Farmers Dating
Farmers Dating 3,5/5 1115 votes
Here at Farmersonly.com, we offer a senior dating service that is unrivalled when it comes to dating among animal lovers, cowboys, and ranchers, among others. It's never too late in life to find a companion, and it's never too late for romance. Before you start your search, you might be a little anxious about looking for love. Sign up for free to find a farmer, rancher, cowboy, cowgirl or animal lover here at Farmersonly.com, an online dating site meant for down to earth folks only.
Baby Farmers and Angelmakers:
Childcare in 19th century England
UHP
Slum children in London, c. 1880.Childcare in 19th century England
UHP
An old joke about baby farms urges the listener, presumably ignorant of the true nature of a baby farm, “remember not to plant ‘em too deep or they won’t grow.” But plant them the nineteenth century “farmers” did, as the infants and children under their care died rapidly from illness, malnutrition, neglect, and active abuse.
The term “baby farmer” is a pejorative one that came into use only in the latter half of the nineteenth century. It referred to a person, usually a woman, who took in and cared for the children of other women. This kind of paid fosterage of children had a long history, but it exploded both as an industry and a subject of concern only with the rise of urbanism and all its attendant difficulties in the nineteenth century.
Before the advent of safe and reliable contraception, many women found themselves pregnant with children they could not care for. Sometimes the social stigma of unwed motherhood caused a woman and her family to place an illegitimate child in the home of a paid caregiver. For those whose families did not have the means to pay for such an arrangement, the situation was more complicated.
In England, the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 prohibited parishes from granting unwed mothers what was called “outdoor relief.” Poor unwed mothers could be given food, money, or clothing from the parish only if they went to live in the workhouse. Workhouses provided a bleak existence for mother and child alike. Not surprisingly, many of the women eligible for workhouse placement chose to place their children elsewhere so that they could continue to work and earn money – outside of the workhouse.
The term “baby farmer” is a pejorative one that came into use only in the latter half of the nineteenth century. It referred to a person, usually a woman, who took in and cared for the children of other women. This kind of paid fosterage of children had a long history, but it exploded both as an industry and a subject of concern only with the rise of urbanism and all its attendant difficulties in the nineteenth century.
Before the advent of safe and reliable contraception, many women found themselves pregnant with children they could not care for. Sometimes the social stigma of unwed motherhood caused a woman and her family to place an illegitimate child in the home of a paid caregiver. For those whose families did not have the means to pay for such an arrangement, the situation was more complicated.
In England, the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 prohibited parishes from granting unwed mothers what was called “outdoor relief.” Poor unwed mothers could be given food, money, or clothing from the parish only if they went to live in the workhouse. Workhouses provided a bleak existence for mother and child alike. Not surprisingly, many of the women eligible for workhouse placement chose to place their children elsewhere so that they could continue to work and earn money – outside of the workhouse.
Baby, clearly starved, removed from an American baby farm, c. 1917.Throughout the Victorian era, the most common form of employment for young women was in domestic service. Servants, however, were usually required to live in their employers’ homes and were unable to have their children live with them. The wages they earned as servants made it possible for them to pay other women to care for and raise the infants. The women who took in these babies did not regard themselves as baby farmers. They would have called themselves nurses or foster mothers.
This system worked well in theory for both participants. The mother was freed to earn money that she used to pay for the child’s care as well as her own expenses. The nurse, in turn, earned a small weekly sum herself while remaining at home and caring for her own family. Such a nurse might take in more than one child for paid care to increase her income.
This form of childcare did not raise concerns for many years. Fosterage and wet nursing had long played a role in English child rearing. Many married middle class parents placed their youngest children with a wet nurse in a country setting for the infant and toddler years. Jane Austen, who certainly did not come from an impoverished background, lived her first few years in the village home of her nurse. A home in the countryside was widely regarded as healthier for very young children.
In fact, throughout the 19th century, a country childhood was a healthier childhood. Rapid industrialization had made city life unpleasant and unhealthy. Air quality in particular declined during this period (the famous yellow fog of London was actually pollution as coal came into use both for home heating and industrial use). In London, the Thames was an open sewer with untreated human waste and the contamination of drinking water led to epidemics of cholera, typhus, and typhoid among city residents.
The same American baby above, now healthy, weeks after his rescue.This system worked well in theory for both participants. The mother was freed to earn money that she used to pay for the child’s care as well as her own expenses. The nurse, in turn, earned a small weekly sum herself while remaining at home and caring for her own family. Such a nurse might take in more than one child for paid care to increase her income.
This form of childcare did not raise concerns for many years. Fosterage and wet nursing had long played a role in English child rearing. Many married middle class parents placed their youngest children with a wet nurse in a country setting for the infant and toddler years. Jane Austen, who certainly did not come from an impoverished background, lived her first few years in the village home of her nurse. A home in the countryside was widely regarded as healthier for very young children.
In fact, throughout the 19th century, a country childhood was a healthier childhood. Rapid industrialization had made city life unpleasant and unhealthy. Air quality in particular declined during this period (the famous yellow fog of London was actually pollution as coal came into use both for home heating and industrial use). In London, the Thames was an open sewer with untreated human waste and the contamination of drinking water led to epidemics of cholera, typhus, and typhoid among city residents.
Even before the nineteenth century, cities were regarded as unhealthy for children. In 1767, for example, an act was passed requiring London parishes to pay for pauper children to reside at least three miles from the city until they were six years old. Clearly, children were better off in the country where clean air and drinking water were readily available.
Fostering children in the countryside worked for many years in part because the mother often held a job nearby as a servant. This allowed her both to know the nurse who cared for her child and to visit the child often enough to observe its care.
But, from the mid-nineteenth century on, industrialization and urbanization combined with stagnant wages to create a different type of fosterage. Beginning in this period, advertisements looking for children to foster or “adopt,” as well as ads searching for a place for newborns, proliferated.
Because the countryside was universally regarded as healthier, mothers preferred nurses whose homes were in the countryside. At the same time, the mothers preferred to work in the city, where wages were higher and the opportunities for work more plentiful. As a result, more and more women placed their children in villages and towns that were some distance from their places of work. Thus, complete strangers cared for children in villages and small towns with little oversight by the mothers.
The form of payment also changed. While some nurses continued to ask for a weekly sum from the mother to cover food, clothing and expenses, others demanded a lump sum as payment for the child’s care. The lump sum, sometimes five or ten pounds, was paid up front. The dangers of such an arrangement are obvious, but a young woman with an illegitimate child was often desperate to place the child and return to work. Those who asked for a lump sum sometimes used the term “adoption” to justify their demands and clarify their relationship to the child. Since adoption was completely unregulated during this period, this informal set up came under no scrutiny.
Newborns were frequently sent away from their mothers as soon as the mothers could rise from the childbed. These infants missed out on breastfeeding: they were bottle-fed cow’s milk, sugar-water, and other less than ideal liquids (specially devised feeding formulas that mimic the nutritional value of breast milk were not invented until the twentieth century). Poor diets undoubtedly contributed to the mortality rate of many of the newborns placed with these nurses.
Fostering children in the countryside worked for many years in part because the mother often held a job nearby as a servant. This allowed her both to know the nurse who cared for her child and to visit the child often enough to observe its care.
But, from the mid-nineteenth century on, industrialization and urbanization combined with stagnant wages to create a different type of fosterage. Beginning in this period, advertisements looking for children to foster or “adopt,” as well as ads searching for a place for newborns, proliferated.
Because the countryside was universally regarded as healthier, mothers preferred nurses whose homes were in the countryside. At the same time, the mothers preferred to work in the city, where wages were higher and the opportunities for work more plentiful. As a result, more and more women placed their children in villages and towns that were some distance from their places of work. Thus, complete strangers cared for children in villages and small towns with little oversight by the mothers.
The form of payment also changed. While some nurses continued to ask for a weekly sum from the mother to cover food, clothing and expenses, others demanded a lump sum as payment for the child’s care. The lump sum, sometimes five or ten pounds, was paid up front. The dangers of such an arrangement are obvious, but a young woman with an illegitimate child was often desperate to place the child and return to work. Those who asked for a lump sum sometimes used the term “adoption” to justify their demands and clarify their relationship to the child. Since adoption was completely unregulated during this period, this informal set up came under no scrutiny.
Newborns were frequently sent away from their mothers as soon as the mothers could rise from the childbed. These infants missed out on breastfeeding: they were bottle-fed cow’s milk, sugar-water, and other less than ideal liquids (specially devised feeding formulas that mimic the nutritional value of breast milk were not invented until the twentieth century). Poor diets undoubtedly contributed to the mortality rate of many of the newborns placed with these nurses.
Illustration depicting Waters, her sister Ellis, and the unfortunate babies.Sometimes the weekly payment was simply not enough to feed the child well. The children who survived, like the children of the poor everywhere, were weakened by malnutrition and thus, they were the first to die when they caught measles, smallpox, or any of the common diseases of childhood. Medicine was yet another cost that the poor, whether caring for their own or others’ children, could not afford. Even when a nurse was well intentioned, the child had a poor chance of living to adulthood.
But not all nurses were well intentioned. Some simply allowed the children under their care to die of neglect – starving them or willfully feeding them as little as possible to save on expenses.
The most notorious cases, however, involved female farmers who took in infants with the express intention of murdering them once payment was made. In some of these cases, the consigning parent understood that the infant was to be “disposed of” but in most the mother genuinely believed that she was placing her child with a caring nurse.
Margaret Waters typified the infamous “baby farmer,” who came to be so vilified in the press. Widowed in 1864, Waters turned to baby farming to earn a living. It appears that initially she charged about ten pounds to take in an infant. She then passed the infant on to another farmer, paying that farmer eight pounds or so. This enabled her to pocket the two pounds, a substantial sum, for herself.
But not all nurses were well intentioned. Some simply allowed the children under their care to die of neglect – starving them or willfully feeding them as little as possible to save on expenses.
The most notorious cases, however, involved female farmers who took in infants with the express intention of murdering them once payment was made. In some of these cases, the consigning parent understood that the infant was to be “disposed of” but in most the mother genuinely believed that she was placing her child with a caring nurse.
Margaret Waters typified the infamous “baby farmer,” who came to be so vilified in the press. Widowed in 1864, Waters turned to baby farming to earn a living. It appears that initially she charged about ten pounds to take in an infant. She then passed the infant on to another farmer, paying that farmer eight pounds or so. This enabled her to pocket the two pounds, a substantial sum, for herself.
Free Farmers Dating
Waters, shown disposing of an infant wrapped in rags.Farmers Dating
She quickly realized that there was a much easier way to make money. She kept the full sum, sedating the children with large doses of laudanum which both kept them quiet and suppressed their appetites. Under these conditions the children died quietly and quickly of starvation.
Eventually, she was caught. The testimony of the policeman who entered her home makes it clear that her intention was to kill the children. 'Some half-dozen little infants lay together on a sofa, filthy, starving, and stupefied by laudanum,' he stated.
At least sixteen children are known to have died at her hands, many other deaths are suspected. The babies rescued by the police and turned over to the parish workhouse almost all died as a result of their time with Ms. Waters. She was tried for murder, convicted, and condemned to hang. Her execution, which took place on October 11th, 1870, was the first conviction and execution of a baby farmer in England.
Waters’ trial and conviction inspired several members of Parliament to put forward the Infant Life Protection Act of 1872. This Act attempted to protect the most vulnerable children in England: illegitimate infants who were farmed out to strangers to be raised, or, all too often, planted in their graves.
Eventually, she was caught. The testimony of the policeman who entered her home makes it clear that her intention was to kill the children. 'Some half-dozen little infants lay together on a sofa, filthy, starving, and stupefied by laudanum,' he stated.
At least sixteen children are known to have died at her hands, many other deaths are suspected. The babies rescued by the police and turned over to the parish workhouse almost all died as a result of their time with Ms. Waters. She was tried for murder, convicted, and condemned to hang. Her execution, which took place on October 11th, 1870, was the first conviction and execution of a baby farmer in England.
Waters’ trial and conviction inspired several members of Parliament to put forward the Infant Life Protection Act of 1872. This Act attempted to protect the most vulnerable children in England: illegitimate infants who were farmed out to strangers to be raised, or, all too often, planted in their graves.