A unique collection of petitions from 300 years ago sheds light on the overlooked women who took care of England’s most at-risk children while challenging their local governments.
‘If the specified annual payment is not confirmed, the child risks facing hunger and starvation.’
– Ellen Fell (1665)
‘Out of concern that they might perish from lack of food, I took in the three children.’ — Anne Beesley (1671)
Today, the UK is grappling with a significant recruitment and retention issue in foster care, with carers across the nation advocating for increased financial support. In September 2024, Northumberland County Council announced it is reassessing payments for foster carers, which have remained unchanged for over a decade, in response to pressures from advocates (as reported by Hexham Courant).
University of Cambridge historian Emily Rhodes, who has explored the experiences of 17th-century foster carers, highlights that these challenges have deep roots and that early foster carers in England held more power than we might think.
As a researcher at Christ’s College, Cambridge, Rhodes examined a rare collection of petitions filed with the Lancashire quarter sessions courts from 1660 to 1720.
In a study published today in The History of the Family journal, Rhodes reveals insights from thirty-eight women who provided care for non-related children on behalf of their local parish. Although this work was typically labeled as ‘boarding’ or ‘tabling,’ Rhodes contends:
“There are striking parallels between then and now, and we should recognize these women as pioneer foster carers. Authorities assessed family situations to determine if they were suitable for a child. When they deemed them unsuitable, they sought new homes for the children, ideally within the local community, compensating caretakers for their care.”
“These women played such a crucial role that when they were underpaid or not paid at all, they had enough clout to approach county justices, influential figures, and make their case successfully.”
“Today’s foster carers and society need to understand that even 350 years ago, this role was critical and respected, with women holding a degree of power within the system. Every support system depends on dedicated individuals, and we must keep that in mind.”
Many of the women Rhodes encountered in the petitions would have had their own claims to poor relief. In the 17th century, the Old Poor Laws established a relief system where local residents contributed to a community fund that churchwardens and overseers of the poor allocated to the needy.
Some orphaned or needy children became apprentices, while others were placed with women in the community, usually widows or mothers, but sometimes single women. These women anticipated compensation from the parish for their efforts, making them both recipients and managers of the poor laws.
Emily Rhodes stated: “These petitions voice the stories of women who are often overlooked in history. They left little documentation, yet played a vital part in society.”
Challenging local authorities
In their petitions, women frequently accused local authorities of incompetence and dishonesty. About three-quarters petitioned due to unpaid compensation, with nearly a third seeking higher payments. No petitions were outright dismissed, though Rhodes warns that some unsuccessful petitions may not have survived.
Rhodes commented: “The state had an interest in keeping these carers content, which is why the justices, the higher authority, typically sided with them against local authority abuse.”
In the 1690s in Preston, Alice Brewer from Lea fought her parish for years as they reduced and withheld funds meant for the care of Anne Helme, whom she had looked after for fourteen years. Alice lamented that ‘the town insisted on disputing and diminishing the payment due to your poor petitioner’. In one petition, she argued that the overseers’ refusal to provide ‘clothes or other necessities’ for Anne resulted in her lameness. By 1700, the parish owed Alice for three years of care, leaving her ‘very impoverished’. The justices ordered the overseers to settle their debts consistently, yet they repeatedly failed to comply. The outcome of Alice’s struggle remains unknown.
Greater authority than biological mothers
Rhodes, who recently completed a PhD focusing on maternal petitioning in England and Wales from 1660 to 1720, discovered that foster mothers often held more advantageous positions over biological mothers when interacting with authorities.
“Birth mothers had to plead their cases humbly, detailing their struggles as widows or caregivers to sick children,” Rhodes explained. “In contrast, foster mothers simply needed to assert, ‘I’m meant to be compensated for this, and you are not meeting your obligation.’
For love or money?
Fostering in the 17th century provided essential income for impoverished women and their families. The standard fee for caring for one child was about 40 shillings a year, with amounts varying from 12 to 78 shillings, significantly more than typical poor relief payments at the time.
Taking care of these children was indeed work, and some women might have seen their role as primarily financial. However, many petitions revealed that female carers also expressed profound kindness and compassion for the children.
In 1671, Anne Beesley petitioned the justices, explaining that she took in three needy children from Barton out of compassion, fearing for their lives. She expected the authorities to arrange care for them within three weeks, but after eight weeks and only after petitioning was she reimbursed.
Petitioners frequently emphasized their continued care for children despite months of no payment. In the 1670s, Elizabeth Drinkwater noted that the overseers of Great Bolton failed to pay her for nine months while she cared for Ann Reade, yet she provided ‘all necessary things’ and spent 6 shillings on clothes, rendering her ‘much impoverished’.
“It’s hard to believe that some women had no concern for these children,” Rhodes observed. “Many would likely have been familiar with them prior to taking them in. However, petitions were strategically composed and might not always reflect genuine emotions.”
In some cases, carers would threaten to stop providing care if they did not achieve their requested outcomes.
One particularly troubling case involves Ellen Fell. In 1665, Ellen urged the justices to ‘confirm the said annual payment or else the child is at risk of being left starving and homeless’. She indicated her own children were affected as she had submitted multiple petitions detailing her family’s hardships. While presenting herself as a devoted caregiver, by the time her petition was reviewed, the child had already been ‘turned out onto the streets’.
“It’s easy to identify chaos in the past,” Rhodes remarked. “The records highlight instances of dysfunction. When a carer received adequate payment, it’s unlikely we would uncover their records.”
“Look at the news in 2024, and similar stories of foster carers lacking support and exiting the system will emerge. We still struggle with bureaucratic issues and authority figures failing in their responsibilities.”
These and other petitions from Lancashire have been digitized and are accessible on Ancestry.