs, cultures, practices (Farnham: Ashgate). 240 Select Bibliography

Himmelfarb, Gertrude (1984) The idea of poverty: England in the early industrial age (London: Faber). Hindle, Steve (2004) On the parish? The micro-politics of poor relief in rural England, c. 1550–1750 (Oxford University Press). Hitchcock, Tim, ‘“Unlawfully begotten on her body”: illegitimacy and the parish poor in St Luke’s Chelsea’, in T. Hitchcock, P. King and P. Sharpe (eds) (1997) Chronicling poverty: the voices and strategies of the English poor, 1640–1840 (Basingstoke: Macmillan), pp. 70–86. Hitchcock, Tim (2004) Down and out in eighteenth-century London (London: Hambledon and London). Hitchcock, T., P. King and P. Sharpe (eds) (1997) Chronicling poverty: the voices and strategies of the English poor, 1640–1840 (Basingstoke: Macmillan). Honeyman, Katrina (2007) Child workers in England, 1780–1820: parish apprentices and the making of the early industrial labour force (Aldershot: Ashgate). Hoppit, Julian (2006) ‘The contexts and contours of British economic literature, 1660–1760’, Historical Journal, 49:1, 79–110. Horden, P. ‘Household care and informal networks: comparisons and continuities from antiquity to the present’, in Horden and Smith (eds), The locus of care, pp. 21–70. Horden, P. and R. Smith (eds) (1998) The locus of care: families, communities, institutions and the provision of welfare since antiquity (London: Routledge). Horrell, Sara, Jane Humphries and Hans-Joachim Voth (2001) ‘Destined for deprivation: human capital formation and intergenerational poverty in nineteenth- century England’, Explorations in Economic History, 38, 339–65. Hufton, Olwen (1974) The poor of eighteenth-century France, 1750–1789 (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Humphries, Jane (2010) Childhood and child labour and the British industrial revolution (Cambridge University Press). Innes, Joanna, ‘The “mixed economy of welfare” in early modern England: assessments of the options from Hale to Malthus (c.1683–1803)’, in M. Daunton (ed.) (1996) Charity, self-interest and welfare in the English past (London: Routledge), pp. 139–80. Jones, M. G. (1964) The charity school movement: a study of eighteenth-century Puritanism in action (London: Cass). Kertzer, D. (1993) Sacrificed for honor: Italian infant abandonment and the politics of reproductive control (Boston: Beacon Press). Kilpatrick, R., ‘“Living in the light”: dispensaries, philanthropy and medical reform in late eighteenth-century London’, in A. Cunningham and R. French (eds) (1990) The medical Enlightenment of the eighteenth century (Cambridge University Press), pp. 254–80. King, P. (1998) ‘The rise of juvenile delinquency in England 1780–1840: changing patterns of perception and prosecution’, Past & Present, 160, 116–66. King, P., ‘Destitution, desperation and delinquency: female petitions to the London Refuge for the Destitute 1805–1830’, in A. Gestrich, S. King and L. Raphael (eds) (2006) Being poor in modern Europe: institutions, surveillance and experiences (Oxford: Lang), pp. 157–78. King, P., Institutional responses: the Refuge for the Destitute, in A. Levene (general ed.) (2006) Narratives of the poor in eighteenth-century Britain, 5 vols (London: Pickering and Chatto), vol. 4. Select Bibliography 241

King, Steve and Alannah Tomkins (2003) The poor in England, 1700–1850: an economy of makeshifts (Manchester University Press). Kirby, Peter (2003) Child labour in Britain, 1750–1870 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan). Landers, John (1993) Death and the metropolis: studies in the demographic history of London, 1670–1830 (Cambridge University Press). Laslett, Peter, ‘Introduction’, in Laslett with Richard Wall (eds) (1972) Household and family in past time (Cambridge University Press). Laslett, Peter, ‘Parental deprivation in the past: a note on orphans and steppar- enthood in English history’, in Laslett (ed.) (1977) Family life and illicit love in earlier generations (Cambridge University Press), pp. 160–73. Laslett, Peter (1988) ‘Family, kinship and collectivity as systems of support in pre-industrial Europe: a consideration of the nuclear hardship hypothesis’, Continuity and Change, 3, 153–75. Lawrence, C. (1996) Charitable knowledge: hospital pupils and practitioners in eighteenth-century London (Cambridge University Press). Lees, Lynn Hollen, ‘The survival of the unfit: welfare policies and family maintenance in nineteenth-century London’, in Peter Mandler (ed.) (1990) The uses of charity: the poor on relief in the nineteenth-century metropolis (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press), pp. 68–91. Lees, Lynn Hollen (1998) The solidarities of strangers: the English poor laws and the people (Cambridge University Press). Leeuwen, Marco van (1994) ‘Poor relief in preindustrial Europe’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 24, 589–618. Levene, Alysa, ‘The mortality penalty of illegitimate children: foundlings and poor children in eighteenth-century England’, in A. Levene, T. Nutt and S. Williams (eds) (2005) Illegitimacy in Britain, 1700–1920 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 34–49. Levene, Alysa (general ed.) (2006) Narratives of the poor in eighteenth-century Britain, 5 vols (London: Pickering and Chatto). Levene, Alysa (2007) Childcare, health and mortality at the London Foundling Hospital, 1741–1800: ‘Left to the mercy of the world’ (Manchester University Press). Levene, Alysa (2008) ‘Children, childhood and the workhouse: St Marylebone, 1769–81’, London Journal, 33:1, 37–55. Levene, Alysa (2010) ‘Parish apprenticeship and the Old Poor Law in London’, Economic History Review, 63:4, 915–41. Levene, Alysa (2010) ‘Poor families, removals and “nurture” in late Old Poor Law London’, Continuity and Change, 25:1, 233–62. Levene, Alysa, ‘Charity apprenticeship and the building of social capital in eighteenth-century England’, in N. Goose and K. Honeyman (eds) (2012) Children and childhood in Britain, c. 1650–1900 (Aldershot: Ashgate). Lloyd, Sarah (2009) Charity and poverty in England c.1680–1820: wild and visionary schemes (Manchester University Press). Marland, Hilary (1987) Medicine and society in Wakefield and Huddersfield 1780–1870 (Cambridge University Press). McClure, Ruth (1981) Coram’s children: the London Foundling Hospital in the eighteenth century (New Haven: Yale University Press). Murphy, E. (2002) ‘The metropolitan pauper farms, 1722–1834’, London Journal, 27:1, 1–18. 242 Select Bibliography

Neate, A. R. (1967) The St Marylebone Workhouse and Institution 1730–1965 (London: St Marylebone Society). Ottaway, Susannah (2004) The decline of life: old age in eighteenth-century England (Cambridge University Press). Outhwaite, R. B. (1999) ‘“Objects of charity”: petitions to the London Foundling Hospital, 1768–72’, Eighteenth Century Studies, 32:4, 497–510. Owen, David (1964) English philanthropy 1660–1960 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Payne, Dianne (2005) ‘Rhetoric, reality and the Marine Society’, London Journal, 30:4, 66–84. Pelling, Margaret, ‘Child health as a social value in early modern England’, in Pelling (1998) The common lot: sickness, medical occupations and the urban poor in early modern England (London and New York: Longman). Perry, Ruth (1991) ‘Colonizing the breast: sexuality and maternity in eighteenth- century England’, Journal of the History of Sexuality, 2:2, 204–34. Petermann, Lisa (2007) ‘From a cough to a coffin: the child‘s medical encounter in England and France, 1762–1882’ (PhD thesis, University of Warwick). Pietsch, R. W. W. (2003) ‘Ships’ boys and charity in the mid-eighteenth century: the London Marine Society (1756–1772)’ (PhD thesis, Queen Mary, University of London). Pollock, Linda (1983) Forgotten children: parent–child relations from 1500–1900 (Cambridge University Press). Poppel, Frans van (2000) ‘Children in one-parent families: survival as an indicator of the role of the parents’, Journal of Family History, 25, 269–90. Roberts, Michael J. D. ‘Head versus heart? Voluntary associations and charity organisation in England c. 1700–1850’, in Hugh Cunningham and Joanna Innes (eds) (1998) Charity, philanthropy and reform from the 1690s to 1850 (Basingstoke: Macmillan), pp. 66–86. Schmidt, Jeremy (2010) ‘Charity and the government of the poor in the English charity-school movement, circa 1700–1730’, Journal of British Studies, 49:4, 774–800. Schwarz, Leonard (1992) London in the age of industrialisation: entrepreneurs, labour force and living conditions, 1700–1850 (Cambridge University Press). Schwarz, Leonard, ‘Hanoverian London: the making of a service town’, in Peter Clark and Raymond Gillespie (eds) (2001) Two capitals: London and Dublin 1500–1840 (Oxford University Press), pp. 93–110. Shore, Heather (1999) Artful dodgers: youth and crime in early nineteenth-century London (London: RHS). Siena, Kevin P. (2004) Venereal disease, hospitals and the urban poor: London’s ‘foul wards’, 1600–1800 (University of Rochester Press). Slack, Paul, ‘Hospitals, workhouses and the relief of the poor in early modern London’, in Ole Peter Grell and Andrew Cunningham (eds) (1997) Health care and poor relief in Protestant Europe, 1500–1700 (London: Routledge), pp. 234–51. Slack, Paul (1998) Poverty and policy in Tudor and Stuart England (London and New York: Longman). Smith, R. M. (ed.) (1984) Land, kinship and life-cycle (Cambridge University Press). Smith, R. M., ‘Charity, self-interest and welfare: reflections from demography and family history’, in M. Daunton (ed.) (1996) Charity, self-interest and welfare in the English past (London: Routledge), pp. 23–50. Select Bibliography 243

Snell, K. D. M. (1985) Annals of the labouring poor: social change and agrarian England, 1660–1900 (Cambridge University Press). Snell, K. D. M. (2006) Parish and belonging: community, identity and welfare in England and Wales, 1700–1950 (Cambridge University Press). Sommerville, John (1982) The rise and fall of childhood (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage). Stapleton, Barry (1993) ‘Inherited poverty and life-cycle poverty: Odiham, Hampshire, 1650–1850’, Social History, 18:3, 339–55. Styles, John (2007) The dress of the people: everyday fashion in eighteenth-century England (New Haven: Yale University Press). Taylor, J. S., ‘The unreformed workhouse, 1776–1834’, in E. W. Martin (ed.) (1972) Comparative development in social welfare (London: Allen & Unwin), pp. 57–84. Taylor, J. S. (1979) ‘Philanthropy and empire: Jonas Hanway and the infant poor of London’, Eighteenth-Century Studies, 12:3, 285–305. Taylor, J. S. (1985) Jonas Hanway, founder of the Marine Society: charity and policy in eighteenth-century Britain (London: Scolar Press). Taylor, J. S. (1989) Poverty, migration and settlement in the industrial revolution: sojourners’ narratives (Palo Alto, CA: Society for the Promotion of Science and Scholarship). Thomas, E. G. (1980) ‘The Old Poor Law and medicine’, Medical History, 24:1, 1–19. Tomkins, Alannah (2006) The experience of urban poverty, 1723–82: parish, charity and credit (Manchester University Press). Trumbach, R. (1998) Sex and the gender revolution: heterosexuality and the third gender in Enlightenment London (Chicago University Press). Wales, Tim, ‘Poverty, poor relief and the life-cycle: some evidence from seventeenth-century Norfolk’, in R. M. Smith (ed.) (1984) Land, kinship and life-cycle (Cambridge University Press), pp. 351–404. Wall, Richard (1978) ‘The age at leaving home’, Journal of Family History, 3:2, 191–202. Wall, Richard, ‘Regional and temporal variations in English household structure from 1650’, in John Hobcraft and Philip Rees (eds) (1979) Regional demographic development (London: Croom Helm), pp. 89–116. Williams, Samantha, ‘Caring for the sick poor: poor law nurses in Bedfordshire, c. 1770–1834’, in Penelope Lane, Neil Raven and K. D. M. Snell (eds) (2004) Women, work and wages in England, 1600–1850 (Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer), pp. 141–69. Woodward, John (1974) To do the sick no harm: a study of the British voluntary hospital system to 1875 (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul). Wrightson, Keith (1982) English society, 1580–1680 (London: Routledge). Wrightson, Keith, ‘The politics of the parish in early modern England’, in Paul Griffiths, Adam Fox and Steve Hindle (eds) (1996) The experience of authority in early modern England (Basingstoke: Macmillan), pp. 10–46. Wrigley, E. A. (1967) ‘A simple model of London’s importance in changing English society and economy 1650–1750’, Past & Present, 37, 44–70. Wrigley, E. A., R. S. Davies, J. E. Oeppen and R. S. Schofield (1997) English population history from family reconstitution, 1580–1837 (Cambridge University Press). Wrigley, E. A. and R. S. Schofield (1981) The population history of England, 1541–1871: a reconstruction (Cambridge University Press). Index

Tables are indicated by page numbers in bold. abandoned children 33–5 Cadogan, William 7, 174 rates of abandonment 34 Cary, John 161 Account of several workhouses 172 case studies by charities 158–60 accountability for wellbeing of charities 139–50 poor 88 benefits for supporters 131–2, 140 Act for the Better Protection of case studies 158–60 Parish Poor Children for children 139–44 (1767) 12, 13, 24, 46, 70, 73, for families with children 144–50 75, 174 reforming 143 Act for the Keeping Regular, Uniform removal of children 131 and Annual Registers of all and self-help 132 Parish Poor Infants (1762) 12, soup kitchens 150 13, 24, 46, 70 charity records 32 adult mortality 33 charity schools 3, 6 age groups used in sources 16–17 child beggars 160 significance of seven years 17 ‘child’, definitions of 16–17, 176 Annual Registers of Poor child mortality 7, 12, 13 Children 58 in London Foundling Hospital 47, apprenticeships 7, 32, 92, 115, 136 140 for girls 32–3 in parish nursing care 56–7 from workhouses 119–20 in workhouses 12, 115, 118 Ariès, Philippe 2 childbearing phase of life cycle 42, Armstrong, George 143, 144, 145, 43 173, 174 childhood Asylum for deaf and dumb changes in concepts of 2–8, 173, children 149 177 effects of economic/social badges for poor children 79 changes 173–4 Bamford, Samuel 125 formative experiences of 173 Barham, James 68 children working 7, 138 begging 160–1 defining period of childhood 176 Bentham, Jeremy 5, 8, 10–11, 14 economic value to family 138, Bermondsey 149 176 birth rate 7 restrictions 17 Blincoe, Robert 126 training for adulthood 172 Boroughside 153, 156, 169 value of work 7 breastfeeding 7, 92–3, 96 see also apprenticeships of illegitimate children 93 Christ Church Spitalfields 138 in workhouses 118 Christ’s Hospital 37–40 Buchan, William 7, 92 number of children per petitioner Burn, Richard 9, 167 (1705–1805) 39

244 Index 245

petitioners other than parents Gilbert’s Act (1783) 9, 97, 133 (1705–1805) 162–3, 163 grandparents 167 widowed applicants Guardians of Poor Children 13, 34, (1705–1805) 38 51, 53, 68, 74–5 clothing as charitable relief 136 variation in appointment 88 ‘Colledg of Infants’ 48, 107 variations in conscientiousness 78, Colquhoun, Patrick 9, 109, 171 89 Treatise on indigence 11 Guy’s Hospital 122 commercialism 3 communities Hackney Refuge for the Destitute 33, defining 153 143 religious 156–61 petitioners other than parents 165 strength of ties 154, 155 Hanway, Jonas 5, 11–12, 13, 14, 174, country nursing 51, 53, 54, 71, 75, 178 85, 94–5 children’s leisure time 125 and health of the countryside 85 establishment of parish criminal children 175, 176 nursing 45, 46–7, 70–2, 89 Cunningham, Hugh 1, 4, 6, 176, 177 family bonds 91, 92 The Children of the Poor 1 foundling hospitals 173 workhouse childcare 118 Davies, David 14 Hartlib, Samuel 13 Davis, John Bunnell 147 Health and Morals of Apprentices Act de Mause, Lloyd 2 (1803) 17 delinquency 176 healthcare 37 dependency 17, 176 charities 143–50 desertion 8–9, 25–6, 27, 33, 38, 41–2 by dispensaries 144–7, 160 ‘deservingness’ 8–9, 140, 151, 160–1, and experience for medical 168, 171–2, 175 professionals 7–8 destitution 138 home visits by doctors 160 dispensaries 144–7, 151, 160 hospitals 120, 121–2, 122, 122–3, Dispensary for the Infant Poor 143–4 147, 148–9, 152 Doli Incapax 17 and outdoor relief 135–6, 137 smallpox 85–7, 149 Eden, Frederick Morton 5, 170 venereal disease 148–9 Enlightenment 3 in workhouses 46, 115, 120–2 establishments for poor children see also parish nursing 67–70 Highmore, Anthony 157 expertise in childcare 174–5 homes (SFS case study) 159 hospitals 120, 121–2, 122–3 family allowances 10 House of Refuge for the Reception of fathers 14, 42, 94, 162, 176 Orphan Girls 143 foundling hospitals 140, 152 ‘Humanus’ 13–14 Foundling Hymn 141 foundlings 33–4, 56 illegitimate children 41, 93, 153, Friendly Societies 132 166 Friendly Society of Charitable Fund innocence of children 4, 169, 170–1, for the Relief of the Sick Poor at 175 their own Habitation 160 future value of children 171, 172 Jewish communities 156, 157 246 Index

Kennett, White 6 charity work 157 kin and friends, support by 154, Strangers’ Friend Society 155, 161–7 (SFS) 157–9 boys at Marine Society 163–4 Middlesex County Hospital for caregiving sponsors to Christ’s Smallpox 149 Hospital 163 Middlesex county workhouse 107 importance of 168 migrants to London 41 removal orders 166–7 Mile End hospital 157 King, Gregory 23 More, Hannah 68, 173 Knatchbull’s Act (1723) 48, 108 mothers bond with children 92–3 Laslett, Peter 40, 42, 154 payment for childcare 92 Lettsom, John 144–5, 149 life-cycle changes in childhood neighbourhood 154 175–6 sense of 155 life-cycle poverty 22, 26, 32, 40, and shared childcare 155–6, 169 42–3 New Poor Law 128 Locke, John 3 non-settled paupers 131, 132 1697 Memorandum on Poor Norwich 132 Relief 3 London: comparisons with other occupations 33 areas 41 Odiham, Hampshire 22 London Foundling Hospital 1, 4, orphans 40 7–8, 16, 139 admission to workhouses 115 and abandoned children 33–4 ‘at nurse’ 48–9 as charity 140–1, 142–3 outdoor relief 134 and family break-up 141 sent to nurses 96 founding 11 outdoor relief 132–9 ‘General Reception’ (1756–60) 140 clothing 136 health of children 82 for groups 137–8 as model of childcare 47, 73 growth in need 133–4 and parish childcare 65–7 importance for children 134 London Infirmary for the Eye 149 for non-settled paupers 133 numbers in receipt 136–7 makeshifts: options 130–1 ordered by workhouse malleability of children 3, 4 assistants 136 Malthus, T. R. 10, 169, 175 payments to parents or ‘man in the child’ 3 nurses 134–5 Manchester workhouse 126 ‘outside’ and ‘self-help’ 132 Marine Society 11, 16, 32, 139, 140, 141–2 parental death 36, 40, 161–2 boys brought by parents or parents/families officers 163–4 bonds within 9, 13, 91–2, 99, 173 marital break-up 25–6, 41 broken and complex 32–5, 40–1 maternal nurture 91–2, 118, 128, causes of poverty of 36–40, 38 173 children sent to nurses Matthew Martin’s Mendicity Enquiry consent to 98, 106 Office 160 costs 101 Methodists 156 control allowed 100–3, 174 Index 247

demands for return of evidence from registers 51–2, 61 children 103 Hanway’s campaign 46–7 deservingness 8–9 length of time spent with fluidity and diversity 21–2 nurses 55–6 helped by charities 144–50, 158–9 locations 62–4 and household forms 22 modelled on London Foundling making use of workhouses 119 Hospital 47 maternal nurture 91–2, 118, 128, mortality 56–7 173 number of children per mothers nursing sick children nurse 61–2 99–100 number of children sent out parental sickness 160 (1767–97) 53 parental vs nursing care 97 parish variations 58–61 removal of children 92, 93–9, 166, separate establishments 67–70 174 parish nursing rights of 14, 91 bonding with children 79 rights to choose 101–2 cost 89 separation of children 14 country nursing 51, 53, 54, 71, 75, settlements 23–4 85, 94–6, 172 single-parent families 24–5, 26, education 87 41, 42, 162 health of children 81–7 size and structure and care given by nurses 83–4 research and records 23–4, 32 and cleanliness 81–2 St Clement Danes 28, 29 infectious diseases 85–7 St Luke Chelsea 28–31, 29 inoculation for smallpox 86–7 St Martin in the Fields 24–8, lice and ‘itch’ 81–2 25, 26 measles and smallpox 85–7 size as cause of poverty 39–40, serious sickness 83–6 42 surgeons 84–5 wishes of, and parish officers 96–7 treatment 84–5, 86 see also kin and friends, support by inspections 73–8 parish houses for children 68–70 criticism of nurses’ homes 79–80 ‘parish humanity’ 71 frequency of 74–8 parish nursing: development 12, 14, lack of cleanliness 79, 80, 81–2 45–72 nurses’ homes 78–81 pre-1760s 48–51 removal of children 80 St Clement Danes 49, 50 variability of provision 75–8 St Martin in the Fields 48–9 need for supervision 73–4 variability of provision 50–1 pay 47, 65, 84 and workhouse movement recruitment 64–5 49–50 reputation of before 1767 73 after 1767 value of 88–90 age of children 52–3, 53–5, 54 Parliamentary enquiry (1778) 73 ages of nurse-children under five, pawnbrokers 160 City parishes 60 Philanthropic Society 143 arrangements with London philanthropy 5 Foundling Hospital 65–7 Pitt, William 10, 171 end of contact 57–8 ‘poor’, definitions of 17–18 establishment by 1767 Act 46 Poor Law Amendment Act (1834) 67 248 Index

Poor Law Commissioners 1834 Town parish nursing 49, 52–8, 61 Queries 96, 136 age at placement 54 poor laws 132, 171 health of children 82, 84 preserving children for wider how contact ended 57 benefits 6 length of time spent under profit and loss and childhood 5–6 care 55 number of children sent out Quakers 156 (1767–86) 53 workhouse, Clerkenwell 157 removal of children 80, 99 workhouse children 109, 110, 114, recognition of family bonds 9 117, 121 record-keeping 12–13, 51–2 St Clement Danes Minutes of redemption from bad Assistants 69 behaviour 143, 165 St Dunstan in the West 70, 74, 99, Registers of Poor Children 51–2, 96 100, 106 religious communities 156–61 foundling children 34 Jewish 156, 157 health of children 82, 83, 85–7, Methodists 156 121, 122 Quakers 156 inspections of child-nursing 76–7, remarriage 35 78, 80–1 removal of children by charities 131 nurses of sick children 84 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques 3, 125, 170 outdoor relief 137 Émile 3–4 St George Bloomsbury 70 Rowe, Sir Thomas 48, 107 outdoor relief 137, 138 St George in the East 97 St Agnes 137 St George Hanover Square 50 St Andrew Holborn 60, 66, 70, 73, outdoor relief 137 125 St George the Martyr 66, 70 outdoor relief 138 St Giles Cripplegate 59, 70, 112, 119 St Andrew and St George 73 children sent to nurses 96–7 St Ann Westminster 73, 137 outdoor relief 137 St Bartholomew Exchange 97 St Giles in the Fields 70 St Bartholomew the Less 68 outdoor relief 137, 138 St Bartholomew’s Hospital 121–2 St Giles Shoreditch 126 St Botolph Aldersgate 59, 65 St James Clerkenwell 67, 70 St Botolph without Aldgate 34, 59, St James Westminster 10, 50, 123 60, 62, 65, 68 outdoor payments 133 children sent to nurse 99 St Laurence Pountney 100 education 87 St Leonard Foster Lane 70 health of children 81–2, 86, 120 St Leonard Shoreditch 110, 119, 124 inspections of nurses 74–5, 78, 81 St Luke Chelsea 28–31, 29, 59, 108, outdoor relief 135 109, 112 workhouse children 120–1 family sizes (1733–1816) 29 St Botolph Billingsgate 100 outdoor relief 137 St Botolph Bishopsgate 70, 100 removal orders 166 St Clement Danes 28, 29, 31–2, 34, St Luke Middlesex 50, 137 102 St Margaret and St John family sizes (1733–1816) 29 Westminster 66 outdoor relief 134–5, 136 St Margaret Westminster 120, 172 Index 249

St Martin in the Fields 24–8 St Olave Hart Street 114 age of children 27 St Pancras 109, 124, 126 child deaths 121 St Paul Covent Garden 101, 104, child-nursing 48–9 122 children sent out to be nursed St Saviour Southwark 60 (1767–97) 53 St Sepulchre Holborn 66 family composition of paupers health of children 83–4, 86 (1775–78) 25 inspections of child-nursing 76, family sizes (1775–78) 26 81 one-parent families 27–8 inspectors’ advice on childcare 80 parish nursing 52–8, 62 mother refusing separation 101 age at placement 54 outdoor relief 137 change of nurse 80 parents’ consent to removal of Guardians’ meetings 77 children 102 how contact ended 57 workhouse children 109, 112, inspections 74, 77, 78 120 length of time spent under St Stephen Coleman Street 49 care 55 schemes for child poverty 10–12 number of children sent out schemes of training and work 4 (1767–97) 53, 95 School for the Indigent Blind 149 separate establishment 70 Schools and Houses of Industry 6–7 payments to parents or nurses for Sea-bathing Infirmary 149 care of children 134 self-help 132 St Mary Lambeth 20, 64, 66 sentimental views of childhood 5 causes of poverty 36–7 settlement examinations 23–4 outdoor relief 135–6 single-parent families 24–5, 26, 41, workhouse children 111, 112 42, 162 St Mary Newington Register of smallpox 85–7, 149 Bastard Children 166 Smith, Adam 5 St Marylebone workhouse 100 Society for Bettering the Condition of accommodation 123 the Poor 150, 159–60 age of children 111 Society for the Promotion of Christian children sent to nurses 94, 95 Knowledge 6 children’s removal from soup kitchens 150, 151 parents 97–8 specialised accommodation, need data presentation 110 for 173 family type of child entrants 114 Spitalfields 158, 160 length of stay 117 State of the Parish Poor Children, modes of exiting 115–16 Report (1778) 88 by grouping 118–19 step-parents 35, 165 proportion of child inmates 109, Strangers’ Friend Society (SFS) 110, 117 157–9 reasons for child admissions 115 annual report (1802) 158–9 rise in admissions 113 studies of childhood 1–2 sex ratio of entrants 113–14 Sunday schools 68, 136 sickness 121 Surrey Dispensary 144–7 St Matthew Friday Street 97 St Mildred Bread Street 137 training of children 171, 172 St Nicholas Olave 138 Trimmer, Sarah 68 250 Index unemployment 9 children with siblings 98–9 United Society for Visiting and death of children 12, 117–18, 119 Relieving the Sick 160 discharge with or to parents 119 unmarried mothers 26, 27 family type of child entrants 114 using parish nursing 93, 94 healthcare 120–3 using workhouse 93–4 access to medical treatment 120, 121 variability of support 177 contagion 121 venereal disease 148–9 hospital treatment 122 surgery 122 Wesley, John 157 length of stay 95, 117, 128 West, Charles 14, 147 maternal nurture 118, 128 widows/widowers 37–8 modes of exiting 115–16 work of children 33 by grouping 118 workhouses moral contagion 12, 117 age of children 111–13 mothers refusing separation 101 and apprenticeships 119–20 number and size of in London 108 babies sent to nurses 96 parents’ consent for children’s child inmates, neglect by removal 102 historians 108–9 and parish nursing 49–50 childhood experience 123–6 poverty as cause of admission 115 accommodation 123–4, 128 presentation of data 110 leisure time 124–5 proportion of child inmates 94, relationships 125–6 108, 109–10 children matched with parents 94 reasons for child admissions 115 children sent to nurses 94, 96–7, sick children 99, 100 110–11, 127, 128 used by families 98, 127 while parents stay 95, 96–7 used by unmarried mothers 92–3