Prostitution and Charity: The Magdalen Hospital, a Case Study

Prostitution and Charity: The Magdalen Hospital, a Case StudyAuthor(s): Stanley NashSource: Journal of Social History, Vol. 17, No. 4 (Summer, 1984), pp. 617-628Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3787385 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 00:28

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal ofSocial History.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.78 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 00:28:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3787385?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


PROSTITUTION AND CHARITY

PROSTITUTION AND CHARITY: THE MAGDALEN HOSPITAL, A CASE STUDY

I On the 10th of August in 1758 in London's Goodman's Fields the Magdalen Charity, avowedly dedicated to the reform and rehabilitation of penitent prostitutes, began its formal operation. Up to this time an organized secular charity for such a purpose was unprecedented in England. The chief motive for this novel venture was declared to be compassion for fallen women. Robert Dingley, the prime mover in organizing the Magdalen, gave the following justification for founding this institution:

Humanity in its utmost efforts pleads their cause more powerfully than anything I can offer on the subject; and I appeal to every mind, from its own experience, if there can be greater Objects of Compassion, than poor, young, thoughtless Females, plunged into ruin by those temptations to which their very youth and personal advantages expose them, no less than those passions implanted by nature. . . . Surrounded by snares, the most artfully and industriously . . laid by those endowed with superior faculties, and all the advantages of Education and fortune, what virtue can be proof againt such formidable Seducers, who offer too commonly, and too profusely promise to transport the thoughtless Girls from Want, Confinement, and Restraint of Passions; to Luxury, Liberty, Gaiety, Joy.1

II The Magdalen was one of many charitable institutions founded in the mid-

eigthteenth century. In fact, that period has held the reputation of being one of the great eras of English humanitarianism. Names such as Jonas Hanway, James Ogelthorpe, and John Howard have become nearly as well known to students of English history as those of William Pitt or Robert Walpole. Moreover, until fairly recently many, if not most, historians, including the late David Owen, the chief historian of modern English philanthropy, have emphasized the humanitarian motives professed by the official pamphlet writers of the various mid-century charitable institutions. Furthermore, they have concluded that mid-century English philanthropy was more humanitarian and "open-handed" than the charitable efforts of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, which they judged to be heavily based on more pragmatic motivations - for example, as a method of defusing potential and actual social unrest among the lower classes.2

With the various studies of Michel Foucault, the history of philanthropy has been put under a different kind of scrutiny, focusing mainly on the actual operations and effects of purported humanitarian institutional innovations, with relatively little concern for contemporary justifications of such enterprises. Most poignantly, in terms of such philanthropic efforts as prison reform, it has been suggested that the concepts and techniques of reform and rehabilitation, introduced during the eighteenth century as an alternative to physical punishment, should not be seen as benign progress but rather as more sophisticated methods of social control. These techniques were adopted by the state during the nineteenth century as the "carceral" model for disciplining society and exercising authority. Hence, reform and rehabilitation, which

617



journal of social history

Foucault and others have claimed has had the effect of perpetuating social malefactors rather than reclaiming them, was not even the purpose behind the innovations that led to the modern prison system.3

It is the purpose of this paper to examine the actual operation of the Magdalen Charity for prostitutes, which ostensibly was not a carceral institution, but which applied the notions of reform and rehabilitation over a decade before John Howard, the great champion of prison reform, entered the scene, and to attempt to determine the purpose and place of that institution in the development of modern institutions.

III In order to be eligible for a place in the Magdalen Charity, a prostitute had to

submit a formal petition and present this to a committee of men who met the first Thursday of each month.4 Though there were other provisions for admitting a prostitute in the case of an "extraordinary emergency,"5 this seems to have been the usual procedure for gaining entrance into the Charity. The document itself was a form letter on which a clerk merely filled in the name, age, and parish of the applicant.6 The first line of this brief petition reads, "THAT your Petitioner has been guilty of Prostitution, and is truly sensible of her offence, which has plunged her into the greatest distress, and rendered her destitute of every means of getting an honest livelihood."7 Thus, it was made clear to the prostitute from the start, that she bore responsibility for her dilemma, and moreover, she had in fact been guilty of serious wrongdoing.

At the committee meeting it was usual to refer to an applicant by the number of her petition which assured a measure of anonymity.8 It is diffficult to determine how rigorous admission policies were. Certain rules pre-empted many from gaining admittance. Pregnant or diseased women were disqualified; however, they could apply and were often sent to a hospital and offered admission to the Magdalen after treatment there.9

Another possible reason for rejecting a Magdalen petitioner was that the capacity of the Charity was severely limited. For example, the annual report of the Charity in 1786 stated that twenty to thirty applications were received each month and that "of these but few can be admitted . . ." simply because there was not enough room.10 However, the Reverend John Prince, Secretary and Chaplain of the Magdalen, testifying before the Parliamentary Committee on the Police in 1817 assured the committee that "they seldom" were actually turned away. When women did have to be rejected for this or other reasons they were, he maintained, provided with money, work, or an appropriate hospital, depending on the circumstances of the individual.1l All of this does serve to remind us that this charity, the only one of its kind in England until 1787, was a very small operation. In fact, between 1762 and 1848 the number of inmates in the charity for any given year ranged between 52 and 113.12

To insure that women did not use the asylums as a refuge on a regular basis, it was made clear that once dismissed or having left reformed, a woman could under no circumstances be readmitted.13 However, once admitted, the Magdalen governors professed that much care was taken to show kindness and sympathy to the penitents. They insisted that "The treatment of the women is of the gentlest kind."14 In this spirit, they also took the position that the particular history of each inmate was not to be brought up again after admission. After initially giving their true names, the penitents were allowed to assume new names and it was

618




further declared that "reproaches for past irregularities are forbidden under the severest injunction . ." No inquiry into the past of the inmates was permitted. 15

The Magdalen Hospital spokesmen stressed the voluntary nature of their charity. In 1817 Reverend Prince told the Committee on the Police that the institution had no power to force a girl to stay in the house, but that in the case of those wanting to leave, "great pains are taken by the matron and myself to persuade her to continue."16 Highly significant was the preference shown for admitting young and unhardened prostitutes to the Charity, in the belief that only the relatively young or inexperienced prostitute was capable of being reformed and rehabilitated. A Magdalen publication of 1769 stated that the average age of the females accepted was between fifteen and twenty-one years old, and considered that they "cannot imagine that all the objects . . . have arrived to the height of vice."17 By the end of the century the age spread seems to have been just about the same. In 1817 the Reverend John Prince testified before the Committee on the Police that the average age of Magdalen penitents was seventeen and eighteen, and that a few were thirteen or fourteen, but none was under twelve years of age. The usual age spread, he said, was between fifteen and twenty-five.18

Very revealing was the development of the classification of the women or girls after admittance. Upon a close look at these policies and procedures, it turns out that by the 1780s many were not prostitutes at all, but rather "seduced" women. These women were given refuge in order to prevent their becoming prostitutes. This policy seems to have developed over a number of years. There is no mention in the published literature of the Magdalen of a provision for accepting non- prostitutes before the 1780s. However, by 1786 this clearly became a feature of the admission policies of the charity. A report issued in that year spoke of the "great Advantage" of having expanded the hospital, particularly, "to a numerous class of women; who though little thought of, are much to be pitied, and to whom the Magdalen Charity has been particularly useful . . . young Women, who have been seduced under Promise of Marriage, and afterwards have been deserted by their Seducers. ..." Rejected by their family and friends, the reader was told, "wretched indeed would be their Fate, if an Asylum was not to be found in this House. . . ." The report goes on, "Scarce any Admission Day takes place without Petitions from Persons who are thus circumstanced. They have never been publicly on the town, but fly to the Magdalen in order to avoid being driven to it. .. ." Moreover, "The Committee commonly gives these young Women a Preference, because they are almost certain of the Best of Purposes being answered. .. ." It was then pointed out that they usually were reconciled to their relations. Finally, the public was told if more money were given the Magdalen could "set apart" half the buildings for these women.19 Thus, the policies of the Magdalen philanthropists not only excluded hardened or superannuated prostitutes, but also forfeited a proportion of their limited space in order to accommodate women who had never been prostitutes.

These non-prostitutes were kept in a separate ward. This was in keeping with a policy that lasted to about 1817. Until this time the Magdalen classified and separated all of their inmates on the basis of "birth, education and behavior."20 However, in 1817 the Reverend John Prince said that sending women of a "better description" to a "superior ward" caused "jealousy," and that latest policy was to "send all who come into the probationary ward."21

After being accepted into the Magdalen the women were issued "plain" clothes, which were in effect uniforms.22 They were initiated into their new

619



journal of social history

environment by the chief matron. Each new group stood, in their uniforms, before the matron who would than read to them a prescribed speech containing instructions which set the tone for their immediate future. The speech, or more accurately, the indoctrination, began by reminding them how fortunate they were to be there and that they "ought to consider what advantages" would be forthcoming by "throwing" themselves "on the mercy of this institution." The matron went on to remind the women that it was largely up to them to utilize the charity for their own reformation and ultimate restoration to their parents and friends. Among the benefits they would have was the opportunity of receiving "a proper acquaintance with the principles of the religion of Christ" and instruction in earning their "bread by honest labor." They were further admonished to obey the rules which included prescribed hours of eating, working, sleeping, and praying. Among the specific "Instructions" given to the new inmates was that "Idleness is the Parent of Vice and Misery." They were reminded that they were "received here as a favor. .. ." In fact, submission and repentence were the main items stressed.

Repentence, they were told, meant "sorrow for sin," and if they were "really sorry and amend," they would be "peaceful and contented. ..." They were further told to "acknowledge" that they had "offended very much." The matron stressed that good behavior now was an essential requirement, and "wickedness" would "draw down the vengeance of heaven on their heads." Thus, they must pray to God for "mercy, with a sincere and humble heart." The prescribed prayers implored God's mercy and forgiveness.23 Hymns were also selected for the penitents. These nearly always stressed forgiveness for their sins and having their souls saved by God.24

The matron's admonition concluded with a brief statement of her own which began, "For God's sake consider what I have been saying to you, and pray to him with all your heart for the forgiveness of your sins. You may depend on finding me your friend, if you will be mine: and you will be mine if you follow these instructions ..." These included being neat, "obedient," following the "advice" in the sermons given, being polite to their fellow inmates, and keeping an even temper.25 Thus, as with the form of petition for admittance the prostitute was reminded, as she was to be continually reminded, that she had much to feel guilty and contrite about.

Purportedly for their rehabilitation and in order to bring in revenue, the inmates of this charity for prostitutes were made to perform a certain amount of work. The overall goal was to teach the principle of industry to the women, and failing a reconciliation to friends or family, to place them primarily in domestic service, and secondarily in a trade. The women were employed in spinning, knitting, household work, and various manufactures such as lace, silk gloves, garters, shoes, toys, and even their own clothes.26

In addition to the above, by 1790 the Magdalen instituted laundry work, a task which was among the harshest and heaviest forms of labor that existed for women in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. On this basis one historian has charged that the Magdalen had become a "sanctimonious sweatshop."27 However, it should be pointed out that profits accruing from the labor of inmates of the Magdalen were very low and in fact represented only a minute fraction of the total income of the charity. Total annual revenue for the Magdalen between 1759 and 1830 averaged 6009 pounds while income derived from labor performed by the penitents ranged between 100 pounds and 150 pounds28 for the same years. Thus, it was most unusual for more than 2.5% of the Magdalen's annual income

620




to come from the women's work. If this charity was a sweatshop, it was a highly inefficient one!

The penitents, it should be noted, did receive a portion of the profits produced by their work. In the early years of the Magdalen this was a flexible procedure; each woman was given a share of the profits as the committee "shall judge her deserving. . . "29 By the end of the period the proportion was fixed at 1/6 of the total earnings of the inmates, 1/3 of which was paid upon leaving the house, regardless of the circumstances.30 The actual routine of the penitents was strikingly regimented. As of 1759 the penitents rose at 6 A.M. during the spring and summer, and 7 A.M. in the fall and winter. They went to bed at 10 P.M. in the spring and summer, and 9 P.M. in the fall and winter. They were given thirty minutes for breakfast, one hour for dinner, and stopped work at 6 P.M. in the spring and summer, and 7 P.M. in the fall and winter. The penitents did not work on Sundays and various religious holidays, such as Good Friday and Ash Wednesday. Those days were supposed to be devoted to piety and reading.31 By the early nineteenth century they were made to rise at first light in the fall and winter, and also by this time worked throughout the year up to supper time which was finished one hour before bedtime, leaving the rest of the evening for prayers.32 Their work regimen was broken up by walks in the garden.33

The diet of the women of the Magdalen for 1762 consisted of milk, porridge, or bread and butter for breakfast. The chief part of dinner, the main meal, was meat four times a week and broth made from the same meats on the other days, supplemented with assorted puddings, vegetables, or bread. Supper was simply and bread and cheese.34 This diet was above average when compared to similar philanthropic institutions of the times35 and, in a broader perspective, it was not bad when compared to the nutritional intake of Englishmen and women who were not wealthy. Dorothy George, in London Life, gives us the example of a clerk living alone with a salary of 50 pounds a year. His typical menu, which was not considered quite as good as that of a day laborer, was comparable to that of the Magdalen penitent in the 1760s.36

Special care was taken by the charity to regulate the conduct of the inmates. In theory at least, every aspect of their daily lives was planned and carefully watched. In the rules of Magdalen published in 1759, it was observed that "Strict order and discipline are, indeed essential to all undertakings, but more particularly such as this. . . "37 Purportedly, regulation was so keen that even the little time inmates had to converse with each other was set up in such a way as to discourage interpersonal relationships. Reverend Prince told the Committee on the Police in 1817 that the "little outlets in the yard" in which the women walked, "being separate, prevents their mixing too much with each other. .. ,"38 the idea being that association with each other corrupted efforts at reform.

Another way the charity demonstrated concern for careful regulation was in its policies towards visitors. Relatives and friends were not permitted to visit the Magdalen without permission from the committee, and even then had to see the penitent they wished to speak with in a room with the matron present.39 As for the wards, only the physician, surgeon, and apothecary has regular access and then only when accompanied by the matron.40 Moreover, the above three positions could only be filled, and at least by 1787, by married or widowed men.41 Even the governors of the charity had to apply for permission to visit with the penitents,42 and no groups of women were to be seen collectively without special authorization.43 It would appear that the only time which the charity gave the public access to its institution was at divine services. The Magdalen made a big

621



show of this in their early years, and attending Sunday Chapel at the Magdalen hospital became a fashionable and popular thing to do.44

The actual lengths of time a woman had to remain in the Magdalen providing she was neither dismissed for breaking the rules nor refused to stay, and the post- dismissal policies in general, were not constant throughout the period we are examining. In 1759 it was reported that a penitent had to remain there for three years, or until she could be returned amicably to her friends or parents, or placed into suitable service.45 However, in 1817 the Reverend Prince told the Committee on the Police that the average length of time that a woman remained in the Magdalen was twelve months. He further assured the committee that "no woman is ever sent out of the house without a place being provided for her by her friends, or by the charity."46 Apparently this benevolence did not extend to those who were dismissed for misbehavior, or those who quit on their own.47 It had been thought by some in the 1750s that the corrupting influence of London would prove detrimental to the reformation of prostitutes. Although the Magdalen founders did not build their asylum in the country as some had suggested, they did exhibit a deference to this way of thinking in one particular: the Magdalen had decided that "Services out of town are always preferred."48 Hence, after rehabilitating prostitutes they attempted to find them employment in service outside of the metropolitan area.

Upon being sent out to service, or to family or friends, the Magdalen gave clothes to those women who needed them.49 In addition, rewards were given to those placed in service who continued to do well for a year. In 1759 this was limited to a maximum of two guineas. At this time there was also a reward for those who married, "in a manner satisfactory to the committee," or who entered a trade.50 By 1821 the standard reward was one guinea for a year of good behavior in service, but more money was given if the women was in need.51

Dismissal under unfavorable circumstances, as already mentioned, was another matter. Being expelled was in fact the ultimate punishment for breaking rules, and otherwise not conforming to the plan of reformation. Short of dismissal, there were other lesser forms of punishment employed to insure good behavior and repentence. Corporal punishment was not one of these. Instead, in 1759 for instance, the Magdalen's answer to insolence, disobedience, profane language, or turbulent behavior was confinement in a room for six hours for the first offense, admonition by the chaplain or matron for the second, and twelve hours in a room for the third. As an alternative punishment, loss of money earned from work or forfeiture of a meal was sometimes used.52 Thus, the punishments were quite mild compared to the treatment inmates would have received in Bridewell or the workhouse.

How efficacious was this rehabilitative process in reality? According to the published reports of the Magdalen, the reform process was highly successful. Based on official annual reports it was claimed that between 1758 and 1829 out of 5,558 women who entered the Magdalen 3,808 were "reconciled" to their friends, or "placed in service, or other reputable and industrious situations." Nine hundred and forty-two were said to have left on their own accord and only 604 were claimed to have been dismissed for "improper Behavior." Of the rest, 104 were supposed to have been "Lunatics, troubled with Fits, or incurrable Disorders," and 100 died in the house.53 Thus, officials claimed a 69% success rate over these years. Representatives of the Magdalen were cognizant of the fact that this high rate of success, based on the women being reformed upon leaving the house, might be challenged with respect to the permanence of their cure. In

622 journal of social history




fact, they initiated several follow-up surveys to see if their reformed prostitutes remained reformed. The first done for the years 1786 to 1790 concluded that of 246 women released, 157 were "Behaving well," 74 were "Behaving ill," four were lunatics, one died, and for ten they had no information. Surveys conducted in the mid-nineteenth century yielded similar results.54 Thus, Magdalen officials maintained that most reclamations seemed to last.

There are several good reasons, however, for circumspection with regard to these statistics. First, since many of the "penitents" were by the charity's own admission not even prostitutes, we can hardly consider them to have undergone rehabilitation. Presumably most of these fell into the category of being returned to friends or family; yet some may have been among those placed out as domestic servants. Second, the charity spokesmen readily admitted that the prostitutes taken in were young and unhardened; thus, not much effort would have been required to induce these young ladies to pursue another path of life, particularly when they voluntarily were giving up prostitution to begin with. Third, the statistics themselves were promulgated with a view towards justifying the existence of the charity as well as attracting financial support.

Unfortunately, the extant Magdalen records for the eighteenth century do not afford enough evidence from which to effectively check the accuracy of their statistics. However, a fairly recent investigation of prostitution in nineteenth- century York has produced solid evidence that the Annual Reports of the York Penitentiary, a charity similar in design and purpose to the Magdalen, "presented a misleadingly optmistic impression of the Refuge's success rate," and that in fact, "many of the girls even who were found jobs were neither rescued nor reformed, but became pregnant, or, finding their situations unbearable, slipped back into their old ways."55 This does not preclude the possibility that the Magdalen may have been more successful, honest, and accurate in reporting its progress; however, it does give cause for further skepticism on the validity of its success rate.

IV

Having taken a detailed look at the actual operation of the Magdalen, an analysis of its significance is now possible. The most striking observation that can be made is that to a large degree the Magdalen resembled the prison penitentiary envisioned by John Howard in the 1770s. Michael Ignatieff, in his history of the origin of penitentiaries in England, summarized "the program of discipline set out in the Penitentiary Act of 1779" which was to a degree the work of John Howard. The key elements in the program were "'fixed hours of rising, of reading a chapter in the Bible, of praying, of meals, of work, etc.' - as well as uniforms, cellular confinement, and constant inspection."56 In all but cellular confinement this description readily fits the Magdalen. In fact, many other analogies can be made between the Magdalen and prison penitentiaries in general.

Magdalen women were, in effect, incarcerated for several years. Although they could and sometimes did leave, many pressures were brought to bear on them to remain in the institution for a lengthy period of internment. Magdalen penitents were, from their very first application to the charity, systematically stripped of their former identity through an enforced anonymity which included uniforms, the assignment of numbers rather than names to their petitions for admission, and the substitution of new names after entrance into the refuge. They were given fixed hours of work, sleep, eating, and prayer.

In accord with later penal theory, from John Howard on, regimentation was

623



reinforced by nearly total isolation from all outside influences. Similarly, the prostitutes were supposed to avoid discussion with each other during their recreational walks in the garden - which in conception bears a striking resemblance to the prison yard.

Punishment included isolation, which anticipated solitary confinement. And, despite the "injunction" that forbade bringing up their past misconduct, penitents were reminded over and over again, from the matron's indoctrination speech to Sunday Chapel, that they had been guilty of immoral and criminal conduct. It is quite clear that the inculcation of guilt coupled with lessons of industy, sobriety, and good manners was the formula used to effect reform and rehabilitation, just as it was the formula of many theorists of penology from the 1780s on.57

The most important conclusion to be drawn from this analogy is that the Magdalen Charity, a private enterprise, anticipated the technology of social engineering that is best exemplified by the state-run nineteenth-century prison penitentiary. This, however, is not to say that the Magdalen was or became the "total institution" that figures so prominently in the works of Michael Foucault and Michael Ignatieff, but rather that the Magdalen was exemplary of an early stage in the evolution of modern techniques of state authority.

Thus arises the very perplexing historical problem of determining the purpose of philanthropy. In the case of the Magdalen a measure of genuine humanitarianism is clearly evident, at least in its inception and early years. The founders of the Magdalen had no reason to doubt that a prostitute was better off in the Magdalen than on the streets of London where her life would, according to the consensus of contemporary opinion, be one of "penury, disease and remorse."58 And, assuming for a moment that at least some of the reclamations of the charity were enduring, the organizers and progenitors of the Magdalen had every reason to believe that domestic servitude was a preferable alternative to prostitution. The small amount of historical research that has been done on domestics in eighteenth-century England suggests that servants had a fair amount of independence as well as socio-economic mobility, and that ". . .on the whole, it would appear that service was far from being all drudgery."59 Finally, prior to 1758 the only options open for dealing with prostitutes were Bridewell and the Workhouse - the notoriety and harshness of both need no elaboration here.

Equally clear however is that the Magdalen was inherently a device for social control, as were the development of the police force, the creation of Sunday schools, the reform of prisons, and the myriad of charities that were born and flourished in Hanoverian England. All were obviously meant to alter the behavior and destiny of human beings for the purported benefit of the individual and society at large. All of these developments contributed to the evolution of modern techniques of social control, based on disciplining and reshaping the minds of people as opposed to the punishment or threat of punishment of their bodies.

While this may seem insidious to the liberal-minded historian of 1984, it should be stressed that in their inception the principles of reform and rehabilitation were relatively enlightened and progressive notions, compared not only to the use of torture that preceded them, but also to the parallel notions of draconian repression, exemplified by the "bloody code" of capital punishments that grew up in the eighteenth century side by side with philanthropy and reform. Moreover, when placed in an historical context these developments seem at least reasonable if not enlightened alternatives to pre-eighteenth-century approaches to social deviance.

We are so used to emphasizing the political stability of England, especially when





compared to France, that it is often forgotten that a general underlying sense of insecurity was felt by many middle- and upper-class Englishmen during the eighteenth century. Among the socio-political legacies of the seventeenth century was a weakening of many traditional sources of authority including the monarchy, the church and the family.60 In addition, manifestations of social unrest were commonplace in many parts of England during the eighteenth century.61 Particular stress was placed on London, where the rapid growth of population and concomitant social problems such as crime and civil disorder gave a special impetus toward finding new ways of coping with social problems that might jeopardize the economic and social structure that was being built. Moreover, London's geographic and demographic growth in the eighteenth century placed a tremendous strain on an already overburdened and inadequate system of government. Some of course tried to bolster the older order and methodology - hence the vast increase in the number of offenses punishable by death. Some instead sought new principles of social theory to cope with the increasing pressures of eighteenth-century society.

It was in many ways logical, given the philosophical framework of this period, to turn to reform and rehabilitation, or if you will, retraining instead of mere punishment. The philosophical foundations for social reform of individuals had been laid down by John Locke and David Hartley.62 Given the very real need for reform in governmental administration and the Enlightenment belief that a better society could emerge from interference and regulation of human behavior, it should not be surprising that major institutional developments in education, police, prisons, and even prostitution, took place in the eighteenth century. If the results of these approaches to the regulation of society have reached frightening proportions in the megolith of the twentieth-century state, and if institutions such as the prison penitentiaries have proven failures, than it is incumbent upon us to find newer and better approaches to our social and political problems; but it would be an historical misjudgment to condemn the reformers of the eighteenth century whose ideas and and theories were logical if not enlightened attempts, as they must have said, at rendering rational the society in which they lived.

New York University Stanley Nash Washington Square New York, NY 10003

FOOTNOTES

1. Robert Dingley, Proposals for Establishing a Public Place of Reception for Penitent Prostitutes (London, 1758), pp. 3-4.

2. David Owen, English Philanthropy 1660-1960 (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1964), pp. 15- 16, 53 and 96.

3. Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish. The Birth of the Prison, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York, 1977), pp. 24-31 and 305-308.

4. The Rules and Regulations of the Magdalen-Chariity With Instructions to the Women Who are Admitted and Prayers for Their Use. (London, 1769), p. 17.

5. Bye-Laws and Regulations of the Magdalen Hospital (London, 1821), p. 12.

625




6. Ibid., p. 25.

7. Rules and Regulations of the Magdalen (1769), Appendix IX No. II, p. 108.

8. Ibid., p. 17 and Bye-Laws and Regulations of the Magdalen (1821), pp. 25-26.

9. Bye-Laws and Regulations of the Magdalen (1821), pp. 25-27, Rules and Regulations of the Magdalen (1769), p. 18 and General State of the Magdalen-Hospital for the Reception of Penitent Prostitutes, Instituted 1758 (published by order of the General Court, 1786), p. 5.

10. General State of the Magdalen (1786), p. 5.

11. Great Britain, Parliament, Parliamentary Papers (Commons), The Select Committee on the State of the Police of the Metropolis, 1817 (Reprinted, Shannon, Ireland, 1968), p. 499. For future reference this document will be called Committee on the Police (1817).

12. Stanley Nash, "Social Attitudes Towards Prostitution in London from 1752 to 1829" (PhD dissertation, New York University, 1980), Appendix V.

13. Bye-Laws and Regulations of the Magdalen (1821 ), pp. 25-29.

14. A Short Account of the Magdalen Hospital (London, 1822), p. 7.

15. The Rules, Orders, and Regulations of the Magdalen House for the Reception of'Penitent Prostitutes (London, 1759), p. 19.

16. Committee on the Police (1817), pp. 503-504.

17. Rules and Regulations of the Magdalen (1769), p. v.

18. Committee on the Police (1817), p. 504.

19. General State of the Magdalen (1786), p. 5. See also Bye-Laws and Regulations of the Magdalen (1821), Introduction pp. i-v. Again, this introduction was written in 1791 and spoke of "several improvements in the management of the Hospital" over the past "four or five years."

20. Bye-Laws and Regulations of the Magdalen (1821), introduction. This referred to the classification scheme of the 1780s. However, similar schemes, albeit with certain variations, were evidently used off and on from 1759 to 1817. See Rules, Orders, and Regulations of the Magdalen (1759), p. 18. See also William Dodd, An Account of the Rise, Progress, and Present State of the Magdalen Charity . . . (London, 1761), p. 132, and Rules and Regulations of'the Magdalen (1769), p. 42.


22. Rules, Orders, and Regulations of the Magdalen (1759), p. 19.

23. Rules and Regulations of the Magdalen (1769), Appendix I "Instructions Given by the Governors of the Magdalen-Charity to the Women Upon Their Admission and Prayers for their Use, Suited to the Design of the Charity," pp. 27-40 and 51-103.

24. Hymns Selected from Different Authors for the Use of the Magdalen Chapel [(London?]: [1790?]), passim.

25. Rules and Regulations of the Magdalen (1769) Appendix 1, p. 42.



PROSTITUTION AND CHARITY 627

26. Bye-Laws and Regulations of the Magdalen (1821), pp. 29-36. See also Rules, Orders, and Regulations of the Magdalen (1759), p. 20.

27. Edward Bristow, Vice and Vigilance, Purity Movements in Britain Since 1700 (Dublin, 1977), p.66.

28. For the financial and other statistics upon which the following is based see the charts in Appendix IV of Stanley Nash, "Social Attitudes Towards Prostitution."




32. Bye-Laws and Regulations of the Magdalen (1821), pp. 28-29. See also Committee on the Police (1817), p. 504.

33. Bye-Laws and Regulations of the Magdalen (1821), p. 29.

34. S.B.P. Pearce, An Ideal in the Working: The Story of the Magdalen Hospital (London, 1958), p.49.

35. Betsey Rodgers, Cloak of Charity; Studies in Eighteenth-Century Philanthropy (London, 1949), p.51.

36. Dorothy George, London Life in the Eigthteenth Century (New York, 1965), p. 167.



39. Rules and Regulations of the Magdalen (1769), p. 19.


41. Bye-Laws and Regulations of the Magdalen (1821), p. 16. See also Rules, Orders, and Regulations of the Magdalen Hospital for the Reception of Penitent Prostitutes (London, 1787), pp. 1-24. Physician and staff had to be married.


43. Bye-Laws and Regulations of the Magdalen (1821), p. 34.

44. Herbert Compston, The Magdalen Hospital; The Story of a Great Charity (London, 1917), p. 151.

45. Rules, Orders, and Regulations of the Magdalen (1759), p. 22


47. Gentleman's Magazine (December, 1807), LXXVII, pt. 2, p. 1116. Unless dismissed for bad behavior or having left voluntarily all were provided with a job after leaving. See also Bye-Laws and Regulations of the Magdalen House (1821), introduction, p. iv.

48. Ibid., p. 30. They adhered to this policy from the beginning. See Rules and Regulations of the Magdalen (!769), p. 24.




49. Ibid.,p.31.


51. Bye-Laws and Regulations of the Magdalen ( 1821 ), pp. 30-31.

52. Rules, Orders, and Regulations of the Magdalen (1759), p. 22. For the loss of one meal as a penalty, see William Dodd, An Account of the Rise, Progress, and Present State of the Magdalen (1761), pp. 137-139.

53. London, Lambeth Manet Library, Magdalen AnnualStatements 1814 to 1863.

54. Special Appeal, the Centenary of the Magdalen Hospital (1858), pp. 6-7.

55. Frances Finnegan, Poverty and Prostitution, a Study of Victorian Prostitutes in York (New York, 1979), pp. 167-169.

56. Michael Ignatieff, A Just Measure of Pain, The Penitentiarv in the Industrial Revolution, 1750-1850 (New York, 1978), pp. 53-54. Professor Ignatieff mentions charities, including the Magdalen, as sources for Howard's prison reform ideas.

57. Ibid., pp. 72-73 and passim.

58. George Henry Glasse, A Sermon Preached Before the Governors of the Magdalen-Hospital London: on Wednesday, the 28th of May 1788 (London, 1788), pp. 11-12. For further proof of contemporary opinion, see Stanley Nash, "Social Attitudes Towards Prostitution," pp. 456- 458.

59. J. Jean Hecht, The Domestic Servant Class in Eighteenth-Century England (London, 1956), p. 139 and 96-102. Hecht's monograph remains the only detailed analysis on this subject.

60. Peter Laslett, The World We Have Lost, England Before the Indsutrial Age, second ed. (New York, 1971), pp. 183-184 and passim.

61. Rioting was so much a usual feature of the period as to prompt one historian to term "The Right to Riot" as "an integral part of the [English] national traditions." Elie Halevy, England in 1815 (New York, 1949), p. 148.

62. See Michael Ignatieff, A Just Measure of Pain, pp. 66-67, where he points out the importance of Hartley with regard to the philosophical foundations of penal reform theory.



Documents

Prostitution and Charity: The Magdalen Hospital, a Case Study