ASPECTS OF CIVIL ADMINISTRATION AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN
NINETEENTH CENTURY KNOTTINGLEY
By TERRY SPENCER B.A. (HONS), Ph D.
Preliminary Draft May 2005
CHAPTER SIX
HUMAN DIMENSIONS
From
the time of the Act of 1601, with its reference to ‘sturdy beggars’,
little sympathy was shown to itinerants. Casual wayfarers, even when
genuinely seeking work were invariably treated as social outcasts and
being destitute, were unwelcome in any parish of entry.
It
was in order to prevent workhouses being treated as common lodging houses
that Gilbert’s Act of 1782 had specified that entry was to be restricted
to the aged, infirm, sick and children (the latter, accompanied where
necessary by their mothers). However, the socio-economic conditions of the
late eighteenth- early nineteenth century eroded rigid distinction,
particularly at Knottingley which as a maritime locality drew an above
average number of casual labourers.
Owing
to the limitation of space within the parish workhouse, alternative
arrangements were necessary at Knottingley and vagrants were accommodated
in the town’s lodging houses. In April 1842, however, the Select Vestry,
probably motivated by the desire to curb the increasing expense of such an
arrangement resolved that, "Blankets
and clean straw be provided in the Town’s Prison for the accommodation
of Vagrants instead of sending them to Lodging Houses and those who are in
real distress to have 3d each given to them for breakfast." (1)
Use
of the phrase ‘real distress’ indicates the dilemma of the authorities
in seeking to define genuine labourers from bogus ones (a situation not
altogether dissimilar to the contemporary problem concerning asylum
seekers.) Sometimes, it would seem, genuine cases did not readily submit
themselves to the indignity of prison accommodation, hence in mid 1841, it
was resolved, "That Mr. Bell
(Overseer) relieve the stranger living in Mr. Gaggs’ yard." (2)
Some
vagrants deliberately avoided the workhouse as a condition of entry was
the surrender of all personal possessions. Ostensibly, this was a measure
taken to safeguard against theft but by 1843 parish officers had been
granted the right to search tramps to obviate the entry of contraband
goods. Vagrants usually objected to such treatment and when in possession
of funds, preferred to seek a lodging house or otherwise sleep rough. (3)
In
order to deter bogus claimants, work was assigned to all able bodied pauper
inmates but on occasion the claimant refused to undertake the allotted
task. In February 1860, for instance, it is recorded that, "Joshua
Mattinson have no relief until he performs the work appointed for him."
(4)
In
October 1848 the ubiquitous Joseph Cawthorn was indicted for neglect of
work (5) and further distinguished himself in April 1852, being committed
to the House of Correction at Wakefield for refusal to work. (6) The
following year it is recorded that, "Jas
King be summoned [as] a rogue and vagabond." (7)
Another
persistent offender, John Kirkby, who, like Cawthorn, was a long-term
pauper, knew how to work the system to his own advantage. In the Spring of
1854 the Select Vestry sought unsuccessfully, to obtain his removal when
he sought relief, which Kirkby appears to have resisted on medical grounds.
(8) Undaunted by authority, Kirkby was still agitating as late as June
1856 at which time the Vestry resolved to commit him to the House of
Correction, "…if he persist in demanding relief." (9)
Nor
was such assertion of perceived rights an exclusively male preserve.
"The
Overseers to take Hannah Jolly and her daughter to Castleford tomorrow and
get them committed to the House of Correction if possible for returning to
this township after having been removed to Swillington", is
recorded in 1831. (10) The following decade Widow Kitson, another
recipient of frequent relief throughout the 1840s, despite being removed
to Kings Lynn in 1846, continued to make such clamorous demand for relief
by the Knottingley authorities that the Select Vestry decided to bring her
back to the town in order to have her committed to the House of
Correction. (11) Blatant contempt for authority by pauper inmates of the
workhouse is also evident. In 1843 Ann Rowbottom was threatened with
prosecution by the Select Vestry for wilful disobedience (12) and Thomas
Brook, supervisor of the oakum teasers in the workhouse, seems to have
defied earlier censure for in 1856 the Select Vestry resolved to haul him
before the magistrates "…if he get drunk again." (13)
The
threat of being sent for correction seems to have held little fear for
recalcitrant paupers. Indeed, one historian of the Poor Law has stated
that under the reformed regime, post 1834, life in prison was more
favourable than that in the workhouse. (14) Whether such claim was valid
under the Old Poor Law system as practised at Knottingley, is a matter of
conjecture but there is certainly much evidence of the parish authorities
threatening the committal of the more assertive of the town’s paupers.
However
beneficial referral to the House of Correction of those refusing work or
otherwise defying authority may have been for the parish and however
justified in terms of reformation of character of the offenders, there is
no doubt that the dependants of those committed also suffered punishment.
Thus, in 1825, it is recorded, "John Dixon’s family allowed 4s
per week until his release from Wakefield House of Correction",
and in September 1831, "John Sutton’s wife to have 1s6d for her
child, her husband being in Norwich jail for felony." (15)
In
April 1850 relief was denied to "Wm. Saynor’s wife and children…
he being in Wakefield House of Correction." (16), while in 1856,
sixpence of the five shillings allowed to the family of Reynard Shaw was
stopped due to his confinement within the House of Correction. (17)
Even
more drastic, in February 1829, "Thomas Langfield’s wife applies
for relief he being transported for the term of 7 years. She has 2
children, Julia, 4, and Ann, 1. To have 3s per week."
Langfield’s
wife had been granted 2 shillings per week the previous year at which time
he was stated to be in Wakefield House of Correction for poaching. Whether
the sentence of transportation arose from that offence is unstated but it
is, perhaps, wise not to rush to judgement regarding Langfield’s crime
of poaching which may have been prompted by a desperate desire to obtain
food for his starving family as much as by wanton criminality. (18)
While
existing records provide few instances of vagrancy its frequent incidence
is apparent from the fact that one of the prime duties of the township’s
policeman was the management of the tramps entering the town. (19)
In
general the plight of widowhood was recognised by the Select Vestry and
the attitude of that body is reflected in the degree of provision made in
cash and kind. Of eight applicants during the period November 1840 to
March 1841, all were granted some measure of relief with one case
resulting in admittance to the workhouse.
TABLE
SHOWING TREATMENT OF WIDOWS ANNUALLY BY KNOTTINGLEY SELECT VESTRY AT
QUINQUENNIAL PERIODS 1841 TO 1857
| YEAR |
No. RELIEVED |
No. REFUSED |
TO WORKHOUSE |
| 1841-42 |
20 |
5 |
1 |
| 1846-47 |
28 |
3 |
0 |
| 1851-52 |
14 |
12 |
0 |
| 1856-57 |
19 |
6 |
1 |
(Source: KSV Minute Books B & C passim)
The
table reveals the increase in the number of applicants for relief by widow
women during the ‘Hungry Forties’. The harshness of that decade is
reflected in the proportion of rejections, which fell from 20% of all
applicants at the start of the decade to 9.6% by mid term. A fall of 50%
in the number relieved in 1851-52 and a 46% increase in rejections of
total applicants for that year is perhaps less due to an increase in
general prosperity than of the financial crisis faced by the Select Vestry
during the early 1850s. Of the 12 cases in which relief was refused in
1851-52, 8 were cases in which ongoing relief was terminated, with 3 being
ultimately reinstated. It is an indication of humanitarian consideration
afforded to the town’s widows by the Select Vestry that throughout the
1840s they were granted an additional allowance. However, the effect of
the national financial crisis of 1847 on local affairs is seen in the
Vestry resolution of September that year, "That the extra
sixpences given to widows weekly be stopped." (20)
Examination
of the application of poor relief to widows reveals a comprehensive and
flexible system. In July 1827 it was stated that Widow Hodgson required
relief, her son (presumably the breadwinner) being very ill. Even more
distressing is the application of Widow Howes in 1831, who has seven
dependant children between the ages of 6 months and 13 years, to whom the
Select Vestry awarded 12 shillings per week. (21) In April 1841, Widow
Atkins received an advance of five weeks pay (22) while the previous
November, Widow Wainwright was granted 1s 6d per week, backdated to August
1840. (23) On occasion relief took the form of cancellation of outstanding
arrears of rates as seen in the cases of Widows Walker and Perfect in
1841, the latter also receiving 3s per week in addition. (24)
Arrears
of rates, which were collected quarterly, was a common danger, for paupers
found it almost impossible to save from their weekly dole. The Vestry took
responsibility in some cases, adjusting relief accordingly, as show by
reference to the case of Widow Howram who in 1851 has a shilling stopped
from her weekly allowance in lieu of rates. (25) In another instance, in
1842, the Vestry paid the doctor to examine Widow Greenwood (26) and in
1857 Widow Barber was allowed 9s to enable her son to be examined by the
doctor. (27) In 1841 the Vestry awarded 10s towards the cost of a coffin
for Widow Braime. (28) There are also numerous instances of the donation
of clothing and articles of everyday use to widows. Perhaps the most
intriguing concerns two donations of indefinable objects. In April 1849
the Vestry decreed that "Widow Clayton have a pair of Lord Mayors",
and the following month that "Mary Smith have a pair of Lord
Mayors." (29)
The
cases cited are the only examples of their kind and despite comprehensive
research the articles in question have not been identified.
The
state of widowhood did not guarantee automatic relief nor continuation of
the same once granted as shown by resolutions such as, "That Widow
Hepworth have no relief", and that "Widow Stacey’s pay
be stopped." (30)
Nor
were such cases infrequent as shown by the wholesale stoppage of widow’s
pay in March and June 1852. (31)
On
occasion widows were left with no option but admittance to the Workhouse
as in the case of Widow Newton in 1841 who was received into the House and
given "a few shillings", as was Widow Braithwaite the
same year. (32) In some situations entry into the workhouse was only
averted by the granting of conditional relief. Thus in 1845, the Vestry
decided that it would let "Hannah, Widow Jackson, have 1s and [the
Select Vestry] summon her son George", (33) and again in 1859
"Widow Fozzard have 2s per week and her sons be made to repay the
money." (34)
Or
yet again, in 1842 "Widow Cawthorn have 5s per week till her
daughter obtain work." (35)
There
is also evidence of a degree of coercion by the Select Vestry. Either
suspecting collusion between mother and son or alternatively seeking to
establish the whereabouts of the latter in order to obtain recompense, the
Vestry sought to resolve the issues in April 1852 by a decision that
"Widow Davis’s pay be suspended until she give up the letters
from her son, Thomas." (36)
An
interesting insight into the moral attitude of the period is provided by a
resolution of 1842, "Widow Tree – 3s - for herself and children",
has been subsequently amended in the apparent light of a later disclosure
so that the words "and children" have been struck out and
replaced by "and her legitimate child". In a similar case
two years later, Widow Arnold was given 4s 6d for herself and children,
"having nothing for her eldest girl", although it is
unstated whether this discrimination was on grounds of age, settlement or
morality. (38)
While
the resettlement of a widow was infrequent, it was not unknown as shown in
the case of Widow Grey in 1845 and Widow Kitson the following year, (39)
whilst directions such as "John Rhodes Lee’s Widow’s
settlement be enquired into", and that "Widow Stables be
examined as to her settlement", and that "Widow Whitteron
be not relieved by Knottingley", indicate active steps to prevent
widows being a charge to the town’s ratepayers. (40)
Legislation
in 1846 sought to prevent harassment of recently bereaved widows by
ensuring the right of residence for one year following the death of a
husband. It has been claimed that the legislative obligation was often
evaded (41) and a Vestry decision of September 1844, "That Calvert’s
widow & family have 20s to go to Hull to reside there", (42) may
be indicative of one method by which the statutory safeguard was
circumvented.
Careful
observation of widows within the parish is clearly evident pre 1846. In
May 1843, for instance, the Vestry noted "Thomas Rowbottom’s
widow has applied for relief" (43) and in another instance the
same year, it is recorded that "William Smith’s widow [pay] the
rates that have become due since her husband’s death." (44)
Similarly,
that "Widow Copley pay her rates", while conversely we
find Widow Carr having her rates given. (45)
The
combined effect of settlement law and financial stringency resulted in
even closer monitoring of widows by the late 1840s. In March 1849, the
Select Vestry instructed the Overseer to draw up a list of poor widows,
many of whom were victims of cutbacks in relief in the early years of the
following decade. (46) One example of a family which experienced adversity
as a result was the Wilds’. In 1842, Widow Wild, a long-term recipient
of parish pay, received 6s per week for herself and two children, together
with a rent supplement. (47) By 1847, however, the family was in crisis to
the extent that in January that year the Vestry decided "Widow Wild’s
daughter have 1s 6d per week [for] a fortnight then cease to beg."
(48)
In
April, Widow Wild’s son was sent on trial to Thomas Ellerington,
presumably in the hope of obtaining regular employment and income thus
removing him from the charge of the parish. (49) The hope appears to have
been unfulfilled, however, for in July the son was admitted to the
workhouse. (50) The mother, herself, was granted relief of 7 shillings per
week for a few weeks in September 1847. (51) Thereafter the record is
silent but the known facts typify the day to day struggle of pauper
families to make ends meet and their inability to cope with even the
slightest change to the status quo arising from unforeseen and inescapable
situations. The point is vividly illustrated by reference to the Widow of
James Cawthorn who had her pay stopped instantly after enquiries revealed
that her place of residence was a freehold property, thus making her
ineligible for parish relief. (52)
The
plight of widowhood revealed in the Select Vestry Minute Books tends to
overshadow less frequent but equally deserving cases of hardship arising
from death and desertion. Thus in April 1828, John Brigg’s wife applied
for relief, "…he having gone and left her with 2 children under
7 years of age", to which the Select Vestry responded by awarding
her 2s6d per week and resolved to "make vigilant enquiries with
respect to him." (53)
In
September 1831 William Shaw’s wife was granted 4s6d weekly and
re-housed, her husband having run away and deserted her. (54) When Peter
Horsefall, a presumed widower, died in 1832, his father became responsible
for the upbringing of the deceased’s three young children. Unable to
meet the burden, the father applied for parish relief and was granted one
shilling for each child per week. (55)
In
passing, it may be appropriate to digress and mention two privately
founded charities existent in Knottingley during the nineteenth century
which though restricted in nature and extent, were under the nominal
control of the Select Vestry and to a limited extent supplemented the
system of parish relief.
In
the years 1811 and 1812, Mrs Elizabeth Brown, a resident of York but
Knottingley born, donated two sums of £100 to be invested, the annual
interest to be used for the purpose of teaching a dozen young girls of the
town to read and knit and also to provide an annual Christmas dole for
Knottingley widows.
The
terms of the charitable foundation specified that the selection of the
young girls for tuition and the payment of the widows was undertaken by
the Curate and chapelwardens but the management of the money was to be
undertaken by four trustees, being principal inhabitants of the town (and
therefore almost assuredly members of the Select Vestry). The original
trustees were Edward Gaggs, Mark Carter, Richard West, and William Jackson
(56). By the Spring of 1837 Gaggs was the only one of the four resident in
the town and in accordance with Mrs Brown’s wishes that when the number
was down to one the Select Vestry be convened to nominate replacements,
met and appointed Rev George Stewart, John Carter and William Moorhouse to
assist Edward Gaggs. (57)
Of
the charity school we find no detail and the documentation concerning the
dole to widows is sparse. However, extant accounts covering the period
1853-71 reveal that the investment of £60 in 5% government stock in 1821,
enabled between 65 and 133 widows to receive 1s 6d each during the
aforementioned period. (58)
Where
the disbursement of public money was concerned there was little room for
sentiment, a fact which applied even to pauper children who were, if
anything, treated less favourably than were the widows of the town.
When
John Spence, a widower, was committed to the County Asylum in 1841, his 11
year old daughter, Ann, was left destitute and was summoned before the
Select Vestry in accordance with the stipulation of the Act of 1661, in
order that an examination of her circumstances could be undertaken. (59)
The Act stated that children whose parents could not support them were to
be taken into custody, set to work and apprenticed when of sufficient age,
but the practical difficulties of finding suitable work for children
created increasing difficulty with the implementation of that aspect of
the statute. (60)
The
Knottingley Select Vestry Minute Books furnish numerous instances of
children being examined (61) with the decision whether or not to provide
relief being made on the basis of oral deposition. (62) In some instances
children were admitted into the workhouse in accordance with the
stipulation of the Act. A resolution of March 1841 decreed that, "Amelia
Mountier’s children be brought into the House" (63) and at the
time of the 1841 census in June of that year the two children, Harriet,
aged 15 and Thomas, aged 10, were still inmates, together with another
child, Jane Fletcher, aged 5 years. Amelia Mountier was not, however,
resident within the workhouse, she being in receipt of 2 shillings per
week outdoor relief. (64) The reluctance to take children into the
workhouse, however, is suggested by a Vestry decision in April 1842 that,
"Widow Gill be allowed 1s 6d per week for a short time on account
of her son, Robert." (65)
Not
all children were readily provided for, however, children with no claims
to settlement were unceremoniously removed. In 1841 it is recorded that
"Benjamin Hall’s Children be removed to Brotherton", (66) and
in August 1858 that "William Robinson’s child be removed."
(67)
The
seemingly callous indifference of the administrators in the application of
the law is upstaged by the ease with which some parents appear to have
abandoned their offspring, leaving them to the mercy of the parish
authorities. The Vestry Clerk was instructed in August 1841 to write to
the bookkeeper at Leeds Pottery and enquire, "…where John Finny
(sic) is now working, he having left five children chargeable to this
township."
Of
the foundlings, Charlotte aged 6 years, Mary Ann, 5 years, and John 2 ½
years, were allocated 3 shillings per week for their upkeep. (68) Again,
in 1860, that, "steps be taken to compel Mrs Johnson to maintain
her grandchildren now chargeable to this parish." (69)
It
is of interest to note that earlier that year a court order had been
issued against Richard Johnson, the children’s father, in an apparently
unsuccessful attempt to compel him to repay charges incurred in the relief
of his children. (70) Clearly, the Select Vestry was intent upon recouping
its capital outlay by whatever means.
Defaulting
fathers were ultimately subject to arrest and confinement in the House of
Correction but delay arising from legal technicalities and administrative
delay and difficulties meant that the threat was more apparent than real.
Generally, the responsibility for supporting children fell upon the mother
and any relief afforded to the child could be regarded as afforded to the
parent. Nevertheless, relief in cash and kind was nominally granted to
pauper children.
"Elizabeth
Akers to have 1s6d per week for her child", and again "Jane
Shorter’s children [to] have 3s per week", (71) or yet again
"The children of Thomas Thompson [to] have 1s 6d per week each for
a fortnight", (72) are but a few of the many examples of relief
granted specifically for the benefit of children. However, on infrequent
occasions children were denied, as seen by the decision of January 1843
that, "Webster’s children have no relief." (73)
As
may be expected, the principal items of material provision for children
were clothes, hence in September 1843, "baby things" were
decreed for Sarah Wood’s child, (74) and a few years later the children
of Widow Wild received several donations of shoes, clogs and clothes. (75)
Sometimes, however, the provision was for a more solemn purpose, as in
March 1857, when, "Widow Barber have 9s given for her son, for the
doctor, he being lame", (76) or even more sombrely, that, "Ann
Appleyard have a coffin for her child." (77) Again,
that, "John Teal’s child have a coffin and dues." (78)
Unlike
adults, the children within the workhouse could not leave voluntarily and
were brought back if they absconded. (79) It was, however, Select Vestry
policy to place pauper children in the care of foster parents if possible,
paying an allowance to the foster parents. When, in August 1841, Thomas
North abandoned his daughters, aged 3 years and 11 months respectively, it
was sanctioned that "Mrs Hodgson have 3s per week for one month
with Thomas North’s child." (80)
Which
child is not specified but clearly North’s children were separated.
North appears to have been wilfully and consistently neglectful of his
children’s welfare. In March 1843, the Vestry charged him "…henceforth
to maintain his child", but his fecklessness (or desperation?)
continued and in June 1846 it was ordered that he be sent to the House of
Correction. (81)
"That
Ellen Lister and children come into the House and [the Vestry] pay her
children’s lodgings", (82) indicates that children were taken
into the workhouse initially while arrangements could be made to foster
them. Following the death of her father in 1843, Ann Spence was taken into
the workhouse before being, "…removed to Matilda Gill."
(83)
Six
months later the girl was still being fostered as indicated by the Vestry
resolution, "That Matilda Gill have a few things of clothing for
Spence’s child." (84)
The
unfortunate girl who was 11 when placed in the care of the Select Vestry
was still in receipt of parish pay seven years later in 1848, her only
hope of escape from pauperism, presumably, being matrimony. (85)
To
what extent fostering was undertaken out of altruism is conjectural.
Certainly, the allowance paid by the parish would provide an incentive to
those who sought to supplement their meagre income and if, like Ann
Spence, the young person was of an age to be useful about the house,
fostering provided a source of sponsored labour. For institutionalised
children a possible means of escape from workhouse life was via
apprenticeship, although as Charles Dickens so graphically illustrates in
his novel, Oliver Twist, such a course could be of dubious benefit to the
apprentice. Under the Old Poor Law, workhouse children could be bound to a
master with payment of a £10 premium by the Vestry. Apprenticeship,
however, like illegitimacy, created problems concerning settlement right
and this fact, taken into consideration with the potential for abuse of
pauper children, led to its abolition in 1834. There are however
indications of the continuation of the old practice at Knottingley in the
middle decades of the nineteenth century. A Vestry resolution of October
1823 states that, "All pauper children of a proper and suitable
age to be put out to apprenticeship to respectable Manufacturers at
Barnsley."
The
resolution was passed in the light of a report submitted by the Vestry
Clerk, Mr. J. Allison, who had recently been despatched by the Select
Vestry to enquire and report, "…at what ages the Manufacturers
will take children of both sexes apprentice..." (86)
No
further details are recorded concerning the proposed exile but in February
1832 the policy was still being observed, albeit apparently somewhat in
the breach, the Overseers being instructed, "…to take account of
all children chargeable to the Township able to out Town’s Apprentice."
(87)
In
November 1845 the Select Vestry responded to an enquiry by Widow Akers of
Silcoates requesting that her two oldest sons be placed as apprentices
(88) and in July 1854, a decision was taken, "That George Radley
be continued on the roads a few weeks until the Overseers can apprentice
him." (89)
On
the 28th August it was approved that Radley, "…be bound
apprentice to a shoemaker", (90) and in mid November Joseph
Watson, the Overseer, and Vestry member, William Worfolk, were deputised
to negotiate the terms of Radley’s binding to one John Waddington. (91)
The following March the father, William Radley, was granted 7 shillings
per week for the upkeep of his family but it was agreed that, "…the
eldest son come into the House and work at the Pottery." (92)
Whether
the said son was George Radley or his brother is unclear but it would
appear that the projected apprenticeship miscarried for in April 1859
George Radley was classed as a pauper, being allowed a pair of new
trousers by the Vestry. (93)
A
further attempted apprenticeship concerned Henry Rutherford. On the 14th
January 1858, the Vestry considered, "Whether the deaf & dumb
boy, Rutherford, shall be sent to the Deaf & Dumb Asylum."
(94) A decision was deferred, however, and it was not until September that
it was decided to send Rutherford to the Deaf & Dumb School,
Doncaster, "…at the expense of the Town, his mother providing
him with clothes." (95)
Rutherford
remained at the school for six years, being maintained by Knottingley
township throughout that period (96) but in late December 1864 it was
considered "…desirable to discontinue his maintenance…and if
possible to place him out to learn some trade and that the Assistant
Overseer write…to ascertain from him what business or trade is most
suitable." (97)
The
indications are that the Vestry plan was implemented for almost two months
later it recorded, "…that the parents of Henry Rutherford ought
to find the clothes he requires", (98) suggesting that he
required "decking out" to embark upon a new lifestyle. It
would appear, however, that the parents insisted that such provision was
the responsibility of the Select Vestry, initially unsuccessfully, for on
the 8th December 1864 the Vestry concluded, "that the case of
Rutherford be not entertained." (99)
However,
persistence by the parents resulted in a compromise being reached the
following month when the Select Vestry made an offer of £5 on condition
that the sum was matched by the Deaf & Dumb Institute and that Mr. C.
Willson (sic) accepted the total sum (presumably as a bond of
apprenticeship) subject to conditions laid down by the Poor Law Board.
(100)
In
sharp contrast to the Vestry’s long-term investment on Rutherford’s
specialist education is the attitude expressed by that body in a
resolution dated April 1858, arising from the initiative of a parish
pauper, "That Sarah Lawson’s request respecting her child being
educated at the Town’s expence (sic) [be] not complied with."
(101)
As
Lawson’s request was contemporary with the proposal concerning the
future education of the boy Rutherford it is tempting to suggest that
Sarah Lawson may have been motivated by her awareness of the Select Vestry
intention, though whether prompted by outrage, envy, or the desire for
equality of opportunity is open to speculation.
In
a male dominated society it is unsurprising that the education and
employment of men and boys was the pre-eminent, the placement of girls was
not neglected, however. Reference has been made concerning the attendance
of Maria Oxley at the Pontefract Statutes (hiring fair) in order to obtain
employment. Domestic service was the most common form of employment for
young females although agricultural work was often an additional feature
of work undertaken by those engaged by farmers. There is evidence
suggesting that in some cases short-term engagement occurred. A Vestry
resolution of August 1854 states, "Maria Westerman have another
situation obtained", and five years on Maria was instructed
"to go a few weeks to Mr. Twaites [local doctor] as servant",
being so deployed whilst awaiting imminent confinement with her
illegitimate child. (102)
The
transient nature of a considerable element of the poorer labouring
classes, particularly those associated with the maritime trade, together
with the substantial number of inns and beerhouses within the township of
Knottingley, combined to induce a high degree of moral laxity. (103)
Consequently, by the mid nineteenth century the township was one in which
drunkenness, vice and immorality were prevalent (104) and one which some
twenty years thereafter was recorded as having rates of bastardy, petty
crime and immorality well above the national average. (105) Placed against
this social background one may well understand the concern of the Select
Vestry to prevent claims being made on the parish by unmarried females and
their offspring. Where a situation arose in which an application for
relief was made by an unmarried, pregnant pauper to the Select Vestry,
rigorous measure were undertaken to obtain details of the putative father
in order to compel him to acknowledge and support the child. Thus in April
1835 we find, "James Adams be noticed to appear at the next
Quarter Sessions regarding Mounteer’s bastard Child which has been
filiated (sic) upon him." (106)
Thus,
we find in March 1842, an order by the Select Vestry that, "Mr
Willson (sic) [the Overseer] enquire after the father of Jane Collin’s
child." (107)
The
hapless girl was already in receipt of 1 shilling per week relief and had
subsequently sought and been denied refuge within the workhouse, either
because her allowance was insubstantial or perhaps to ease her
confinement. (108) Again, in March 1857, it was ordered, "That the
father of Dove’s child be enquired after." (109)
The
girl appears to have been particularly vulnerable to some predatory male
or perhaps unhinged by events, for some months later she was referred to
the magistrates for examination regarding her sanity. (110)
Sometimes
paternity remained undisclosed but on other occasions the alleged father
was identified as in December 1859 when Maria Westerman, (introduced above
as an erstwhile workhouse resident and sometimes domestic servant), "…was
examined before the Vestry and she declares that Sykes Taylor is the
father of the child of which she expects to be confined shortly."
(111)
Identification
of the alleged father resulted in legal prosecution by the Select Vestry
to ensure that maintenance of the illegitimate child did not fall upon the
parish. The process commenced with the issuing of an affiliation order. In
April 1843 we find recorded an order, "That Ann Briggs Affiliate
her child", (112) and again, in July the year following, in the
case of Harriet Howram, resulting in September in a resolution that,
"Notice be served of Bastardy on Thomas Swales." (113)
Once
the affiliation order had been issued by the magistrates it was the task
of the Overseer to collect due maintenance and keep account of all
payments made. (114) However, poverty or reluctance, or a combination of
both, frequently resulted in failure to obtain the imposed payment, as
shown by a Vestry decision in October 1838 that, "The Overseer see
Wm. Hossill & the father of Esther Hewitt’s child and [blank]
Harrison, the father of Margaret Lee’s child to enquire what sum, if
any, they each will pay & if not £30 each, to instruct Mr Harmer to
take up the cases immediately." (115)
The
response was obviously negative for the following month payment orders
were sought by the Vestry. (116)
In
January 1839 it was ordered that, "the father of Sarah Stacy’s
child be seen immediately", but again, with little effect for on
the 14th February it is recorded that the girl was to leave the workhouse
(where, presumably she had resided during her confinement) and have 1s6d
per week for her child. (117)
Rebuffs
notwithstanding, the official pursuit of putative fathers continued
unabated and frequently over a quite protracted period of time,
particularly if the reputed father was a native of a different parish.
When in July 1839, Mary (alternatively listed as Sarah) Waddington named
one John Marsden of Little Borough as the father of her child, a letter
was sent to the Constable of that parish; the Overseer of Little Borough
having ignored an initial communication from the Knottingley Overseers.
(118) The second missive also being ignored, the Select Vestry made
recourse to the incumbent clergyman at Little Borough regarding Waddington’s
child. (119) This seems to have yielded results but it was not until
October 1840 that Marsden was served with a summons for bastardy and even
then the culprits charmed life continued for he was fortunate to have the
debt arising from his transgressions paid by his master. (120)
In
1841 the Select Vestry resolved that, "Reynolds Shaw and James
Adams be indicted at the Quarter Sessions for arrears of bastardy."
(121)
In
the case of Shaw indigence was the obvious reason for failure to meet the
commitment for a subsequent entry reveals that, "Reynard (sic)
Shaw have 5s per week and an old blanket and two rugs." (122)
The
mothers of illegitimate children could always be identified and therefore
bore the brunt of Society’s opprobrium which condemned them for failure
to resist their seduction, while the fathers often escaped scot free.
Nevertheless, the list of local men who fathered children out of wedlock
seems to have been considerable and the time and labour involved in
collecting and recording paternity dues made such demand on the Overseers’
that in 1848 it was decreed that, "It is not agreeable to the
Select (sic) that the Overseer should receive Bastardy Accts. into his
hands." (123)
As
shown above, illegitimate children were discriminated against in the
context of poor relief, with allowance granted to legitimate offspring
only. (124) It is, however, of interest to note that notwithstanding the
moral indignation of ‘respectable’ society there are signs of a
softening in attitude towards illegitimacy over the decades. The term ‘Bastard’
is used less frequently in the minute books after the 1860s, being
replaced by references to ‘natural’ or ‘illegitimate’ children.
(125) The social stigma long remained, however, and it is only within the
adulthood of the writer that we have stopped victimising blameless
children although regretfully, it is still in vogue amongst an element of
present day society to castigate single parent mothers. Quid novi?
©2005 Dr. Terry Spencer
| INDEX |
INTRODUCTION
| CHAPTER ONE | CHAPTER
TWO | CHAPTER THREE | CHAPTER
FOUR |
| CHAPTER FIVE | CHAPTER
SIX | CHAPTER
SEVEN | CHAPTER
EIGHT | CHAPTER NINE
| CHAPTER TEN |
|
