Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g5fl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-30T04:27:41.673Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Private Women, Public Needs: Middle-Class Widows in Victorian England

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2014

Cynthia Curran
Get access

Extract

I do find this life so hard to bear. It is so dead & [Aunt] M so dictatorial yet I see nothing better could happen. Oh! for a home of my own….[A] wet day and oh! so dreary. [Aunt] Maria & I have fought like two tigers. How I hate it all, this dreary weary life. Oh! for a nice change or money to leave here. [Thursday, May 15, and Tuesday, May 20, 1879].

So read a typical entry from the diary of the widowed Mrs. L.M. Simpson, born in 1839. The continuing refrains of a lack of money, a sense of not belonging and an unwilling dependence reverberate throughout her diary. She celebrated (if that is not too cheerful a term for such a morose notation) her fortieth birthday while writing in this journal, and noted the passing of her former wedding anniversary and the birthdays of each of her deceased parents. The most important entries dealt with persons who are no longer with her and happy events that took place long ago. This lamentation from Mrs. Simpson provides a startling contrast with the picture presented by a large group of historians.

Type
Research Article
Information
Albion , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , Summer 1993 , pp. 217 - 236
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Mrs. L.M. Simpson, entries for Thursday, May 15, 1879, and Tuesday, May 20, 1879, in unpublished diary, Edward Hall Manuscripts Collection, Wigan Public Library, libr. no. M822, No. E.H.C. 53.

2 Anderson, Michael, “The Social Position of Spinsters in Mid-Victorian Britain,” Journal of Family History 9 (1984): 377-93CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 For an overview of the British reaction to the spinster “problem,” see Kanner, S. Barbara, “The Women of England in a Century of Social Change, 1815-1914,” in Suffer and Be Still, ed. Vicinus, Martha (Blcomington, 1972), pp. 183-85Google Scholar. For more recent historical interpretations, consult the special issue on spinsters of Journal of Family History 9 (1984)Google Scholar.

4 Some historians, such as Vicinus, Martha, Independent Women (Chicago, 1985Google Scholar), recognized the “unique” situation of widows but chose not to include them in studies of Victorian women. The historical ignorance of the role of widows cannot be explained by the paucity of their numbers. Although the actual number is difficult to determine, from 9% to 14% of all households were headed by widows and spinsters. Admittedly, single women who headed their own households would inflate the numbers, but widows who were living with others would not be included. See Wall, Richard, “Woman Alone in English Society,” Annates de Demographie Historique, (Paris, 1981): 317, 303Google Scholar; Farr, William, “Statistics of the Civil Service of England, with Observations on the Constitution of Funds, to Provide for Fatherless Children and Widows,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society of London 12 (1846): 126Google Scholar. Mitchell, B.R. and Jones, H.G., Second Abstract of British Historical Statistics (Cambridge, 1971), p. 16Google Scholar.

5 For the purposes of this article, middle class is defined as encompassing all non-manual occupations except aristocrats or landed gentry. Peter Laslett places the middle and upper class figure at 5% to 15%, but the consensus places the figure in the 25th percentile (The World We Have Lost [London, 1965]Google ScholarPubMed); Neale, R.S., Class and Ideology in the Nineteenth Century (London, 1972), p. 10Google Scholar; Davidoff, Leonore and Hall, Catherine, Family Fortunes (London, 1987)Google Scholar; Perkin, Harold, The Rise of Professional Society (London, 1989), p. 29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Lindert, Peter H., “Unequal English Wealth Since 1670,” Journal of Political Economy 94 (1986): 1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the controversy over competition in the professions and its effect on middle-clan income, see Musgrove, F., “Middle-Class Education and Employment in the Nineteenth Century,” Economic History Review 2nd ser. 12 (1959): 99–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Perkin, Harold, “Middle-Class Education and Employment in the Nineteenth Century: A Critical Note,” Economic History Review 2nd ser. 14 (1961): 122-30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Musgrove, F., “Middle-Class Education and Employment in the Nineteenth Century: A Rejoinder,” Economic History Review 2nd ser. 14 (1961): 320-29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Nenadic, Stana, “Businessmen, the Urban Middle Classes, and the ‘Dominance’ of Manufacturers in Nineteenth-Century Britain,” Economic History Review 44 (1991): 66–85Google Scholar. Rubinstein, W.D., Wealth and Inequality in Britain (London, 1986)Google Scholar; Baxter, R. Dudley, National Income (London, 1868)Google Scholar; Colquhoun, Patrick, Treatise on Indulgence (London, 1802)Google Scholar; Lindert, Peter and Williamson, Jeffrey G., “Reinterpreting Britain's Social Tables, 1688-1913,” Explorations in Economic History 20 (1983): 94–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Chadwick, D., “Wages in Manchester, Salford, and Lancashire, 1839-59,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society of London 23 (1860): 3Google Scholar.

9 Musgrove, , “Middle-Class Education,” 104Google Scholar. Peterson, M. Jeanne, The Medical Profession in Mid-Victorian London (Berkeley, 1978), pp. 209-23Google Scholar, sets the average between £100 and £370 but noted that a physician had to live well to attract “good” patients.

10 Johnston, William, England As It Is: Political, Social and Industrial in the Middle of the Nineteenth Century, vol. 2 (London, 1851), p. 148Google Scholar.

11 £200 was the absolute minimum that a respectable lady and gentleman could be expected to live upon according to the English Domestic Magazine 18 (1869): 326Google Scholar. Mrs.Belloc, Bessie, Essays on Woman's Work (London, 1865), pp. 83–105Google Scholar, and Colmore, G., “Family Budgets,” Cornhill Magazine 83 (1901), pp. 656-66Google Scholar, placed the figure somewhat lower at £150. Statistics of Middle-class Expenditure (London, n-d. [1896?])Google Scholar. Walsh, J.H., A Manual of Domestic Economy (London, 1857)Google Scholar described £100 as the minimum but in his 1879 edition, he raised the figure to £150.

12 Older works such as Banks, J.A., Prosperity and Parenthood in Victorian England (London, 1954)Google Scholar concentrate only on the tiny, unrepresentative upper middle-class group. More comprehensive views are presented by O'Brien, P., “British Incomes and Property in the Early Nineteenth Century,” Economic History Review 2nd ser. 12 (1959-1960): 256-57CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rubinstein, W.D., “The Victorian Middle Classes: Wealth, Occupation, and Geography,” Economic History Review 2nd ser. 30 (1977): 602, 606CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Perkin, Harold, The Rise of Professional Society (London, 1989), pp. 91ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Anderson, Gregory, Victorian Clerks (Manchester, 1976), p. 132Google Scholar.

14 Crossick, Oregory, The Lower Middle Class in Britain (London, 1977), p. 18Google Scholar.

15 Commons' Select Committee on Assessment and Collection of Income and Property Tax, 1861, 8:1, p. 339; Pearson, Robin, “Thrift or Dissipation? The Business of Life Assurance in the Early Nineteenth Century,” Economic History Review, 2nd ser. 43 (1990): 236-54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Farr, William, “Statistics of the Civil Service of England, with Observations on the Constitution of Funds, to Provide for Fatherless Children and Widows,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society of London 12 (1849): 134-35Google Scholar.

17 ibid., p. 127.

18 Parliamentary Papers, 6 July 1858, 37: 442Google Scholar.

19 Yeo, Eileen and Thompson, E.P., eds., The Unknown Mayhew (London, 1971), pp. 157-58Google Scholar.

20 Over 600 of such cases ate revealed in detail in the records of the Chohnondeley Charities (London Record Office. Cholmondeley Charities-Widows of Clergymen, 1838-1852, A/CHM/III/3/26).

21 Pigott, Blanche A.F., ed., Recollections of Our Mother Emma Pigott (London, 1890), pp. 156-57Google Scholar.

22 Nevinson, Margaret Wynne, Life's Fitful Fever (London: 1926), p. 42Google Scholar.

23 Bankers' Magazine (London) 43 (1882): 1095Google Scholar.

24 Prochaska, F.K., Women and Philanthropy in Nineteenth-Century England (Oxford, 1980), pp. 237-60Google Scholar. Also idem. “Philanthropy,” in The Cambridge Social History of Britain, 1750-1950, ed. F.M.L. Thompson (Cambridge, 1990), pp. 373-75.

25 Morris, R.J., “The Middle Class and British Towns and Cities of the Industrial Revolution 1780-1870,” in The Pursuit of Urban History, ed. Fraser, Derek and Sutcliffe, Anthony (London, 1983), p. 294Google Scholar.

26 Oliphant, Margaret, The Autobiography and Letters of Mrs. M.O.W. Oliphant, ed. Mrs.Coghill, Harry (New York, 1899), pp. 64, 77Google Scholar.

27 Brodsky, Vivien, “Widows in Late Elizabethan London: Remarriage, Economic Opportunity and Family Orientations,” in The World We Have Gained, ed. Bonfield, Lloyd, Smith, Richard M., and Wrightson, Keith (London, 1986), p. 143Google Scholar.

28 Staves, Susan, Married Women's Separate Property in England, 1660-1833 (Cambridge, Mass., 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Holcombe, Lee, Wives and Property (Oxford, 1983)Google Scholar.

29 Parker, J. Oxley, The Oxley Parker Papers (Colchester, 1964), p. 101Google Scholar.

30 Ibid., pp. 101-06.

31 Wrigley, E.A. and Schofield, R.S., The Population History of England 1541-1871, (Cambridge, Mass., 1981), p. 258Google Scholar; 41st Annual Report of the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages in England, 1880, Table 8, p. lxi, and 52nd Annual Report, 1889 Table 7, p. xxxii. It should be noted that these statistics represent a mean undifferentiated by sex, and Wrigley and Schofield assume that the decline is linear. By 1841 the Registrar-General was distinguishing widows from widowers in the remarriage totals, but for ease in comparison with earlier years I have continued using the mean.

32 Wrigley, and Schofield, , “Remarriage Intervals and the Marriage Order,” in Marriage and Remarriage in Populations of the Past, ed. Dupaquier, J., Helin, E., Laslett, P., Livi-Bacci, M., Sognor, S. (London, 1981), p. 212Google Scholar. It should be noted that these figures cannot account for variations due to class or economic level.

33 Westminster Review 131 (1889): 502Google Scholar.

34 Wrigley, and Schofield, , Population, p. 437Google Scholar. The means given for great swaths of time do not, of course, take into account yearly fluctuations which are small yet could be significant for other studies. For the purposes of comparing remarriage rates for my argument, the slight variations are less important.

35 Vann, Richard, “Toward a New Lifestyle: Women in Preindustrial Capitalism,” in Becoming Visible: Women in European History, ed. Bridenthal, R. and Koonz, C. (Boston, 1977), pp. 192-16Google Scholar; Todd, Barbara J., “The Remarrying Widow,” in Women in English Society, 1500-1800, ed. Prior, Mary (London, 1985), p. 83Google Scholar. See also “Papers from the 1981 Berkshire Conference: Widowhood and Rational Domesticity: Modes of Independence for Women in Early Modem Europe,” Journal of Family History 7 (1982): 376–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 See Sogner, and Dupaquier, , “Introduction,” in Marriage and Remarriage in Populations of the Past, ed. Dupaquier, J.et al., p. 10Google Scholar.

37 Thompson, F.M.L., The Rise of Respectable Society (London, 1988), pp. 13–50Google Scholar.

38 As quoted in Davidoff, and Hall, , Family Fortunes, p. 211Google Scholar.

39 Linden, , “Unequal English Wealth,” p. 1131Google Scholar.

40 Davidoff, and Hall, , Family Fortunes, p. 313Google Scholar.

41 Anderson, Michael, Family Structure in Nineteenth- Century Lancashire (Cambridge, 1971), p. 146Google Scholar.

42 Mrs. Simpson, entries for Wednesday, November 6, 1878; Monday, November 11, 1878; Friday, May 23, 1879.

43 Hall, Catherine, “The Early Formation of Victorian Domestic Ideology,” in Fit Work for Women, ed. Burman, Sandra (New York, 1979), pp. 15–31Google Scholar.

44 Ibid., p. 15.

45 Englishwoman's Journal 88 (1866): 59Google Scholar.

46 Mayo, Isabella Fyvie, Recollections (London, 1910), pp. 66–67Google Scholar.

47 Smiles, Samuel, Self-Help (London, 1859)Google Scholar; see also the various publications of the Charity Organisation Society.

48 See Manners, Lady John, Employment of Women in the Public Service (Edinburgh, 1882)Google Scholar.

49 Sutherst, Thomas, Death and Disease Behind the Counter (London, 1884), p. 6Google Scholar.

50 Holcombe, Lee, Victorian Ladies At Work (Hamden, Conn., 1973), p. 112Google Scholar.

51 See Nightingale, Florence, Selected Writings, ed. Seymer, Lucy Ridgely (New York, 1954), pp. 105-10Google Scholar.

52 Higgs, Edward, “Women, Occupations and Work in the Nineteenth Century Censuses,” History Workshop Journal 23-24 (1987): 61CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Davin, Anna, “Imperialism and Motherhood,” History Workshop Journal 5-6 (1978): 53CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Dyhouse, Carol. “Working-Class Mothers and Infant Mortality in England 1895-1914,” Journal of Social History 12 (1978-1979): 248-67CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

53 See Collett, Clara, Educated Working Women: Essays on the Economic Position of Women Workers in the Middle Classes (London, 1902)Google Scholar; Zimmeck, Meta, “Jobs for the Oirls: the Expansion of Clerical Work for Women, 1850-1914,” in Unequal Opportunities: Women's Employment in England, 18001918, ed. John, Angela (London, 1986), p. 163Google Scholar. Meta Zimmeck contends that since a woman's social value was inferior to a man's, she was naturally paid less. But it is argued here that the Victorian middle-class was reluctant to recognize that many of its women had to support themselves, and this denial supported the pretense of “pin money” as opposed to a survival wage.

54 Mayo, Isabella Fyvie, “Forlorn Females v. Working Women,” Good Words 18 (1877): 46Google Scholar.

55 Manners, , Employment of Women, pp. 31–32Google Scholar.

56 Oliphant, , Autobiography, pp. 70, 106-07Google Scholar.

57 Clark, Patricia, The Governesses (London, 1985), pp. 92-93, 125, 134Google Scholar.

58 Davidoff, Leonore, “Separation of Home and Work?” in Fit Work for Women, pp. 69, 70, 84–85Google Scholar.

59 Peterson, M. Jeanne, “The Victorian Governess: Status Incongruence in Family and Society,” in Suffer and Be Still, pp. 3–19Google Scholar.

60 Mayo, , Recollections, p. 52Google Scholar.

61 It is very difficult to derive a reliable number of middle-class widows who finally were forced to turn to Poor Relief, but there are numerous and unmistakable instances of this happening. Removal records for widows are most likely to indicate the profession of the deceased husbands along with income, but more sources have survived for some unions than for others. For example, from the King's Lynn Union, Christiana McDowell, widow of William who was a Customs House officer, applied for assistance on 8 November 1851, and Charlotte Lawson, aged 26 with one small child, widow of Robert a schoolmaster, asked for assistance on 2 June 1852 (Norwich Record Office, King's Lynn Union Case Books 1849-66, p. 211Google Scholar).