Follow us on Facebook @FHofDW
Prostitutes
The Contagious Diseases Act
&
Prostitution in Deal & Walmer
Prostitution
Down the centuries there have been various attempts to control and prohibit prostitution, often on religious grounds but also to keep social order. Nature though has given us that instinct to be drawn to the opposite sex, to have that sexual encounter, to pass on our genes to the next generation. So wherever there is a large body of men who have been denied access to the opposite sex for long periods of time, such as soldiers, sailors, or even young men needing to ‘spread their wild oats’, mix that with poverty then the trade of prostitution will establish itself and provide for that need.
In the cities, seaports and military towns, areas of what we may describe as ‘red light districts,’ grew. Here there were brothels, pubs, beer-houses or other establishments where prostitutes could be found.
The Vagrancy Act
Prostitution, which Kipling’s On the City Wall suggest is “…the oldest occupation in the world…” along with homelessness, had for nineteenth century Britain become a wide-scale problem so in 1824 the Vagrancy Act was passed. It was in this act that the term ‘common prostitute’ first came into legal use.
Section 3 of the Act stated “…every common prostitute wandering in the public streets…and behaving in a riotous or indecent manner…shall be deemed an idle and disorderly person…” and further that a Justice of the Peace could commit the offender “…to the House of Correction there to be kept to hard Labour for any Time not exceeding One Calendar Month”
One of the main causes at this time for both vagrancy and prostitution was the increase in population and the fact that employment, for women in particular, was limited to poorly paid jobs which barely covered living expenses so, even if they did find employment, there was often a need to find a way of making extra money.
For some women prostitution could be an occasional activity born out of desperation to feed themselves and or their families, to pay the rent, to keep them out of the workhouse. For others well, they knew little else and with little societal understanding opportunities were rarely offered to help to improve their situations.
Female servants often lived in and for most this meant food in their bellies and a roof over their heads. But not all employers were reasonable and young girls and women were easy targets for abuse. When this became unbearable or an employer turned them out there were few available choices. Prostitution could beckon.
A study carried out in Millbank prison into the prostitutes interned there in the late Victorian period suggests that over 50 percent had been general servants the others having worked as laundresses, char women and other menial low paid jobs. Data collected from various sources during this time showed a high proportion of young women who had lost one or both her parents or were from broken homes leaving them with a duty to provide for the rest of the family or even just for themselves; prostitution and crime were two of the few choices available to them.
The examples given here as to why women turned to prostitution are rather simplistic and for us looking back through modern eyes, living in a society where women’s rights are championed even sacrosanct, where we have the welfare state and the N.H.S. it is hard to imagine what these women lived through.
Sexually transmitted diseases for these women, which they would know as the pox or the clap, was a particular hazard that without modern medicines could lead to long-term illness, deformity, madness and death.
Hogarth’s The Harlot’s Progress The decline of job opportunities in the countryside led to young women migrating to the towns and cities to find work. The problem of prostitution and the risks to their well being and health was not something that just Victorians were aware of Hogarth in 1732 completed his ‘The Harlot’s Progress’; a series of six images charts the arrival of a young country girl named, Moll Hackabout, into London where she is met by a ‘procuress; she becomes a mistress to a wealthy man but is soon turned out. The next image shows her beating hemp in a London Bridewell suggesting that she had been charged with some misdemeanour with a sentence requiring hard labour. The fifth image depicts Moll dying of syphilis and the doctors are arguing over her treatment. Moll is wrapped in sweating blankets, an ineffective syphilis cure. On the floor is a prescription for an anodyne necklace used to treat venereal disease but also to cure teething pains, so perhaps this was for the young child in the picture. Sadly unwanted pregnancies were another hazard for prostitutes. Leaving them with a period of time when they couldn’t work and then a child to clothe, feed and care for. The last image is of Moll in her coffin. The child, possibly her son, is sitting on the floor innocently playing with a toy, unaware that he probably will suffer the same syphilitic death as his mother. The ‘mourners’ all appear to have ‘other things on their minds’. The clergy man spills his drink as a young girl attaches herself to him, the undertaker in a lecherous pose, the other females a little worse for drink. Only one, Moll’s servant, who has lost her nose to syphilis looks on angrily at the proceedings. Earlier in the century 1703 Thomas Powell, twice Mayor of Deal, wrote in his diary how he brought a common prostitute to the whipping post, in the market-place, and “caused her to have twelve lashes” and at every third lash he “parlayed with her” to let all others like her know that “…The Mayor of Deal would serve them as he served her if they came to Deal and committed such wicked deeds as she had done.”
The Contagious Diseases Acts
By the early 1860s the government in Britain was concerned with the prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases in “…certain Naval and Military Stations…” and following the recommendation of an 1862 inquiry looking into venereal disease among the military, the Contagious Diseases Act was passed in 1864.
Initially it was only enforced in the towns of Portsmouth, Plymouth, Woolwich, Chatham, Aldershot, Colchester, Shorncliffe, The Curragh, Cork and Queenstown and a five-mile area surrounding each town.
The Act extended its reach in 1866 to include Windsor, and for the last time in 1869 when Deal, along with Canterbury, Dover, Gravesend, Maidstone, Southampton, and Winchester became one of the eighteen districts who were “subjected” to the Acts.
Deal appears listed under Shorncliffe perhaps because this was the Lock Hospital used for the area.
The initial introduction of the act in 1864 went fairly unnoticed and was solely aimed at those women who were suspected of prostitution and therefore likely to be infected with a sexually transmitted disease. The only way to find this out was to subject the women to an internal examination. If found to be infected she would then be sent to a ‘Lock Hospital’ for treatment.
There had been an attempt to bring in periodic examinations of enlisted men who, quite naturally, objected to it and the officers feared demoralising them so by the 1850s it was all but abandoned. It was however reintroduced in W.W.1. No such objections were to be allowed from the women as they apparently lacked “…self-respect…”
These double standards of the day meant that by imposing the medical inspections solely on the prostitutes where the acts were in force, the effectiveness of the acts in reducing the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases amongst the men serving in the garrison and port towns, were totally undermined from the start.
The Acts in Practice The original act of 1864 was repealed in 1866 and again in 1869. Changes and additions being made to the original provisions each time. The 1869 Act continued to be in force until in 1883 when the Contagious Diseases Acts were suspended and three years later in 1886 they were removed from the statute book. The police officers brought in to enforce the acts were plain clothes officers from the Metropolitan Police. 1864 If the woman was “… not at her last or usual abode…” the Police Officer could actually leave the notice with “…some person…” at the same place that she was last known to have been. The woman herself or even the “…some (other) person…” was then expected to appear at the allotted time and place as given on the notice. Presumably at that point the ‘some other person’ would be expected to say if they knew the whereabouts of the suspected woman. If no one appeared an Oath was to be sworn, by the police officer, that the notice had been given and the JP could then decide ”…if he thinks fit…” to order the woman to be taken to a Certified Hospital for Medical Examination. In practice that meant that once apprehended she could be taken willingly or forcibly to a Certified Hospital known as Lock Hospitals. If she was found to be infected with a sexually transmitted disease she would then be detained for no longer than three months for treatment. If the woman refused to submit to an examination she was deemed guilty of an Offence against the Contagious Diseases Act and liable to imprisonment of one month for the first offence and two months for subsequent offences. If any person, whether the owner or occupier of a house, room or place, in the area to which the acts applies knowingly, or had reason to believe, that a common prostitute had a contagious disease and lets a ‘common prostitute’ use the premises for prostitution, they were be liable to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds and at the discretion of the justices to a term of three months in prison with or without hard labour. 1866 It also extended the time a woman could be detained in a Lock Hospital from three up to six months. For an owner or occupier of a public house who knowingly allowed a prostitute to resort to his house for the purposes of prostitution, the penalty was increased to £20 or to prison for 6 months with or without hard labour. 1869 The detention of women not in a fit state to be examined “ …and suspected of disease, for not more than five days…” was also brought in. This was for reasons of drunkenness, who was sick or because she was menstruating. An extension of up to 9 months in a Lock Hospital was also introduced.
In practice the act required an authorised member of either the Police or any medical practitioner, who suspected a woman of prostitution, to first apply to the Justice of the Peace using an official form.
The Justice of the Peace ”…if he thinks fit…” would then issue a notice which would then be issued to her by a Police Officer. 
The 1866 act brought into force what in effect became, for some, fortnightly examinations. If a Superintendent of Police, had good cause to believe a woman was a common prostitute and resident in the town or the five mile protected limits to which the act applied, he could then apply to the Justice of Peace to issue an order to be served on the woman to be subject to “periodical examinations” whether they were suspected of disease or not “ …as long as she follows her trade…”
The act of 1869 not only extended its reach to other military and naval towns but it also extended the limit of ‘protection’ from 5 to 10 miles.
Public opposition
Public opposition gradually grew against the Acts, and the National Association was founded in 1869 which, believe it or not, initially excluded women! This resulted in the formation of the ‘Ladies National Association’. The LNA denounced the acts as a blatant example of class and sex discrimination. They argued that the acts deprived poor women of their constitutional rights and forced them to submit to a degrading internal examination.
Printed in the ‘Daily News’ on December 31st 1869, the LNA manifesto was signed by over one hundred women including Josephine Butler, Harriet Martineau, Elizabeth Wolstenholme and Florence Nightingale all leading social reformers of their day.
Front Street Tynemouth Harriet Martineau Harriet Martineau was not only a journalist and author but a campaigner for the rights of women, against slavery, and for other minority groups who lacked a voice. Many of her letters to the Daily News were published and reprinted as pamphlets and posters in order to educate the public and support opposition to the Acts. She corresponded with Florence Nightingale over several matters including the Contagious Diseases Acts and was a founder of the LNA and whose influence encouraged Josephine Butler to fight for the repeal of the Acts. As a Victorian woman her work and campaigning are all the more remarkable as she suffered severe ill health most of her life and had been deaf since the age of twelve. Elizabeth Wolstenholme Head of the procession, Women’s Sunday (suffragette march), Hyde Park, London, 21 June 1908. At the front: Emmeline Pankhurst and Elizabeth Wolstenholme (centre) of the Women’s Social and Political Union Elizabeth Wolstenholme was a lifelong campaigner believing in equality for women. She campaigned for the right for girls to be given the same access to higher education as boys, became secretary to the Married Women’s Property Committee until the successful introduction of the Married Women’s Property Act 1882 the legislation for which was in the charge of George Osborne Morgan who later was a member of the Select Committee on the Contagious Diseases Acts. In 1869, she invited Josephine Butler to be president of the Ladies National Association for the Repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts. As a friend of Emmiline Pankhurst she joined the executive committee of the Women’s Social and Political Union later known as the suffragettes. Josephine Butler Josephine Butler was a campaigner for social reform, better education for women, and with Florence Soper Booth, daughter in law of the founder of the Salvation Army, the abolition of child prostitution. In the 1880s she became active in the campaign against the white slave trade of young women and children from England to Europe. English girls between twelve and fifteen years of age were kidnapped and sold to brothel keepers. Following an investigation in Belgium, the head of the Police and his deputy were put on trial with 12 brothel owners; all were imprisoned for their roles in the trade. She is best known though for her campaigning for the Repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts. Florence Nightingale Rue des Moulins (1894) by De Toulouse-Lautrec Paris prostitutes in line awaiting examination. Florence Nightingale is fondly known as ‘the Lady with the Lamp’ and remembered for her nursing of wounded soldiers during the Crimean War. She was a lifelong advisor to the government and campaigner to bring about and improve hygiene and living standards not just in the army but for the wider civilian population too. Paris from 1802 had established a system where doctors examined prostitutes on a monthly basis to ensure they were free of disease. Britain had adopted this system in the colonies of Hong Kong, Gibraltar, and Malta. When the Medical Department of the War Office wanted to bring in this system of licensed prostitutes, who were regularly examined, in Britain, Florence Nightingale passionately opposed this, considering it “morally disgusting”. In 1862 she wrote that the causes of vice in the Army were not “moral but physical”. The way to improve the soldiers’ morals was to improve their living conditions which are “Filthy crowded dwellings.” In her opinion, by making a soldier’s life more physically comfortable, they would not in their free time seek comfort and entertainment elsewhere. She compiled statistics proving that the licensing and inspection of prostitutes did not result in a reduction of venereal disease. She pushed the point that by giving a soldier the chance of a respectable marriage, better housing and an opportunity to learn a trade, to have places for recreation would, she felt, aid a decrease in drunkenness and vice. When the Contagious Diseases Act was brought in, with the clauses for examination and registration of prostitutes, she supplied Harriet Martineau with figures for a series of articles. With Florence’s support Harriet began the protest movement that led to the formation in 1870 of the Ladies’ National Association.
(1802-1876)
Ladies National Association
From 1870 various challenges were made against the Acts. As these came largely, though it has to be sad not solely, from a middle-class group of women in organisations such as the LNA, it caused one MP to comment “We know how to manage any other opposition in the House …..but this is very awkward for us – this revolt of the women. It is quite a new thing; what are we to do with such an opposition as this?”
At the end of 1870 through to 1871 a Royal Commission sat to hear evidence. The resulting inquiry changed almost nothing. It did however recommend that the age of consent be raised from 12 to 14. This led to the Offences Against the Person Act in 1875 being raised to 13. But this still was a long way for the age of consent being raised to today’s age of 16.
The LNA’s 1871 Report for the Repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts includes their objections against the acts.
The resulting action was to produce, in their words, “a monster petition signed by women” This petition was in the end signed by a quarter of a million women.
At the end of this report is a list of Local Secretaries and Correspondents and although there is no one listed from Deal a Miss Poulter of Pencester Street, Dover is included.
Pressure finally came to bear and a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the ‘Administration, Operation and Effect’ of Acts in 1879. Four more inquiries were to follow, each producing exhaustive reports.
The Introductory page to the 1882 Report states that the inquiry “… extended over a period almost unprecedented in the history of Parliament…” Since 1879 the committee had examined 71 witnesses. One of these witnesses was William Pittock, a tailor from Deal.
William Pittock William Pittock was born in Deal in 1843; his father William E Pittock was a Tailor and outfitter employing seven men and one Apprentice all working at 10 Lower Street (now The Seagull at 33 High Street) with the family living above. William was himself to enter the tailoring and hatting trade, indeed one of his top hats survives and can be found in the Victoria & Albert Museum, London. William married Caroline Jane Wood in 1873; their only child William Edgar was born the following year, he was to carry on his fathers business. Caroline died in 1888 and William married Mary Jane Gibbs in Tollington Park’s, Wesleyan Chapel, London, in 1889 they too had a son born the following year and later a daughter. In 1879,William with three other men, was elected to be an Overseer of the poor for that year. Maybe it was during this time that he became more aware of prostitution in the town. 
The Select Committee On The Contagious Diseases Acts
The Select Committee had the “…power to send for persons paper and records…”, but how William came to be called is not evident. But by taking two days off work and receiving £2 10s of expenses in June 1881 he travelled to London to give his testimony in favour of the Acts.
The committee, made up of seventeen men, were instructed to gather and receive evidence. Those interviewing William Pittock were Mr. James Stansfeld, Mr George Osborne Morgan and the final question was put to him by a Mr. Cobbold, probably the MP for Ipswich Thomas Cobbold.
George Osborne Morgan James Stansfeld 
George Osborne Morgan was a Welsh lawyer and Liberal politician who was in favour of the Contagious Diseases Acts. he said the Repeal Campaign “was a disgrace to the country, as it flooded gentlemen’s breakfast tables with abominable literature, not addressed to themselves only, but also to their wives and daughters”
He had the responsibility though of bringing in the Married Women’s Property Bill, 1882 so probably knew Elizabeth Wolstenholme.
Was a Liberal politician, was a believer in women’s rights and who was in favour of repealing the Contagious Diseases Acts.
He was the President of the Local Government Board; Florence Nightingale corresponded with him in regards to the Public Health Bill.
Of the twenty-three men who were interviewed by this Select Committee they were either of the medical profession, borough or metropolitan police officers, clergymen, or held local office. William alone came as ‘an inhabitant’ of his town. His testimony makes for interesting reading.
William Pittocks Testimony
By following the line of questioning put to William and using other available sources we tell the story of prostitution in Deal during the mid 1800s and the effect the CD Acts had upon it.
We also look at some of the known prostitutes who worked in Deal who, for whatever their reasons, turned to prostitution.
On 23 June 1881 Mr. Osborne Morgan started off proceedings for William by asking how long he had lived in the town to which he replied “For the last thirty years.” It was in fact thirty-eight years by that time, but accuracy on this point was not a necessity. But then maybe it was a typo!
When asked his opinion on how beneficial the Acts were in Deal and in what respect? He responded that he certainly thought that the town had improved since the acts had been in operation. In fairness to him he does say that the improvements to town in regards to the decrease in “lewdness” came from both men and women.
He also considered that the Licensing Act of 1874, that brought in the closing of public houses on a Sunday, “had a very desirable effect”. More about that later.
When asked if he was aware that the acts empowered and made “…it the duty of the police who are entrusted with their administration, when they see a woman conducting herself as a prostitute, or carrying on the business of a prostitute, to bring her before a magistrate with a view to her being examined ?…” he responded “If they will not voluntarily submit to an examination.” William had obviously read the acts.
Mr Osborne Morgan continued “They may compel her either voluntarily to submit to an examination or, if she refuses, to do so, bring her before a magistrate.”
INTERNAL EXAMINATIONS The internal examination of women in the areas under the Acts was one of the most controversial aspects of the legislation. Those subjected to them reacted in different ways. An eyewitness in Dover described ‘gay girls’, a euphemism for prostitutes, “…dressed in all the best …decked out for the occasion…” another eyewitness, in Chatham, observed there was much loud talking and laughing and visiting of ‘drinking houses’ on the way up and back down”. Perhaps this was just an outward show of courage and bravado that they didn’t actually feel. How Long Have You Been Gay? Sketch by John Leech, Punch 1857 Such examinations can be uncomfortable at best but when carried out by seemingly uncaring male practitioners using medical equipment without any thought as to how the woman felt, both mentally and physically, perhaps led to the description of “instrumental rape” especially by those who campaigned against the acts. We know that for some women this was an experience that did not wish to go through again and even going to jail was preferable. Refusing examinations were reported in the newspapers. Elizabeth Bing was reported as refusing to submit to another examination saying that she had been badly treated and suffered for several days afterwards and would rather go to prison for twelve months than “…go to that place again…”. That place being the examination room. Read more about Elizabeth later. Nineteenth century Speculum. During the sixteen years when the acts were in force, of the 173,914 medical examinations in Kent, only 1,017 were brought before the magistrates for offences against the acts. This could suggest far from rebelling against the system, most complied. One school of thought is that for those knowing they had or could contract a Sexually Transmitted Disease, and of the dire outcomes, they would gain access to free medical treatment, board and lodgings. Furthermore the infection free status could actually help increase her earnings! So what were they looking for? Without going into too much detail Sexually Transmitted Diseases such as Gonorrhoea and Syphilis present with, for example, genital discharge, inflammation and ulcers in both men and women. If left untreated syphilis can spread to the brain and nervous systems and with gonorrhoea, leave the sufferer, both male and female with long-term pain. Venereal Disease can present with similar symptoms and also abdominal pain, genital warts, painful and frequent urination and sores around and inside the mouth.
C Firmin Cuthbert Collection.
Sexually Transmitted Diseases can also be passed to an unborn child.
In William’s opinion the powers given to the police were that they acted as a deterrent preventing women from entering into prostitution. He went on to give an example of a gentleman visiting Deal who had two young female servants with him. On finding these young ‘girls’ with two soldiers in his kitchen, he jumped to conclusions and immediately dismissed them.
Where the girls went he does not say but they were soon seen walking about with other soldiers and, he explains, unaware that these soldiers could not marry them and that by “walking out” with soldiers they became known by others. He goes on to say that the police officer heard about the girls, so made inquiries and on finding that they were once in “respectable service” the police officer, then came and informed him.
He then took it upon himself to“…follow one of these young women, when I saw her speaking to a soldier, and told her that the Acts were in force, and I asked her to allow me to speak to her , as a married man, for her advantage. She assured me she had never done anything wrong but found that after speaking to one soldier, others took the liberty of coming up and speaking to her.” What happened next he did not say but he felt that this young girl might have fallen into prostitution had not the “officer under the Acts prevented that. The officer he describes as a “…kindly dispositioned man, who would not wish to make prostitutes but rather tried to help any young girl from going wrong…”
Mr Osborne Morgan asked if there was a hospital in Deal, meaning a Lock Hospital. William replied there was not but that the women were sent to Shorncliffe and he reveals that he had known the Matron for several years.
This was probably Matron Fanny Anne Anderson who, William felt, favourably influenced the women in her charge to be “reclaimed.” Reclaiming meaning to bring her back from her life of vice.
Mr. Osborne Morgan asks if he knew of any cases of ‘fallen women’ in the hospital who had been reclaimed and about their conduct. Although William could give no names, he explained that their language, conduct and dress were improved and that on leaving the hospital, under the surveillance of the police officer, this continued. Some had been ‘returned’ to their families or friends, others had gone into service.
Lock Hospitals Lock hospitals were nothing new; they had been in existence from at least the 13th century mainly for the treatment of lepers. They evolved into hospitals for contagious diseases and as the name suggests to “lock” up those affected and prevent any further spread of disease. Shorncliffe Lock Hospital was sited to the West of Shorncliffe Camp and was the Certified Hospital where women, infected with a sexually transmitted disease, from Dover, Hythe & Deal areas were sent for medical treatment. Medical Treatment Venereal Disease, Syphilis and Gonorrhea had all long been recognised as Sexually Transmitted Diseases and the general public perhaps were more aware then of not just the diseases but the symptoms too. With medicines such as antibiotics and Salvarsan yet to be discovered, contagious diseases, sexually transmitted or not, affected a higher proportion of the population and as an effect their symptoms were well known. Herbal remedies were available as were old wives tales but in medical establishments or for those who could pay privately Mercury was used. With all its hazards mercury had long been used as a treatment for syphilis and Venereal Disease for which arsenic and sulphur were also used.They were administered in pill form, as an ointment or in vapour baths. Rest and improving personal hygiene was the main treatment prescribed for gonorrhoea as was silver nitrate. In some cases where there was severe swelling or lesions, these may be irrigated, injected or even cauterised. Doctor William Farr visited a London Lock Hospital in 1868 and described one form of treatment. “In a little room at the end of the ward water is laid on, and copper basins are hung by a chain to the wall; these basins are kept for the women to wash their faces. … Fixed to the floor is a bidet, across which the female sits. There is here an admirable device for facilitating the cleansing of the private parts; by… means [of] a brass syringe … she injects the lotion, and the waste fluid runs away on opening a plug fixed in the bottom of the bidet. …The patient always uses an injection before presenting herself to the surgeon, in order that the organs may be in a proper condition for examination…” Victorian Lock Hospital nursing staff had few if any qualifications. Described as ‘respectable’ working women they worked under a male medical officer who was incharge of the treatment and discipline of the women in his care. The Matron, who was usually a middle aged spinster or a widow, would be his subordinate and provide a role model to the inmates and nursing staff alike. The matron and nurses of a Lock Hospital were expected to give lessons in personal hygiene and good behaviour. An 1871 report, by Charles Washington Shirley Deakin to the Sanitary and Economic points of the Acts, stated that Lock Hospitals “…must have religious and moral instruction…and in which they now have schools and teach them to read, write, sew and do other useful work…” While in the Lock Hospital the women were also expected to carry out various chores such as laundry for not just the hospital but for civil clients too. This contributed to the costs of their enforced stay. On leaving, again from Mr. Deakins report, if the women desired they could be “…sent home to her friends at the Government’s expense; in every case the woman is offered a home in a refuge, or some respectable employment…” A report in the British Medical Journal of 1869 by A. W. Nankive the Chief Medical Officer for the Chatham area lays out the routine of the hospital from when the women are admitted until their discharge. Nankive also mentions discipline saying “ …If the culprit be obdurate and refuse to conform to the rules, I send for her and speak to her quietly by herself, telling her that I cannot tolerate misconduct, and that in the event of its being repeated, I shall have to punish her by depriving her of her allowance of porter…” Time in a Lock Hospital may seem more like a prison sentence. Many of these women though would have experienced ‘gaol with hard labour’ or even the Union Workhouse. Their daily lives too, though free to come and go as they pleased, were often harsh. Rebelling against enforced incarceration did take place and took many forms but window breaking seems to have been a common way to express their frustration; often being reported in the newspapers as the women were then charged with criminal damage. On being discharged from a Lock Hospital the women were no longer under the Acts so if she went back to prostitution she may find herself going through the whole process of receiving a notice or warrant and being registered for examination all over again. Matron Anderson As for Matron Anderson, how William met her, we do not know but we do know roughly when she took up the post at Shorncliffe. In October 1879 Matron, Mary Haig, who had taken over from Matron Emma Williams, accused a nurse named Jane Sherwood of stealing some sheets from the hospital and the report of the trial appears in the Folkestone Express. Matron Anderson, therefore, must have taken over soon after as she appears at Shorncliffe on the 1881 census. How many women from Deal ended up in their care we don’t yet know.
Born Fanny Anne Hendy in 1849 she married the Reverend Henry Robert Anderson, in Rochester in 1871. Sadly he died in 1873 leaving Fanny needing to support herself. Being a widow from the respectable middle class that in itself meant she fitted the criteria required to become a matron. Following her death in 1884 in Folkestone her probate record states that she was formerly of “… the Hospital in Farnham Road Aldershot…” it seems it was there that she found employment and entered the nursing profession.
It seems that on at least one occasion William took further interest in these ‘reclaimed’ young girls as he says that “I went twice to see a lady, by her special wish, as a young person was sent to her was in her employ at New Cross” He explains to Mr. Osborne Morgan that the ‘young person’ was being watched as, it had become known, that she was acting as a decoy keeping the police from a married woman. The story behind this is not given, but the ‘young person’ was apparently found in the kitchen of a home with a man either side of her! The police officer, William says, brought her straight to him. The tale of this particular ‘young person’ seems to end happily as he says she later married a city missionary.
Although we can find no evidence for this William, in a small way, may have set himself up as a local missionary providing a temporary safe house and going on to find employment or if possible returning these young women to the care of their families or friends. In some cases though, there was little choice but to send them to Eastry Union Workhouse.
Reformation, Prevention and Care of Women and Young Girls The Society for the Rescue of Young Women Daniel Cooper in 1853 founded The Society for the Rescue of Young Women and Children with the aim to reform “openly immoral women and the guardianship and training of young girls exposed to danger.” By the 1880s there were eleven homes spread across the London Boroughs and one seaside home in Ramsgate. William was certainly aware of the Ramsgate home. YWCA & GFS The YWCA history dates back to 1855, when Lady Mary Jane Kinnaird founded the North London Home for nurses travelling to or from the Crimean War. It also opened its doors to young single women arriving in London who could be exposed to the dangers of leaving home often to work long hours for low pay in factories and workshops. The home offered housing, education and support with a “warm Christian atmosphere”. In 1877 the organisation merged with the Prayer Union started by Emma Roberts who met for prayer, bible study and “friendly social intercourse”. Also catering for the wider interests of girls, aimed at developing body, mind and spirit. There were also boarding houses and some institutes or clubs. These two organisations eventually became the YWCA we know today. ‘The Girls Friendly Society’ was officially established in England in 1875 by Mary Elizabeth Townsend. She wrote “If the power of rescue work will be so increased by organisation, why should no work be organised to save from falling? Here in Deal in 1889 an attempt was made to set up a place for young girls and women for their “innocent amusement” to prevent that “certain class” of girls from finding their pleasures on the public streets “to their infinite peril” It was to operate along the lines of the People’s Palace that was opened in 1887 by Queen Victoria, whose intention was to improve the lives of the poor people of East London by providing recreation, culture, amusement, sport, training and education. And in Deal Deal, Walmer & Sandwich Mercury – Saturday 12 January 1889
Although not founded to reclaim or to specifically prevent young women and girls falling into prostitution, organisations such as the Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA) and the Girls Friendly Society (GFS) certainly played their part.
Mr. Osborne Morgan then asked William if any meetings had been held in Deal in regards to repealing the Acts. There were apparently two both of which he attended. The outcome of the first was that there was little support for repeal. This must have been the meeting held in the Public Rooms on Park Street in 1873 at which Mr James Coutts from the National Association spoke and where “ All Classes are invited”.
Deal, Walmer & Sandwich Mercury – Saturday 20 September 1873 Although the Deal, Walmer & Sandwich Mercury advertised the meeting it did not follow this up with a report of what took place. However in December 1873 the Dover Express gave a small report on the proceedings held there. Dover Express – Friday 19 December 1873
The second meeting that took place William says was an “utter failure” with only about ten people in attendance including himself. When this meeting took place we don’t know, nor do we have an inkling of the outcome as like the first meeting no newspaper report followed. William does say that “ …The gentleman representing the authorities asked if any present were in favour of the acts to leave the room…”, which he of course did. How many stayed he did not say but he felt that those in favour of repeal had ‘ little encouragement.’
| The earliest mention of the CD acts in the town appears in the Deal, Walmer and Sandwich Mercury on the 22nd of January 1870 announcing the fact that the Town was now subject to the Contagious Diseases Acts and that a member of the Metropolitan Police Force was now present in the town.
The Acts actually came into full force on the 2nd February 1870. From the Metropolitan Police Returns for 1870 there were 26 known prostitutes in Deal; by the end of the year there were only 15. This is by far the lowest numbers recorded with Portsmouth, during the same period, having 1,355 known prostitutes dropping to 590 in the same time period. Prior to this the local people must have gained their information and formed their opinions about the acts from the county or national newspapers as the Deal Walmer & Sandwich Mercury seems to have, as a letter to the editor printed in March 1870 “..totally abstained from taking part in the discussion now going on with regard to the Contagious Diseases Acts…” signed the Watchman the author states he is in favour of the acts but wanted it extended to “…the seducer…” who, he asks “…why should he not be regarded as a criminal … and be banished from society like his unfortunate victim…?” |
Questioning was then taken up by Mr. Stansfeld who asked about the powers that the Metropolitan Officers in Deal actually had and what if there was no such officer in Deal ?
Williams’ response to this line of questioning was that although the Contagious Diseases Acts did not give the Metropolitan Officers powers to deal with drunken and riotous behaviour, in such circumstances the officer called upon the Borough Police to deal with this or use the Police Acts that empowered police officers to intervene. He felt that the women did not know about the different acts and that they simply looked upon the Metropolitan officer as “…specially charged to look after them… to drive them to the examination room…” That, the very fact that he was there prevented solicitation and had improved the behaviour and dress of the women. In fact William stated that before the Act came into force in Deal it was not uncommon to see “...loosely dressed women …who you term the lower order of prostitutes on the streets, without any hat or even boots, soliciting men…”
Clothing Even today what we wear sends out a message to others. For women during this period, her clothing really did determine her status. If she wore a reasonably clean set of clothing, even if old and patched, she could be identified as a member of the ‘respectable poor’ and worthy of employment, help or just a little understanding. If her clothing dropped below a certain standard, became ragged and dirty, then doors and therefore choices soon closed. The perception of the times meant that it was her fault she was unemployed, dirty and unkempt so was, therefore, identified as a member of the ‘undeserving poor’ and so she was of a bad moral character and did not deserve to be helped. Even if, by an act of charity, she was given a dress of the type not normally worn by one of her class then this too could have connotations including that of prostitution. Women showing their stockings – a sign of prostitution From London Labour and the London Poor, Vol. IV, p 260. “The Haymarket — Midnight.”
Mr. Stansfeld then put it to William, who agreed, that he believed that intercourse had decreased because the number of prostitutes had decreased and that the influence the officer had in turning out the women from public houses, beer houses being used as brothels had lessened prostitution in the town by reducing “…the temptation of fornication…”
PUBS & BROTHELS It was an offence for any person to knowingly permit a “…Prostitute having a Contagious Disease to resort to any House etc. for Prostitution…” Landlords could then be fined or imprisoned. The 1882 ‘Metropolitan Police Return showing the Number of Public Houses and Beer Houses used as Brothels or Houses of Accommodation for Immoral Purposes in areas subjected to the Contagious Diseases Act’ details premises being watched and any actions taken against them. In Deal, between 1870 and 1878, there were eleven pubs or beer houses under surveillance. Those being the- Sun Inn, Norfolk Arms, Laurel Tree, Seven Stars, Duke of York, Star Inn, Brickmakers Arms, Jolly Sailor, Maxton Arms, Wheatsheaf and the Friendly Port. The first seven were under surveillance throughout the whole time with the others appearing only once or twice. The Norfolk Arms was the only premises listed where the landlord was summoned and fined by the local police for permitting his house to be used for immoral purposes. Deal, Walmer & Sandwich Mercury – Saturday 01 June 1878 The Sun Inn This was in 1878 when only it and the Sun Inn were still being watched. The Sun’s Landlord John Bax in 1871 had, although not listed on the Metropolitan Returns, also been fined for knowingly permitting “…persons of notoriously bad character to meet in his house…” The Bricklayers Arms The Bricklayers Arms, a now demolished Beerhouse on West Street, had their licence renewal application objected to in 1871 as, although the landlord was never prosecuted it was under suspicion as “…known to be a harbour of prostitutes…” It was to close later that year. It was once one of Deal’s most notorious premises. Landlady Anne Macey in 1859 charged Mary Banks with assault who in turn accused Anne Macey and her mother as flying at her “like serpents” and throwing her out in a “most indecent manner.” Ten years later Landlord John Macey was summoned for “encouraging drunkenness and disorderly conduct” and Mrs Macey was charged with allowing persons of “notoriously bad character to assemble in her house” The Sir Sidney Smith The Sir Sidney Smith was another such house where in 1869 landlord Joseph Maxted appealed against his licence being withheld. He was accused of running “…the worst conducted public house in Deal…” that he and his wife were nearly always drunk and that “…a girl named Maria Marsh had been kept there for the purpose of prostitution…” The appeal was dismissed but at a subsequent application it was granted. The fact that until 1878 there were at least seven premises under surveillance and that after 1878 there were none reported begs the question was William correct in his opinion that the 1874 Licensing Laws and the metropolitan officer had had the required effect in Deal at least?
Mr. Osborne Morgan and Mr. Stansfeld had both touched on the subject of the compulsory examination of women including the provision the plain clothes metropolitan officers had in the sending or taking the women to the examination room. The last question was again of that nature, was from Mr Cobbold who asked if “…there could be no way of looking after the decency of the town, except through the examination of women…?” “Not that I have seen” William concluded.
The statistical evidence, of which there are masses collected right up until the CD act was repealed in 1886, suggests that the Contagious Diseases Acts being in force did actually reduce the number of prostitutes.
Perhaps, though in Deal at least, it was just as much to do with the ‘kindly nature’ of the Metropolitan Officer Charles Duntrin and indeed William Pittock himself.
Deal, Walmer & Sandwich Mercury – Saturday 02 February 1884
Prostitution as you may rightly assume did not go away nor did the contagious diseases associated with it. In May 1883 the Contagious Diseases Acts and therefore the compulsory examinations were suspended and Dr Mason, local G.P., Superintendent of Deal Fire Brigade and Medical Officer for the area was in no doubt that this was the cause of the increase in Venereal Disease when he reported to the Urban Sanitary District in February 1884.
Trying to deal with the rise in Sexually Transmitted Diseases was no doubt the right thing to do, but by targeting one small sector of society most definitely was not. Until the twentieth-century men firmly held the power in government and in the home. What came out of this whole saga was the voice of women. Some were from the so-called ‘respectable or upper classes’ who were expected to stay quietly at home, marry, have children and support their husbands. Women such as Florence Nightingale, Josephine Butler, Elizabeth Wolstenholme & Harriet Martineau shouted loudly for women’s rights and their voices can still be heard today. Others were of a different class, the poor and often ill educated who perhaps had little choice but to prostitution to support themselves and their families. Their voices are often only recorded because, for whatever reason, they ended up in front of the magistrates. Their stories and their voices deserve no less to be heard too.
That ‘Certain Class of Women’
With the Barracks at Walmer and having both Merchant and Royal Naval presence in the towns, the area was a magnet for some of the often termed “ .. certain class of women…” who were wanting to earn a crust or two.
All, but a few, of the named prostitutes found in the records were actually born in Deal or Walmer. There must have been more local women but it seems that they, well their names at least, like many others down the centuries have simply slipped through the fingers of time.
With the lack of named ‘local’ women to research and to tell their stories, we have focussed on those who are named in the records and newspapers as either being in or from the Deal area as well as those named alongside them.
MARY JANE ORRICK
Mary Jane Orrick was born in Deal in 1847. She was the daughter of a Deal boatman Thomas Orrick, though until his wife’s death he earnt or supplemented his living as a shoemaker. Mary Jane was the sixth of their eight children, four boys and four girls. Through want of care she and her sisters were soon in trouble.
Temperance, the elder sister, got off lightly; she made just one court appearance, in 1861, for being drunk and disorderly but soon met a soldier and moved to Fanborough in Hampshire. By this time Mary Jane aged just fourteen had already been to prison eight or nine times!
In 1858 Mary Jane with sisters Elizabeth and Maria, then aged ten, seven and five respectively, were charged with stealing clothes from a house in Water Street. In court their father was described as “…a widower having no person in his house to take charge of his children, was at sea pursuing his usual avocation…” so the magistrate ordered that the children be taken to Eastry Union until their father could be summoned. The girls, it was said, “…were almost in a state of near nudity without shoes, stockings or bonnets….”
On another occasion Thomas told the court that the girls had left his house three weeks before and he had not seen them during that time. When asked if he would be “…bound for their good behaviour for twenty-one days…” he declined to make himself responsible for their behaviour, ”…as his occupation called him away to sea….”. So the magistrate sentenced the poor girls to six weeks, and this time it was with hard labour in Sandwich gaol.
Deal, Walmer & Sandwich Mercury – Saturday 24 August 1867
Their life of crime, which could be described as a cry for help, continued and they were soon described as ‘Juvenile Delinquents’ more can be read about the Orrick Sisters here
In 1867 Mary Jane had just returned from a reformatory when she was arrested with Frances Harrison; read about her next. They had been found sleeping in a corn field near the cemetery with a young man. Both were described as prostitutes in a miserable dirty appearance.
Three years later she was accused of stealing 3s. 6d. from a man who had accompanied her to a house and on leaving her had found that his purse had been robbed of the money; totally denying all knowledge of the purse, the case was dismissed.
Later that year Mary Jane found herself subjected to the Contagious Diseases Acts. Registered as a ‘common prostitute’ she underwent at least one so called voluntary examination but by failing to attend she found herself arrested and before the Police Courts in Canterbury. Her experience of the examination appears not not to have been a good one as she declares in court, where she is described as “…very contumacious…” that she “…would never attend examinations anymore…” Yet again Mary Jane found herself sentenced to fourteen days with hard labour.
Mary Jane soon made her way to Hampshire though she continued to get into trouble. In October 1873, when she was already on remand for riotous behaviour, she took a Marine home to her house on Gosport’s South Street, once there she threatened to kill him and took up the fire shovel with which she hit him on the head. He though, despite being badly injured, managed to take her to the police. For this she received twenty one days with hard labour.
This is the last recorded evidence we have for Mary Jane. After that, she completely disappears from the records.
Frances Harrison
Hampshire Telegraph – Saturday 18 December 1869
Born in Sedlescombe near Brighton, Sussex in 1847, Frances Harrison was the eldest daughter of John and Charlotte Harrison. Her baptism record declares that the family were travelling and that John was a labourer. By 1851 the Harrison family were in Southampton where John was an Ostler, ten years later they were in Armory Lane, Portsmouth where he was employed as a Stableman, possibly at the nearby Two Jolly Brewers Public House. Although the case was dismissed in December 1869 the landlord faced charges of Harbouring Prostitutes by allowing them to assemble in his house. With numerous accounts of riotous behaviour, drunkenness, theft, assault as well as prostitution in Armory Lane let alone in the area, it can be little wonder that Frances fell into prostitution.
Aged just seventeen in 1864 Frances was already making her living as a prostitute. Throughout 1864 she appeared in court and was charged with theft and for breaking the windows of a public house each time she received a short sentence with hard labour. In October that year she was charged with sleeping in an outhouse and with no visible means of support she was again sentenced, this time to two months with hard labour.
Deal, Walmer & Sandwich Mercury – Saturday 27 July 1867
One Frances Harrison appeared in July 1867, at Deal Police Court. We assume this to be the same Frances who maybe followed the Royal Marines from Portsmouth. She was found sleeping in a boat store in Kingsdown and was described as “…one of a class who were in the habit of sleeping in outhouses and such like places…” For this she was charged and sentenced to seven days in Sandwich Gaol. By August she was back in court alongside Mary Jane Orrick as already described.
A month later she is back in court but this time she was the victim of an assault in which her arm was broken. However, having lied in court over the supposed theft of money tied in a hanky, by her assailant a marine named Thomas Letchford, no charges were brought against her assailant.
By the 1870s, if this was the same Frances Harrison, was back in Hampshire where yet again she was in trouble. Then in 1884 she stole £5 from a house earning her another three months with hard labour. After this Frances also disappears from the records.
Louisa Wanstall
George Wanstall was found “…quite dead on the deck of the barge…” following an accident in Ramsgate harbour. He had only been married for just under six months; his wife Louisa nee Page had already lost her mother in early 1861. By the time the census was taken, her father and three younger siblings were in the Eastry Union Workhouse. Her three elder siblings had all married at around this time, this left a brother in service and Louisa staying with friends. How Louisa survived for the next four years on her own is not known, on her marriage certificate she gives no occupation, she must though have been relieved to have a future to look forward to.
Quite why Louisa fell on to such hard times after George died we will never know. Did she feel unable to move in with one of her siblings or in-laws? Did they offer? Whatever the reason, we know that by 1869 she was known to be a prostitute.
The Deal, Walmer & Sandwich Mercury reported, in some detail, on her case when it was brought before the Deal Police Court in May 1869, when she and Elizabeth Ellis were both accused of stealing nine sovereigns and a watch from one Daniel Ratcliffe who was described as being “…a grey headed old man apparently close upon seventy years of age…” In his statement he told the court that one Saturday afternoon he went into the Nelson Public House in Short Street ”… to have some beer…”
He sat down to enjoy his beer and Elizabeth, who had been scrubbing the floor, joined him and they continued to drink together into the evening with Louisa occasionally joining them. At 10 O’clock he went upstairs with Elizabeth. He was later woken by Henry Blyth the Landlord telling him that those young women are going for a walk and they want you to go with them. Not finding his trousers where he had left them he asked Henry Blyth for them. On putting them on he realised his money and his watch was missing. Nonetheless, he went in search of the women who he didn’t find but was told that they both lodged at the Lord Nelson. Superintendent Parker was eventually called, and the lodging rooms were searched. In Louisa’s room he found some money tied up in a handkerchief which she identified as hers but admitted that Elizabeth had given it to her. Elizabeth, who was not in The Lord Nelson at the time was later found singing and dancing in West Street and arrested there along with Henry Blyth.
Following their appearance in the Police Court, they were sent to Sandwich Gaol to await trial at the Quarter Sessions which occurred in July, their cases were heard and Louisa and Henry Blyth were acquitted with no case to be heard and Elizabeth was also eventually found not guilty.
By 1872 Louisa was living in Sandwich with her brother Thomas who went by the name of Thomas Ryan, rather than Page. Why the use of a different surname is not clear but in January, their sister Caroline Smith saw him assaulting Louisa in Market Street, Sandwich. Coming to her sister’s defence Thomas turned on her knocking her to the ground where he kicked her brutally in the stomach. Thomas was eventually sentenced to six months with hard labour.
By 1881 Louisa was living in Dover with labourer Thomas Welch, as his wife. In 1885 they had a son who they named Thomas George Welch. When they registered him, Louisa gave her maiden name not as Page but as Ryan. Thomas and Louisa eventually married in 1891, as for Caroline in 1901 she was living with Louisa and Thomas in Folkestone.
Thomas died in 1905 Louisa outlived him by thirty-seven years, dying in 1942.
Of course we can not know what Louisa’s life was really like but it seems that, perhaps, she was able to leave prostitution behind her and live to a grand old age of 98.
Folkestone Express, Sandgate, Shorncliffe & Hythe Advertiser – Saturday 18 March 1876
Elizabeth Ellis
Elizabeth Ellis, according to the Quarter Sessions, Calendar of Prisoners awaiting trial at Sandwich Gaol for 1869 when she appeared with Louisa Wanstal and Henry Blyth, was born in 1844 but where we have not been able to confirm.
Elizabeth, it seems, continued earning her living as a prostitute to at least 1876 when she was brutally assaulted and raped by Joseph Avery a Private in the 12th Lancers in Folkestone. He and artilleryman William McKay met with Elizabeth when she was walking home at 11 pm early in March that year. They approached her and when she refused to take them back with her Joseph Avery threw her to the ground and with William McKay standing by he raped her. The evidence was, according to the Folkestone Express, unfit for publication. You might think this would mean a custodial sentence for at least the assailant but no, Joseph Avery was found not guilty of rape and William McKay was acquitted.
What happened to Elizabeth after this is not known. She certainly doesn’t appear in the newspapers suggesting she at least kept out of trouble.
Kentish Gazette – Tuesday 26 April 1870
Eliza Bing
According to her prison record Eliza was born in 1852 but even knowing that, as with Elizabeth Ellis, her origins have proved elusive. The first mention we have found for her is in the Kentish Gazette in April 1870 when she appears with Sarah Waters who we come to next. She had by then already been subject to at least one medical examination and possibly spent time in the lock hospital as the Kentish Gazette report states she was refusing to submit to another examination saying that she would rather go to prison for twelve months than “…go to that place again…” This time she was sentenced to seven days in Maidstone Gaol.
Sarah Waters
In late March 1879 Sarah Waters signed the form agreeing to the ‘voluntary’ medical examination. On April 1st she duly appeared and was ordered to appear again on the 14th but failed to do so, and an order was made for her arrest and she was brought before the Magistrates at Canterbury. In court Inspector Whelan was cross-examined by Mr. West, a London solicitor engaged by several gentlemen in Canterbury to defend Sarah and the other women accused with her of failing to comply with the acts.
Mr West put it to Inspector Whelan that although Sarah had signed the document she had not been told that if she did not comply, that is to attend again, she would be imprisoned. That he, Inspector Whelan, had not supplied her with food during her enforced initial incarceration before she was examined. Sarah and the other women on that day had been “…kept in a room from 12.30 to six o’clock…” they were then taken to Dover and from there to the hospital at Shorncliffe arriving at 8.30pm. Alison Wilson and Eliza Bing both appearing with Sarah confirm this treatment and that they “had suffered great pain”
Mr Fielding for the prosecution objected to this and Mr Drury, one of the magistrates asked “I suppose the object is to reduce punishment?”
Mr West had already pointed out to the Bench that “…these people are of a very ignorant class…” and that it could be argued that they had signed these documents in ignorance.
Given that in April 1870 the Acts in Canterbury had only been in force since the beginning of the year it does seem a very reasonable argument.
Sarah was ordered to be sent to Maidstone Gaol for seven days but Inspector Whelan stated he did not want to press for imprisonment and would be satisfied if Sarah would consent to be examined in future. Sarah agreed to this but whether the whole experience brought about a change in her life it is hard to say. There are several assault charges relating to Sarah Waters following this but then nothing further. So again we can find no evidence of Sarah’ subsequent life.
Interestingly Mr West, the defending solicitor, worked for Messrs Shaen and Roscoe of London. They were connected with the Associate Institution for enforcing and improving the law for the protection of women. Mr. William Shaen, the head of the firm also gave evidence to the same Select Committee as William Pittock.
Julia Gilbert
Julia appears to have travelled around East Kent. The first mention we have for her is in 1881 when we found her paying a fine for being drunk and disorderly and lodging at 22 Duke Street, Deal. A year later she was charged with ‘interfering with the Military Police.’ A Royal Marine Sergeant was endeavouring to get a marine, a little worse for drink, back to the Barracks. Julia herself in a similar state, considered the Sergeant a little heavy handed and was ‘frog-marching’ the drunken man and decided to intervene and in so doing used ‘…obscene and filthy language…” as well as shoving the Sergeant and spitting in his face. For this she was fined 5 shillings which she immediately paid, saying she meant no harm.
Deal, Walmer & Sandwich Mercury – Saturday 17 September 1881
After this event she appears to leave the town moving up to Sheerness, a big draw for prostitutes and where her behaviour did not improve. In 1883 she was summoned by Martha Stimpson for assaulting and beating her for which she was fined 10s with 11s costs.
In February 1884 Julia married Sergeant Evan Rowlands of the Royal Artillery in Sheerness. The last possible record we can find for Julia is in 1887 when she was held in Canterbury gaol for unlawfully wounding Thomas Douglas in Sheerness for which she was acquitted. She gave her occupation as a servant, so it could be that she and Evan had separated by this time. After that Julia and indeed Evan disappear from our sights.
Eliza Whitewood
Eliza Whitewood was born in 1853 in Nonington where her father, Thomas, was a mIller. In 1859 Eliza’s mother, Mary Ann died in Great Mongeham leaving her husband with the care of their five daughters aged between seven and fourteen years; Harriet Elizabeth, or Eliza as she became, was the youngest. The 1861 census shows that Thomas and his daughters were still living in Chalk Hole, Great Mongeham but by 1866 Thomas too had died. Two of the girls somehow end up in New Zealand perhaps sent to live with their Uncle who they had never met. The eldest, rather confusingly named Elizabeth may have spent a good deal of her time in Eastry Union and possibly, after working in the Hop fields, died in Bridge Union Workhouse in 1881.
Deal, Walmer & Sandwich Mercury – Saturday 21 May 1870
The Deal, Walmer and Sandwich Mercury in May 1870 reports an Elizabeth Whitewood as “..an inmate of the idiots ward…” from which she absconded by climbing over the wall. With our Eliza and her sister both at times using the same name, it is hard to say with certainty if this Elizabeth is actually our Eliza or her sister.
Eliza though was by 1871 definitely in Chatham Lock House. We know that by 1881 she was back in Deal lodging at 22 Duke Street with her sister Frances Amelia. The same lodging house that a few months later Julia Gilbert gave as her address when she was arrested for drunkeness. The census records both their occupations as dressmakers. A year later though on the 29th May Eliza died in Eastry Union soon after she had been admitted. The cause of death was ‘supposed apoplexy’ could this though, have been ‘syphilitic apoplexy’? Who knows?
Mary Hagar
Kentish Express – Saturday 13 August 1870
Mary Hagar failed to appear for the examination when ordered and failed to turn up for her court appearance on the same day as Eliza Bing and Mary Jane Orrick in August 1870. Her date and place of birth have both eluded us. But she is described as a “…child…” according to the report by the Association for Promoting the Extension of the Contagious Diseases Acts dated 1872. In the report Josephine Butler is quoted from the evidence she gave to the Royal Commission looking into the operation of the Acts in 1872.
A Repeal Association had been established in Canterbury soon after the acts came into force in the town. This would account for Mr. West being employed by those “..several gentlemen in Canterbury…” in the Sarah Waters and Elizabeth Bing cases and for Josephine Butler’s visiting the city. Her presence enabled Mary Hagar and her mother to call on her.
According to her mother Mary Hagar was an innocent girl who had been sent out on an errand and had been taken by the police to the examination room and examined from where she was sent to the hospital. Here she claimed her daughter was refused permission to contact her friends. A complaint of ‘gross oppression’ had been made by Josephine Butler to the Secretary of State for War, under whose orders the Select Committee enquiries were later made. Mr. Sloggett, the Inspector of Certified (Lock) Hospitals, visited the Lock Hospital and spoke to the other women there who confirmed that “..this girl…” was indeed a prostitute. Mr. Sloggett described Mary as of dirty appearance, half clad and a prostitute of the low kind. This differs from the “..nice innocent looking girl of eighteen years…” as described by Josephine Butler. It seems there was a case of misidentity, perhaps in part caused by the Inspector, on whose evidence of identification of the girl in this case, that Mr. Sloggett relied upon. Interestingly this inspector was dismissed soon after. Josephine, it seems, had written Hagar in her letter of complaint instead of Hagan!
By 1875 Mary Hagar appears to have moved to Essex where she was reported with fellow prostitute Amelia Richards to have been drinking with soldiers in the Britannia Public House on Brentford’s High Street. They this time are not in trouble, the landlord though was fined for letting them stay for too long in his establishment! When he asked if he was to keep“…these women…” out of his house altogether he was rather usefully told he, “… should use his discretion and not allow them to stay too long…”!! The trail then goes cold on Mary Hagar. There are various newspaper reports of women with the same name, in trouble in various parts of the country, but none that we can definitely link with our Mary.
Margaret Howard
A ‘sensational robbery’ occurred at the Barracks of the 6th Depot Battalion in Walmer in March 1863. Mess Master George Emstell realised that both his cashbox and his mess assistant were missing. The box itself contained £100 in gold and cheques, bills and drafts to the value of £1,600. Police Constable Ralph with George Emsell finding the destination of the supposed thief, one John Kean, to be Canterbury, soon made their way there. Whereupon John Kean was found in bed with a Deal prostitute named Margaret Howard.
£93 was recovered, and the cash box was found on Deal beach near the Naval Yard.
Margaret and John both appeared before Maidstone Lent Assizes a few days later. John Keane was sentenced to four years and Margaret to four months for receiving £7 5s.
knowing it to have been stolen. Margaret may have actually been a laundress from Newcastle and after her release she may have not returned to Deal but moved on to Gravesend where she was in trouble for drunkenness then as with most of the other women whose stories we have tried to tell she too disappears from verifiable records.
Matilda Burton
PC Chapman was called one evening to 9 King Street in May 1892 where he found Widow Matilda Burton lying on the floor of the back room of the house totally drunk and incapable. She had earlier in the evening told Mr Tookey that she ”… intended to be locked up…” and used bad language. Matilda had been lodging at the house helping Mrs Tookey with housework for her keep. That morning Matilda had been sent out for groceries but when she returned with the groceries at eight that evening she was the worse for drink. As this was not the first occasion Mr. Tookey told her he would not put up with her behaviour any longer. As this was Matilda’s first offence, she was simply reprimanded.
November found Matilda in court again, now living in West Street she was charged with indecent behaviour in Church Walk and sent to gaol for fourteen days in default of paying a fine. By June 1893 she had turned to prostitution and was charged with “…unlawfully soliciting prostitution…” and sentenced to fourteen days. Yet again no further definitive records can be found to tell us where Matilda came from or where she went after 1893.
Hannah Mary Griggs and Ann Rogers
Hannah Mary Griggs and Ann Rogers in 1856 are named as prostitutes from Deal when they were charged with stealing a silver watch. The owner, Edward Summers had left the watch behind, in his house on West Street, while he went bathing in the sea. Hannah must have been known in the area as Edward immediately suspected her and informed Inspector Redsull, who had often seen Hannah and Ann together. In court Hannah finally admitted that she took the watch “…but should not have done it, but my parents were in want of bread…” Ann, she said, knew nothing of it. Hannah was sentenced to four months, and Ann with insufficient evidence was “…discharged with some seasonable advice…” With no further leads to go on finding what became of Hannah or Mary also remains out of our grasp.
Ella Parker
Ella Parker, the daughter of Butcher George Parker and his wife Susannah, was born in Deal in 1861 the youngest of six; the 1881 census records her as a prostitute while she was a patient at Chartham Lunatic Asylum. She is the only one of three recorded as such at the time so there may be no reason to doubt that they believed this. She was still a patient there in 1891 and by then she is recorded as a ‘lunatic’ of no occupation. However a year later in November 1892 the register for Chartham states that she had recovered and discharged. But where and into whose care she was placed let alone her death is so far not been found.
Elizabeth Spratt
Elizabeth Spratt in 1867 described herself as a prostitute when she was arrested for obtaining, under false pretences, a bottle of pickled onions from the grocer, Mr. Thompson, on Middle Street. However, having no sufficient evidence, her case was dismissed. By 1871 there was no trace of Elizabeth in Deal.
Sarah Castell and Sarah Spencer
Widows Sarah Castell and Sarah Spencer give their place of birth as Deal while they were in Chatham Lock Hospital when the 1871 census was taken. In 1870 Esther Harris, Jane Ralph, Emma Taylor and Jane Connor were summoned for absenting themselves from periodical examinations along with Mary Hagar. No definitive records have been found to say if these women were ever in Deal or if they knew Eliza Bing or Mary Jane Orrick who were also summoned at the same time.
In Conclusion
The lives of many of these women, indeed most of them, are hidden in the past. Unless they behaved badly, failed to turn up for medical examinations or were themselves victims of a crime against them, we would have no idea of their existence as prostitutes.
Many of these women either had or went on to have children but for those written about here we have not been able to find any records for them. For the children of women who were infected with a sexually transmitted disease then a life with the self-same disease and its consequences could perhaps be expected. For others, unless their mother found a different way of life, then perhaps at best, they would simply have had a hard life.