The story of the Temple Foundlings
1
One of the joys of being elected Reader is that one gets to deliver a paper on a subject
of one’s choice. The sensible course is to draw from professional experience and
speak to a title such as “The Settled Land Act – a repeal too far” or “Mortgages and
Easements – time for reform” areas of the law which have enabled me to scratch a
living over 40 years; but then the old adage came to mind “ a little knowledge is a
dangerous thing” and I decided to move to altogether safer ground and talk on a topic
about which I have no knowledge at all: or to be more precise a topic about which I
was aware, but only vaguely aware. I am indebted to Lesley Whitelaw and Hannah
Baker in our Archive Department for helping to get me up to speed and the Archivists
of the other Inns in particular Celia Pilkington of Inner Temple and also Stephanie
Chapman of the Coram Foundation (more of which anon). Thanks are due also to Flin
Alderson and Siobhan Prendergast for putting together a related exhibition in the
library.
2
In the Middle Temple Archives is held a notebook. It measures 9” by 7 ¼” (or if you
prefer 220 x 170 cms); it has heavy boards slightly warped and it is bound in
parchment. As notebooks go it was probably top of the range but otherwise modest
enough. There is a 50:50 chance that you are looking at the cover with the words
“Account of Table Linen 1732” and when you open it you will read “SAMUEL RILEY
Chief Bench Butler” “To linen in his hands” followed by an inventory of table cloths,
napkins, oyster cloths and the like. There are periodic updates and the last entry is on
the 25th March 1745 when it is signed off by Samuel Riley. So far, so dull.
3
Close it, turn it over and the cover reads “Exposed Children”. This time when you open
it you will read:
(1) “Name: Richard; when exposed: 20th November 1712; where: Hall Passage”.
(2) “Name: Martha; 8th Oct 1733; No 4 in Brick Court”; “how old when found: 2
months”.
(3) “William”; “7 Mar 1739”; “Fountain Court; age “4 years”; says his name is Billy
Toppin or Coppin”;
(4) “Ephraim”; “30th August 1741”; “Middle Temple Lane No 2”; age “3 weeks”; died
9th September 1742.
4
This is the register of the Middle Temple Foundlings – children, in the main babies a
few weeks old, who were abandoned in the Middle Temple during the 18th Century
and for whom the Inn assumed responsibility, arranging for their care and, for those
who survived, – and I will come back to those ominous words - their schooling and
eventual apprenticeship.
5
The first entry is in the register is dated February 1701 but it is clear that the first page
or so was written retrospectively. The earliest entries list only children who survived
and who had been apprenticed: the compiler was made making a note of the children
whose circumstances could be recalled. However the accountsi show payments for a
much larger number of children than are recorded in the Register: in 1710-11
© Stephen Lloyd 2014
1
payments were made for at least 10 children, the following year for 12 and the year
after for 15 but the Register records only 3 names over that entire period. Thereafter
– and probably in about 1729 - it becomes a contemporary, and seemingly complete,
record compiled as the children were found: in all a record of 150 children.
6
The register records the name, when exposed (in effect the date of discovery), where
found, when baptised, the nurse by whom the child was fostered and her place of
abode and what happened to the child.
7
It seems likely that a register was started in consequence of a resolution of the Inn’s
Parliament on 22nd November 1728 the minute of which reads “An account to be given
to the Treasurer upon his entering upon his Treasurership of all children exposed in this
Society, the time when they were so exposed, by whom they are nursed and how much
weekly is paid for every such child”.ii Except for the cost (which is to be found in the
accounts) those are the details set out in the register.
8
The 17th and 18th centuries were brutal times; the combination of grinding poverty, a
structured class system and a censorious moral code, applied ruthlessly to the poor
and largely ignored by the rich and powerful, meant that the abandonment of children
– particularly illegitimate children - was commonplace. Indeed it was the squalor of
London and the sight of abandoned children dead or dying that led Thomas Coram, a
retired sea captain, to start the movement which created the Foundling Hospitaliii at
the top of Lambs Conduit Street North of Holborn.
9
It is clear is that the practice of abandoning babies in the Temple area had been going
on for very many years before any record was kept, and indeed was so commonplace
as not to warrant more than occasional mention in the minutes of Parliament until
1727iv. The accounts tell a different story as payments for children dropped in the Inn
had become a regular feature by 1661.
10
That minute of Parliament in November 1728, requiring the Treasurer to be informed
of the numbers of Foundlings, indicates an awareness of a growing problem. The lack
of a contemporary register before 1727 means that we cannot reliably trace the rise of
the numbers of abandoned children, although the Baptismal records of the Temple
Church give us a guidev. If the lack of records seems cavalier, it should be noted that
Middle is the only Inn to have kept any register at all.
11
Why did the Inns – Middle and Inner take on the responsibility for these children? The
explanation seems to me to be twofold.
12
First practical: if you find a new born baby on your doorstep there is a problem – and
it’s your problem.
13
Second legal: responsibility for the poor and destitute fell upon the Parish and this
obligation was increasingly regulated by Acts passed in the 17th and 18th centuries
beginning with the Poor Relief Act 1601vi. The obligation depended on the pauper’s
© Stephen Lloyd 2014
2
place of settlement, and an illegitimate child was settled in the place where it was
born. Inner and Middle Temple were extra Parochialvii that is to say that they were
not part of any Parish, and therefore they were not liable to pay the poor law rate
levied by any of the surrounding Parishesviii. However the other side of that coin was
that a baby found within their bounds was by definition not the responsibility of any
Parish unless the Inns could demonstrate that the child was born in that particular
Parish which of course they could not do. So the reality was that the Inns were left,
literally and metaphorically holding the baby. Indeed when, in 1774, Lincoln’s Inn
petitioned Parliament to present a bill to be exempted from parochial rates, its
treatment of foundlings was a relevant issue.
14
Lincoln’s Inn seems to have had far fewer babies dropped than the Temple and to
have dealt with them by paying for the children to be removed: one person receiving
payment was the Beadle of the Parish of St Andrew, a wealthy Parish in Holborn; in
some years at least, its Beadle appears to have been on a retainerix. The Steward of
Lincoln’s Inn (the forerunner of their Under-Treasurer) gave evidence to a
Parliamentary committee that he knew of no children being dropped within Lincoln’s
Innx. Given that the records contained a number of references to babies being
dropped and taken away, that evidence was, shall we say, surprising, although to be
fair to the Steward it had then been 20 years since any recorded instance of a child
being abandoned in Lincoln’s Innxi. However, what is more surprising is that, within a
week of that evidence being given, a child was dropped in the Inn, under the Chapelxii.
The Inn could not, consistent with its case that it should not be liable for the Poor
Rate, offload the abandoned child as had been its practice in the past, and it had no
option but to take responsibility for it. In the event it took responsibility with all the
fervour of a convert: the child was christened George and became a regular feature in
their accounts (including boarding school fees) until he was apprenticed to a carpenter
in 1790xiii. Fortunately for Lincoln’s Inn there seem to have been only two or three
further instances of children being dropped.
15
So far as Gray’s Inn is concerned, the state of their records makes it difficult to be
confident, but the problem seems to have been minimal and, like Lincoln’s Inn, dealt
with, at least until 1753, by having the children removed to a local workhousexiv. In
the one recorded instance of the Inn incurring costs for nursing a child, it clearly died
after a very short time.
16
For Inner and Middle Temple however the numbers were significant and during the
17th Century they had begun to assume responsibility for the children left on their
respective estates. The question whether a child became the responsibility of the
Middle Temple or the Inner Temple depended on precisely where it was left. When a
girl baby was abandoned in Figtree Court (now part of the eastern end of Elm Court) in
October 1725 the ownership of the precise piece of land on which she was found was
put on the agenda for a meeting with Inner Temple (which like many conferences on
issues between the Inns was held in the Round of the Temple Church – neutral ground
so to speak). It looks as if, in that case, the responsibility remained with Middle
because our register records a baby girl – Elizabeth - as having been exposed on the 23
© Stephen Lloyd 2014
3
Oct 1725 “on the step going into Fig Tree Court”: however the responsibility did not
last long, for she died three weeks later.
17
When a baby was found the first and urgent task was to have it baptised. On occasion
the child died before it could be baptised – but these cases are very few – and the
register generally shows the children being baptised the day following discovery.
18
All the children were given the surname Temple. Occasionally a note was left giving
the child’s name: if so the first name would be respected but the child was still given
the surname Temple: so William abandoned in Garden Court in 1771 with a note
saying that he had been christened William and his mother had surnamed him Wells is
recorded in the Register as “William Wells Temple”. Lincoln’s and Gray’s adopted a
similar practice: George was called George Lincoln. It took Gray's a couple of goes to
get the hang of things, and the first child baptised went through her (long or short) life
bearing the name “Mary Grays Inn”xv.
19
The children were placed with what we would describe as foster mothers – in the
register, and the language of the time, they are called nurses. Most nurses seem to
have been located near to the Inns: Mrs Wright at Hatton Garden, Mrs Rump at the
Kings Arms Snow Hill, Mrs Porter at Spittlefields. Some were further afield: Mrs Atkins
at Ham Common, Mrs Akers at Stanmore. How they were recruited is not recorded
but one suspects it was through word of mouth. At any given time there were only a
handful of nurses. They were paid – the going rate in the 17th Century seems to have
been 2/6 per week rising to 3/- in the 18th century xvi- in addition the Inn paid the
other expenses connected with the child in particular its schooling and medical billsxvii.
20
A few lucky children were fostered by Inn staff. Mary Scott abandoned on 25 th
December 1740 in the staircase in Hall Passage aged 3 years was taken in by Mrs
Martin the Porter’s wife. Richard (of whom more anon) abandoned in Hall passage
was taken in by Mr Mallet then Under Treasurer.
21
The death rate was high. Between 1726 and 1800, about 65% of those listed in the
register died within the year. However this must be set in the context of the day. In
the period of general admission (1756 to 1760) when the Foundling Hospital was
required to take any child presented to it, their rate for deaths within 2 years of
admission was about 61%xviii; in the workhouses death rates for newborns could be
90% and a survey in 1765 recorded two London Parishes with a 100% mortality ratexix.
22
Those children who survived into their teens were apprenticed to a trade or
craftsman. Luke, abandoned in Oct 1712, was apprenticed to a Mr Thomas Sadgrove,
a writing master, for 7 years at a cost to the Society of £10; he would then have been
16 years old. Mary, abandoned in August 1732, was, aged 18, apprenticed to Mariah
England a Mantua maker: a Mantua was a particular form of ladies dress. Mariah
England also took in Mary Scott who had been fostered by the Porter’s wife: Mary
Scott was 14 when apprenticed. She and the Inn clearly remained in touch and
© Stephen Lloyd 2014
4
unusually for a child who survived into adulthood the Register records her eventual
death at the grand age of 82 years.
23
Once the child was apprenticed, the Inn’s responsibility ceased and on 2nd June 1727
Parliament became concerned that children were not being apprenticed sufficiently
promptly and resolved that the Treasurer “…send for all the exposed children to see
which are and which are not capable of being placed out as Apprentices, and act
therein as he shall think fit”xx.
24
Generally apprenticeships for both girls and boys seem to have been arranged when
they reached the age of 14 or 15. Apprenticeships for girls included embroidery,
shoemaking and so forth, trades for the boys were varied; wig-making seems to have
been a popular choice for the Inn, perhaps because there were a number of
wigmakers in or near the Inns; the Register refers to several “peruke-makers”. A
peruke was a gentleman’s short wig, white hair pulled to back and tied with black
ribbon. However wig-making was not to every boy’s taste: Hugh, abandoned in
September 1746, was bound to Mr Mayne Peruke maker “…but since that sent to
sea”; John abandoned in May 1755 was apprenticed to Mr Kerr, Peruke maker “…and
ran away”; another foundling abandoned in March 1768 ran away even before the
articles of apprenticeship were signed. Why the Inn should have thought that sitting
and sewing hairs one by one onto gauze would be an attractive job prospect for a
teenage boy is not clear but then the boys’ wishes were, almost certainly, not of the
first importance.
25
Richard Temple, the foundling who had been taken into care by John Mallet then the
Under Treasurer was clearly a bright boy. In 1727 Mr Mallet, by now retired,
petitioned Parliament for Richard (then aged 15) to remain at school for 3 more years
but was rebuffed by the Treasurer “that they never intended to breed such children
Gentlemen and he must go to some periwig maker or some such trade” xxi. If that
sounds harsh it must be remembered that at this time social status was everything;
the sins of the parent were visited on the child and any concept of equal opportunities
would have been regarded as eccentric at best and dangerous to social order at worst.
Even the Foundling Hospital, surely one of the most liberal and enlightened ventures
of its time, made clear to its foundlings that, in the social strata, they were intended
for “servile and laborious employment”.
26
Although the Inn discharged its responsibilities for its foundlings, it did, of course try
to protect itself. An order to the Watchmen issued in 1733 required them, on pain of
immediate suspension, to have “... a strict eye upon all staircases and passages on
their walks and to take particular care that no children are dropped…” xxii The Inns also
tried to apprehend or trace any person responsible for dropping children, sometimes
with success: the 1796-7 accounts show payments for “taking into custody two
persons concerned in deserting a child in Middle Temple Lane” xxiii. When 5 year old
James was found in Middle Temple Cloisters, and shortly after a baby boy was found
abandoned against the door of the engine house by Middle Temple Fountain, a
reward of £20 was offered for informationxxiv.
© Stephen Lloyd 2014
5
27
The posters offering reward tell us something of the state and appearance of the
children: James is described as “...having a bruise under his left eye and having lost his
two front teeth; dressed in a coarse white calico skirt and bed gown tied round the
waist with blue ribbon velveret shoes and black beaver hat”: he was maintained for 3
years but died of the smallpox in Dec 1795. The baby, aged 6 weeks when dropped,
was christened Thomas Temple but died of consumption after only 3 weeks: he had
been dressed in a calico skirt and bed gown, cambric cap with lace, with a silk and
cotton handkerchief about his head and wrapped in flannel: clothing which suggests
he was not the child of a pauper. An advertisement for a person abandoning a baby in
March 1801 refers to the baby having a burn or scald on its left leg: the register
records that “…it appeared when found to be almost starved to which its death [24
days later] was attributed”xxv; the baby was baptised William.
28
Not all those abandoning children were mothers. A sworn statement given to a
Justice of the Peace on 3rd September 1747 reports a statement made about a female
child being dropped in Brick Court by John James, Victualler of Greek Street Sohoxxvi.
That little girl was probably Sara who, according to the Register was placed with Jonas
Temple’s wife in Bell Yard: Jonas Temple was himself a foundling, recorded as having
been found in March 1713 and, 18 years later in 1731, apprenticed to a gunsmith in
Bell Yard.
29
If the responsibility for its foundlings was unwelcome, once assumed it was
honourably discharged. The children were commonly referred to “…belonging to...”
the Inn and it is clear that the term “belonging” connotes, not a proprietorial
relationship, but a collegiate one – the foundlings became part of the extended family
that was the Inn. Like any parent, the Inn was not consistent when it came to money:
it could be parsimonious when refunding expenses to the nurses: in 1723 a nurse’s
bill for little Richard Temple of £3.0.2 had the 13/- spent on “a great coat to keep him
warm” disallowed reducing the bill to £2. 7. 2 ; that reduction was equivalent to 5
weeks payment to the nursexxvii. By contrast the Inn met the cost of taking thirteen
year old Sarah Temple, who suffered from scrophula, a form of TB, to Margate for 6
weeks presumably on the assumption the sea air would help her afflictionxxviii; she
died of the disease some years later. Luke, one of the earliest entries in the Register,
who had been apprenticed to a writing master, was given financial assistance to help
him buy his master’s business when the Master diedxxix. Luke’s apprenticeship had by
then concluded and the Inn’s responsibility for him had long since come to an endxxx.
30
The numbers of children peaked between 1726 and 1775; thereafter it fell away;
between 1801 and 1825 only 3 children are recorded in the Register. The last entry in
the register was the 12th June 1845: Mary Temple, about 4 months old was
abandoned on the first landing of No 1 Middle Temple Lane: she was taken in by Mrs
Gingell whose address is given as Chief Porter’s Lodge and she died of whooping
cough in 1850. To all intent and purpose the practice had by then ceased: that entry
appeared some 21 years after the previous entry.
© Stephen Lloyd 2014
6
31
During the 18th century, Middle Temple had taken responsibility for well over 150
children. The baptismal records suggest that the combined number for Middle and
Inner Temples was in excess of 250.
32
Why did the practice of dropping children come to an end? The truth is I do not know
but it seems likely that there were a number of contributing factors. There were
important changes to the Poor Laws during this period, survival rates in the
workhouses began to improve and the overall number of children being abandoned
throughout London was probably diminishing.
33
The Gin Craze was coming to an end: the late C17th and early C18th had seen cheap
spirits peddled amongst the poor with results depicted by Hogarth in his work “Gin
Alley”. There had been a number of Acts trying to address the problem, popularly
known as the Gin Actsxxxi; the Gin Act of 1751 regulated and taxed the retail trade and
that, coupled with a rising cost of grain, made spirits more expensive and the craze
began to die out.
34
In any event London was changing. In 1700 the whole of London could be viewed
from the Dome of St Pauls Cathedral: a century later it had doubled in size and was
continuing to growxxxii. The site of the Foundling Hospital, comprised a green-field site
known as “Lambs Conduit fields” was, at the time it was built, on the northern
outskirts of London.
35
Ironically the creation of the Foundling Hospital by Thomas Coram, intended to take in
children who might otherwise have been abandoned, to which a child could be
handed over and which, therefore, was the one single event which might have been
expected to reduce the problem, did not result in an immediate drop in numbers of
children being dropped in the Temple. Indeed, in the short term, it probably made
matters worse. The new hospital opened its first wing in 1745, and in the meantime
operated from temporary premises in Fetter Lane from 1741. The reality was that,
when it opened, the hospital was overwhelmed and many children had to be turned
away. It may well be that some of those not taken by the hospital ended up being
dropped in one or other of the Inns, and indeed, of the few recorded instances of
babies being dropped in Gray’s Inn, most occurred after the Foundling Hospital
opened.
36
The last survivor of the Temple Foundlings is believed to have been Mary Ann
Littlefield who died in 1865xxxiii. It looks as if she either lived in or near the Inns and
earned money by doing cleaning jobsxxxiv. For the last 10 years of her life she was
maintained by both Inns receiving 5/- a week from Innerxxxv and 6/- a week from
Middlexxxvi. Mary is said to have been highly eccentric and the original of “Miss Flite”
in Dicken’s novel Bleak House; Miss Flite was of course the deranged lady who daily
attended the Chancery Court in expectation of a judgment which never came.
37
Before I conclude let me add to the story of Richard Temple who had been taken in by
John Mallet and, so far as the Treasurer was concerned, was destined to be a
© Stephen Lloyd 2014
7
wigmaker’s apprentice not a gentleman. Well, more enlightened views prevailed and
in 1729 Richard was admitted to the Middle Temple and all his fees were waivedxxxvii. I
wish I could tell you that he had a stunningly successful career at the bar, was
appointed to the bench, became Lord Chief Justice and in due course Treasurer of the
Inn, but, alas, life is never that tidy. In 1729, 105 young men were admitted to the Inn
and only 14 were called to the Bar - Richard was not one of them. That does not mean
that he was a failure – the Inns of Court were then as much a finishing school as an
entry to the legal profession – but for our purposes it does mean that the trail goes
cold and so we cannot know if he succeeded in later life and if Mr Mallet’s high
expectations of him were fulfilled. However this is Reader’s Feast and I am the
Reader: I am told that for this evening I am in charge; therefore I propose to assume
that Richard had a long and successful life and took pride in the name Temple - and I
warmly invite you to do likewise.
© Stephen Lloyd 2014
8
i
Middle Temple Records Minutes of Parliament, 1703 - 1747 ( “MT Records”) Vol. 5, unpublished, page 194-5
MT Records Vol. 5 p 255
iii
As to the work of the Foundling Hospital see David Allin The Early years of the Foundling Hospital 1739/41 1773 (unpublished but available as a pdf from the Foundling Museum)
iv
MT Records Vol. 5 p 239; the Treasurer of the time complains of delay in putting exposed children out to
apprenticeships (at which point the Inn’s responsibility would cease)
v
Register of Burials at the Temple Church 1628-1853, with introduction by The Rev. H. G. Woods, DD, Master
of the Temple (London, Henry Sotheran and Co., 1905)
vi
43 Eliz 1 c 2; The other principle Acts were the Settlement Act 1662 13&14 Car II c2; Knatchbull’s Act 1722-3
9 Geo 1 c7; Hanway’s Act 1762 2 Geo III c22 and Gilbert’s Act 1782 22 Geo III c83; the law was given a major
overhaul by the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act 1834 4 & 5 Will IV c76.
vii
Griffith (see below) contends that the Temple was not extra parochial but a distinct parish founded before
legal memory.
viii
th
In the early part of the 19 century the claims to extra parochial status of Lincoln’s Inn Gray’s Inn, Thavies
Inn and Clifford’s Inn were challenged in a series of cases in the King’s Bench reports of which are collected
together with an account of St Andrew’s Parish by Edward Griffith F.A.S. “Cases of Supposed exemption from
Poor Rates” Henry Butterworth 1831. Griffith (who was by his own admission partial) is scathing about the
claims of Lincoln’s Inn and Gray’s Inn to extra parochial status and of their conduct in the litigation.
ix
Records of the Hon. Soc. of Lincoln’s Inn “The Black Books”) Vol. 3 p334.
x
Account in the House of Commons Journal vol. xxxiv reproduced in The Black Books Vol. 3 p 474.
xi
The Black Books Vol. 3 p357.
xii
Order of Council 20.4.74; The Black Books Vol. 3 p419
xiii
See “Where Are We? Foundlings & Parishes” Mark Ockelton Lincoln’s Inn Annual Review 2011 p26.
xiv
Pension Minutes Vol. 2 1669-1800.
xv
Gray’s Inn Chapel Registers. Griffiths (see above p 119-120) cites entries in the parish books referring to the
admission into the workhouse of children dropped in Gray’s Inn and who were given the name “Graysinn”;
Bentley’s Book (reproduced as an appendix by Griffiths) refers to a child found in St Andrew’s churchyard
being christened Andrew Holborn p. xxviii.
xvi
The practice in Inner Temple seems to have been to pay every 13 weeks see e.g. Calendar of Inner Temple
Records Vol. 4 p185
xvii
See e.g. MT Records Vol. 5 p201; in the published accounts the editor commonly accumulated the expenses
into a single item (of varying detail).
xviii
Information from the Foundling Museum; if all who died whilst in the care of the hospital are included the
rate rises to 70%.
xix
“An Earnest Appeal for Mercy for the children of the Poor” Jonas Hanway 1766
xx
MT Records Vol. 5 p239
xxi
see letter from Mallett to Master Jauncey MT.18/FOU/6
xxii
MT Records p295 (a copy of the order is held in the archive)
xxiii
MT Records p229
xxiv
MT18/FOU/13
xxv
MT18/FOU/14
xxvi
MT18/FOU/9
xxvii
Bill held in archives
xxviii
A Calendar of Middle Temple Records, ed Charles Henry Hopwood KC (London, Butterworth and Co. 1903)
(“MT Calendar”) p231
xxix
MT Records Vol 5 p315
xxx
Once a child was apprenticed it became settled in the Parish of its Master; therefore if hardship struck again
the child was the responsibility of that Parish, not of the Inn; Luke had served his apprenticeship before his
Master died, but, in principle, the Inn’s responsibility for him had in any event terminated when it began.
xxxi
The Sale of Spirits Act 1750 24 Geo II c40 is commonly called the Gin Act 1751; earlier Acts were 1729, 1736,
1743 and 1747.
ii
© Stephen Lloyd 2014
9
xxxii
Times History of London 1999 p 72-3
See the introduction to the Register of Burials at the Temple Church 1628 – 1853, introduced by the Rev
H.D. Wood who cites as his source the Chief Clerk of the Treasury Office of Inner Temple; see also Master
Worsley’s Book (Ed. Inkpen) p. 203 n. 7
xxxiv
See e.g. Calendar of Inner Temple Records Vol. 8 p1075
xxxv
Bench Temple Orders 1827-1863 p. 142; the Inner Temple also paid her a gratuity of £3 “for necessities” in
December 1852
xxxvi
However no order to this effect has yet been sourced in the Archive records.
xxxvii
Register of Admissions to the Middle Temple 1501 - 1944 by H.A,C. Sturgess (London, Butterworth and Co.,
1949, Vol. I p 307
xxxiii
© Stephen Lloyd 2014
10