Document

At the time of the First World War the system for organising care for the poor in Britain was still based on the arrangements made over 80 years earlier.

The government in the 1830s gave responsibility for this huge task to Poor Law Unions which were set up across the country from that time. Each Union was composed of a number of local parishes and was run by a board of guardians. These unions still operated during the First World War and were eventually abolished in 1930 when local councils took over their work, so they were around for 100 years. Workhouses were under the control of these Unions in the 19th and early 20th century where the most needy of the poor, the elderly, widows, children, the sick and disabled, and even the unemployed, were housed.

From the 1860s, however, a boarding-out system for orphaned and abandoned children was introduced whereby children from the workhouses would be placed in ordinary homes and be in the care of adults who would effectively be their foster parents. Many in authority felt that such an arrangement would offer the children a much better opportunity for they would be removed from the workhouse and so would be more integrated in local communities. They could also escape the stigma of being “union” children, that is, workhouse children. They could attend school with other children and this would allow them to make progress and gain skills for their lives as adults.

Foster parents were paid an allowance of up to four shillings and the children had to be housed a suitable distance from a school and also near to the inspector or visitor who would inspect their homes and standard of care and report on their progress at regular intervals. Most of these inspectors were women.

We can follow the progress of some of those children in County Durham, thanks to the files which are held at the Record Office, so we can get a glimpse of how some of these children fared during the period just before and during the war.

Before children were boarded out an initial proposal form had to be completed to establish the suitability of the homes for the children. Details of the foster parents were recorded, their age and employment, for example, as well as their character. The sleeping arrangements, number and age of occupants in each home were also recorded, so these children were not placed casually with adults but only settled after careful scrutiny of their new home.

The visitor report focused on the health and general well-being of each child as well as the quality of care they were receiving. Comments were made about the cleanliness of the home and the occupants, sleeping arrangements and whether there were any causes for concern. If a child was suffering from an illness there would be a follow-up visit and visitors wold also ensure that doctors were used if foster parents hadn’t already consulted them.

While there was still much to be done, it is clear that progress was already being made in the provision of care for poor children and the 1908 Children’s Act, passed by the Liberal Government, undoubtedly strengthened the whole approach to this issue.

The Children’s Act attempted to bring together various measures for improving child welfare already in existence. This new law focused on improving the standards of childcare by authorising inspectors to visit and examine conditions in particular homes. It also strengthened the definition of cruelty to children by including in it the charge of neglect. Parents who failed to feed and clothe their children adequately, or who did not provide a safe domestic environment, could be now prosecuted. In April and May 1917 the Durham Chronicle reported on two court cases involving the scalding and death of a child through neglect and the death of another child from severe burns. In the latter case the judge severely admonished a mother for failing to provide a fireguard which would have prevented the tragedy.

Other measures were included in this 1908 law but its key objective was to establish that local authorities had a responsibility for child welfare, and parents would now be held to account much more rigorously by authorities for their treatment of children

Using the visitor and school reports we can examine the cases of a few children to illustrate how they were cared for during the First World War:

See Edward Lancelot Fawcett, Anne Armstrong and Donald Taylor (scroll down to related stories.)

While many reports indicate that these boarding-out children were well care for, other reports from the 1914-1918 period indicate a much more depressing picture.

During 1917 the Durham Chronicle presented some sobering accounts of child neglect cases in the local area. There seems little doubt that the war exacerbated the conditions which prompted such neglect. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which was active in those years, drew attention to the problems caused by fathers serving in the armed services, by the consequent reduction of income for many families and the increased consumption of alcohol which led to serious social problems.

Several mothers were convicted of cruelty to children and even manslaughter. In January four young children of Sarah Smith of Middle Rainton were found to be dirty and starving. The mother was clearly not looking after them and so three of the children were sent to the workhouse. Another mother, Sarah Hartley was sentenced to 12 months hard labour for the manslaughter of her 16-month-old and 4-month-old children, who had starved to death and were covered in sores and vermin when found. The judge commented on the extent of the cruelty suffered by these two young children. Maternal neglect appears to have been a key issue in the local newspaper. Children suffered injuries because of poor supervision at times. Attention was drawn to the “chaotic and immoral” lifestyle of some of these women, which sometimes appears to refer to excessive alcohol consumption by some mothers.

Two years earlier, in 1915, the Chronicle reported on the disturbing news that six boys had drowned at Durham within six months in that year. Two boys drowned in July, including a nine-year-old boy, Thomas Cheston. His father had served in the Northumberland Fusiliers and was killed in action 3 months before the drowning. In all these cases the boys had been unsupervised and the newspaper reports appear to imply that the absence of fathers was a significant factor in some of these tragedies.

Firm action was also taken against parents whose children missed school. Parents had to appear in court and the children’s attendance was then monitored.

Though these stories are heart-rending, it is of some comfort that the authorities were now focusing on the need for improved levels of childcare. The fact that such cases of neglect and tragic accidents were being reported widely is an indicator of this.

Author: Mel Brown, Durham

Contributed by Mel Brown, Durham