Infant Mortality in 19th Century Britain
A Working-Class Problem and a Public Health Solution
A Political Dilemma
The need for public health reform in regards to the increase in infant mortality rates began ringing alarms in Parliament in the 1830's. This initially came in response to the Cholera epidemic plaguing London at the time, and sparked the interest of the government and public officials that had the power to create change. Sir Edwin Chadwick, a lawyer and social reformer, assumed repsonsibility for analyzing the social components contributing to the Cholera epidemic upon being appointed by the Royal Commission to analyze the functionality of the Poor Laws.
Upon touring the poorest areas of London, Chadwick published his "Report on the Sanitary Conditions of the Labouring Population and on the Means of It's Improvement" in May of 1842, which included his analysis of the causes of deaths among the lower class population. While the prevelence of disease was quite apparant across all districts in the areas he studied, he states that "the deaths from causes not specified were 11, 970." (Chadwick, 1842) It appears that 4% of the population was dying for unknown reasons, and it is extremely possible that cases of infanticide were ruled as a part of this unspecified category.
Cholera in the United Kingdom
Sanitary Map of Leeds
While the British government did not recognize the increase in infant mortality, or its political implications, right away, concerns began arising in the middle of the century about this contoversial dilemma. In a report by the Medical Officer of Health for Whitechapel in 1859, the issue of infanticide was addressed for the first time. The officer states, "I am very reluctant to believe that direct child-murder is of frequent occurrence in this country, although circumstances continually arise to render it far from improbable." (Whitechapel, 1859) This report called for a "certificate from a Medical Practitioner" when a child is still-born. Previously, it was thought that the greiving process for a dead infant made women so disconsolate that the government did not think that physical evidence of a stillbirth was necessary. However, the "temptation for infanticide"(Whitechapel, 1859) had apparently become so great during the 19th century that the government now required a visit from a medical professional to declare that the dead child was not murdered.
Another report done in central London, the Report on the Health of Paddington, investigated the deaths of 128 cases in 1864. "In 40 of the 128 cases investigated, death was due to natural causes, in 60 to accidents, in 11 to suicide, in 16 to homicide or infanticide, while in one instance no cause could be discovered." (Paddington, 1864) The report continues, including that, of 14 infants under one year who were criminally deprived of life, the bodies of two were found in inhabited houses, seven in the open air in streets or gardens, and five in the Canal." In other words, not only was infanticide occuring, it was occurring brutally, and at a rate of 12.5% of all deaths investigated.
(Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Paddington 1864)
If a woman was charged with infanticide during the 19th century, the conviction was solely her repsonsibility, not the man's. Even though failure to support the child was an offence punishable by both parents, (Poor Law of 1834) the blame for the murderous act always fell on the women. For example, all six of the baby farmers that were hung in the 19th century were women. Amelia Dyer, the most infamous of all baby farmers, was actually married to a man named George Dyer. However, he was not charged with any crime despite the fact that his wife was hung for multiple accounts of murder. The issue of baby farming was brought to Parliament in 1867 by Dr. John Brendon Curgenven in a paper entitled "The Waste of an Infant Life." It illustrated a "turthful but alarmning picture of the loss of infant life in England." (The Quartley Journal of Science, 1867) This paper was crucial to the problem of infanticide because it suggested for the first time that the government was repsonsible for the welfare of infants, however, there is no legistlation to indicate that Parliament took steps towards solving this issue besides creating more statistical reports and publicizing the deaths of women that committed the crimes.
Althought the government showed little response to the issue of infanticide, they did respond readily to the need for an improvement in sanitary conditions and the overall health of the poor community of Britain. Considered the 'father of epidemiology," a man named John Snow provided evidence to the Parliamentary Select Committee that the Cholera outbreak was due to poor sanitation and overcrowdiding in 1855. He urged Parliament to pass the "Nuisances Removal and Disease Prevention" bill, one of the first pieces of legistlation regarding disease prevention to be heard by Parliament. (Lilinfeld, 2000) This paved the way for the Public Health Act of 1875, which targeted the filthy living conditions and the spread of Cholera and Typhus in England.
Public Health Legislation in 19th Century Britain: A Timeline
1834 Poor Law Amendment Act
This act provided basic medical aid to the poor through the establishment of 'workhouses.' They can be described as "the most virtuous people crowded with the most vicious people on earth, and the treatment of one the same as the treatment of the other, and both worse than the common felon." (Driver, 1999)
Public Health Act of 1848
Essentially, this act encouraged local board of health to appoint a medical officer, provide sewers, and inspect living conditions. Although the act was repealed ten years later, it served as the first piece of public health legislation in Britain, and set a precendent for future measures that would aid in sanitation and disease prevention.
Vaccination Act of 1853
This act required that "every child, whose health permits, shall be vaccinated within three, or in case of orphanage within four months of birth, by the public vaccinator of the district, or by some other medical practitioner." However, the lack of enforcement of this act eventually deemed it futile. (Vaccination Act 1853)
1855 Nuisance Removal Act
This act made overcrowded housing illegal, but did not have proper enforcement.
1864 Factory Act
The aim of this act was to outlaw unhealthy factory conditions. However, the exact conditions considered "unhealthy" were up for debate, and the government was benifitting from the rise in industrial capitalization, so no one felt motivated to enforce it.
"A Drop of London Water"
Sanitary Act of 1866
This act made the government responsible for sewers, water and street cleaning.
1875 Artisans Dwelling Act
With a simple goal of "elevating the people," (Disraeli, 1872) this act made homeowners responbile for keeping their property in good order. Local authorities were given the power to demolish housing in the slums if the conditions were not improved.
Public Health Act of 1875
This reform act tackled a wide variety of issues such as the covering of sewage and drains, water supply, housing and disease. Local sanitary inspectors were appointed to overlook slaughterhouses and prevent the sale of contaminated food. The government assumed repsonsibility of covering sewers and maintaining their upkeep, supply fresh water to all citizens, collect trash and provide street lighting.
(The Gaurdian, 2015)
(openlibrary,org, 2008)
(The Lancet, 1842)
(British Medical Journal, 1892))
(Public Health Perspectives, 2013)
United Kingdom National Archives
United Kingdom National Archives
(Punch Magazine Cartoon Archive)
Conclusion
The rise in infant morality rates in Britain during the 19th century has been studied by historians, sociologists and public health experts both within the United Kingdom and abroad. The surge in industrialization and capitalism contributed heavily towards the divide in socioeconomic status as well as the inferior status of women at the time. In addition, the pressure to maintain a family, along with diseases sweeping the country, created a nightmare for parents living in the poor areas of Britain. Despite whatever motives, it is evident that mothers and fathers used a variety of means to dispose of infants during this time period.
The government and medical experts recognized the issue of infant mortality towards the end of the century, and combatted it with declarations, acts and pieces of legislation that imposed new laws and living standards directed at the poor. While Britian did not see a decline in infant mortality until the turn of the 20th century, a clear precedent was set for the future of public health. The field of public health continues to grow worldwide today, and credit can be given to 19th century British pioneers such as John Snow and Edwin Chadwick for establishing a need for the field, as well as contributing to the decline in infant mortality in Britain that accompanied the transition into the next century.