A History Of Child Protection

In 1868, in rural Cheshire, John Bradley and his wife died within a few weeks of each other. They left a family of four young children under the age of eight. Several weeks later an aunt investigated, and found the children, still at home, in a filthy condition and half starved. They had survived only by eating raw vegetables from the garden. No-one had checked. All the family members had assumed that someone else had taken them. Despite their ordeal, and to the surprise of many, they all survived. One of them was my grandfather.

Such events were not rare. Froggy's Little Brother by Brenda New was a well-known Victorian tear-jerker of a novel, describing the heroic efforts made by seven year old Froggy to work and keep alive his infant brother in an East End garret after the death of their parents. Child neglect would not have been considered as child abuse; it was merely one of the tragic, if unintended, consequences of normal life.

Child exploitation was tolerated in much the same way, not least because child labour was cheap and versatile; children could carry out simple repetitive jobs or crawl into spaces too small for adults. It took Evangelical philanthropists like Shaftesbury to urge the Factory Acts through Parliament, limiting the hours that children were allowed to work in factories, mines and cleaning chimneys.

So neglect and exploitation may have existed but were accepted. What about cruelty, then - was that deemed unacceptable? Again, no. Much cruelty took place in families and schools, and was justified in the name of discipline. "Spare the rod and spoil the child" was the predominant social and religious ethic. John Wesley's mother advocated iron discipline - backed up by whipping, if necessary: "Break their will betimes.....make him do as he is bid, if you whip him ten times running to effect it..."

Parental rights were paramount. Parents knew what was best for their own children, and they could delegate the responsibility to others if they chose. Physical punishment was essential to establish obedience - everybody knew that. The family was a sacred enclave into which no legislator dared to tread. Even as the impetus that led to the establishment of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children was taking off, a reformer Whatley Cooke-Taylor wrote: "I would far rather see even a higher rate of infant mortality prevailing.... than intrude one iota on the sanctity of the domestic hearth."

That view was already being challenged and it was cruelty that first drew charitable public attention to the problem. The first of the local Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children were set up in Liverpool in 1883 and London in 1884: five years later they became the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. In 1889 the act known as the 'Children's Charter' was passed, permitting the law to intervene between parents and children for the first time in history. The police were permitted to arrest anyone found ill-treating a child, and - long before women could expect similar protection from violence - could apply for a warrant to enter a home, if a child was thought to be in danger. Five years later, the act was extended to allow children to give evidence in court and it also became an offence to deny a sick child medical treatment.

Child welfare became the next major concern. By the beginning of the 20^th century poor medical care, the existence of rickets, TB and malnutrition occupied the minds of Fabian reformers. School meals, free milk, and medical treatment brought about improvements in the physical health of children, and led to a sense of public satisfaction that children were being cared for.

    next > Page 1 of 2