unknown unknown (infant mortality)

carolinej

My post is not really looking for information, just my thoughts. While the civil records available on Irish Genealogy are a fantastic research tool, reading them can be quite sad. Today, while trying to find a death record for an anscester in the 1950's, I noticed the next entry was for an " unknown". It was for a baby found in a field. Her name, her parents, all recorded as unknown. Cause of death was neglect at birth.

Did a search of "unknown" entries and My God, the amount of deaths of infants who were found in fields, river's etc is shocking. While I knew infant death and concealment of pregnancy was something that was more prevalent in the past, it's still shocking to read the death record of a baby and so so many of them there are. Very very sad. I'm here thinking of those poor babies and their mother's and the torment they went through. Possibly, some mother's could still be alive today as some of the more recent records were from '50's.

tabbey

Infant mortality was a fact of life until the mid twentieth century, and especially before clean water which has been rolled out gradually from the 1860s.

People had to accept it as the will of God, that is why so many children were given names of their dead siblings.

one of the main causes of death at a week or two, was prematurity. Nowadays we have neonatal intensive care units, clean living and good nutrition, but a century ago, the premature baby had no resistance to infection, and succumbed to an early death.

kildarejohn

carolinej wrote: »

It was for a baby found in a field. Her name, her parents, all recorded as unknown. Cause of death was neglect at birth.

Did a search of "unknown" entries and My God, the amount of deaths of infants who were found in fields, river's etc is shocking. .

I have read a few reports in newspapers in 1920's/30's of inquests into babies found dead in public places. These were very small reports that did not make headlines. The inquest jury returned a "verdict in accordance with medical evidence"; no comment was passed either by the jury or the reporter on how the baby came to be abandoned or who the mother might be. It seems it was taken as just part of life. In fact, despite the strong religious views at the time, respect for life of babies seems to have been very low.

pedroeibar1

carolinej wrote: »

..... civil records .......reading them can be quite sad. T.....entry was for an " unknown". It was for a baby found in a field. Her name, her parents, all recorded as unknown. Cause of death was neglect at birth.

Did a search of "unknown" entries and My God, the amount of deaths of infants who were found in fields, river's etc is shocking. .......

Ireland’s ‘morality outlook’ of the 1950’s had not really changed much from the 1850’s. Illegitimacy in Ireland was much more common than many care to admit, girls hidden away in Magdalen laundries, Bethany Homes, a child disguised as a sibling or a disgraced (i.e. pregnant) girl being sent off to an aunt in England. It even affected the ‘standing’ of a family in a community, it would affect the work prospects of the parent - being the father of a ‘wayward’ girl was an attribute that would impede promotion. It happened not just in Ireland, but also in many other countries. Those girls who were thrown on the street or who managed to hide their pregnancies were, in earlier decades, invariably delivered in the local Workhouse or at worst, as Shakespeare put it “Ditch delivered by a drab”. As for abandonment and infanticide, read the Old Baily records and you will see many cases, e.g. for 1900 to 1910 there were thirty infanticide cases prosecuted (and no doubt many others slipped past the authorities), where the mother was charged and often punished rather than given help.

There was an infamous case here about 30 years ago where both mother and child died.

pinkypinky

This is more of a history topic, so I've moved it over.

kildarejohn

carolinej wrote: »

Did a search of "unknown" entries and My God, the amount of deaths of infants who were found in fields, river's etc is shocking. .

These deaths were all tragedies in their own way, which cant be reduced to statistics, but just to give us an idea of numbers - how many cases of babys found dead did you actually find, over what period?

Peregrinus

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Ireland’s ‘morality outlook’ of the 1950’s had not really changed much from the 1850’s . . .

Actually, it had changed a lot in that time - in that it had become much more puritan.

Increasing puritanism, particularly in sexual matters, was a general trend in western societies from the mid-nineteenth century onwards, but the trend was strongly intensified in Ireland by the trauma of the famine, the pressures of population and the experience of emigration. Uncontrolled population growth - and, therefore, uncontrolled or ill-considered or ill-advised reproduction was seen as hugely threatening, not just to the couple directly responsible but to their wider families and communities. Extremely punitive attitudes towards extra-marital sex went hand-in-hand with sharp rises both in the marriage age and in the proportion of the population, both male and female, which never married.

But these trends unfolded over decades; in 1850 the process had hardly begun.

tabbey

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, it had changed a lot in that time - in that it had become much more puritan.

Increasing puritanism, particularly in sexual matters, was a general trend in western societies from the mid-nineteenth century onwards, but the trend was strongly intensified in Ireland by the trauma of the famine, the pressures of population and the experience of emigration. Uncontrolled population growth - and, therefore, uncontrolled or ill-considered or ill-advised reproduction was seen as hugely threatening, not just to the couple directly responsible but to their wider families and communities. Extremely punitive attitudes towards extra-marital sex went hand-in-hand with sharp rises both in the marriage age and in the proportion of the population, both male and female, which never married.

But these trends unfolded over decades; in 1850 the process had hardly begun.

Absolutely.
The Victorian moral values revolution was in the early stages.

In Ireland it deepened with independence, the new regime, both sides of the civil war divide, were anxious to show themselves as more moral than their perceived pagan predecessors.
The Victorian era lasted in Ireland until at least the 1950s, and arguably 1971, when JCMcQ retired.

Pure oppression really, and to think that the state has spent the past year celebrating this!

carolinej

kildarejohn wrote: »

These deaths were all tragedies in their own way, which cant be reduced to statistics, but just to give us an idea of numbers - how many cases of babys found dead did you actually find, over what period?

A search on Irishgenealogy give over 8,000 records. Not all of these were for infant deaths. They are a mixture of other unknown deaths. I don't think there's any way to filter the search. Just a case of manually going through each record. https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/civil-perform-search.jsp?namefm=unknown&namel=unknown&location=&yyfrom=&yyto=&type=D&submit=Search

pinkypinky

You know, this has given me an idea of how to trace someone in my family who disappeared. There's a story about him being shot by the IRA during the civil war...it'll take a long time but I could go through all the unknown males for the relevant place and period.

pedroeibar1

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, it had changed a lot in that time - in that it had become much more puritan.

Increasing puritanism, particularly in sexual matters, was a general trend in western societies from the mid-nineteenth century onwards, but the trend was strongly intensified in Ireland by the trauma of the famine, the pressures of population and the experience of emigration. Uncontrolled population growth - and, therefore, uncontrolled or ill-considered or ill-advised reproduction was seen as hugely threatening, not just to the couple directly responsible but to their wider families and communities. Extremely punitive attitudes towards extra-marital sex went hand-in-hand with sharp rises both in the marriage age and in the proportion of the population, both male and female, which never married.

But these trends unfolded over decades; in 1850 the process had hardly begun.

I’d suggest it was more nuanced and much more complex than that.
The outlook in Ireland during and after the Famine remained more Malthusian than ‘Marie Stopes’. An extremely punitive attitude to extramarital sex would result not in raising but in lowering the marriage age. For example in today’s Traveller community premarital sex is abhorred so the marital age is far below the average in the settled community.

Various studies have indicated in the lead-up to the Famine there was little difference between birth rates in Ireland and elsewhere. Ireland’s population growth was due to a lower mortality rate resulting from the diet of the average cottier – potatoes in copious quantities with buttermilk provide all the vitamins necessary for robust health, which is one reason why Irishmen were much sought as chairmen and navies in England. It is not that the Irish were having more children, it’s that more of them survived to adulthood.

Delayed marriage in Ireland had little connection with a view on of population control or Famine trauma. It was an economic side-effect consequent on the non-availability of land. Most landlords/agents – particularly post-Famine - exercised a stricter control on the subdivision of smallholdings, thereby frustrating marital intent. That is why folklore is full of stories about tenants having to ask permission to marry when more correctly the permission sought was to subdivide a holding to enable a son bring in a bride. No subdivision / land meant no home, so no prospects, no marriage. Hence the ‘wait’ for a parent to die before the holding was passed on and a marriage could take place. The RCC’s stance on birth control also had a big influence not just on ‘moral’ outlook but also on the supply and use of prophylactics.

Illegitimacy has always been with us – history is replete with examples. I’ve researched a 1849 trial in which the judge in his charge to the jury said the defence sought to impeach the credibility of a female witness who had several illegitimate children, but ‘it did not follow because she disregarded and violated chastity that she should not be believed on oath’ which shows an interesting perspective from a legal practitioner. (She had a child before she married, her soldier husband was away in India and she had several children by different men since then.)

I recall reading somewhere (Clare Journal? The Old Limerick Journal?) about a huge rise in illegitimate birth rates in Co. Clare during the Famine. The Famine caused a breakdown of societal norms, with hunger, disease and evictions leading to a failure of many family units. A surge in illegitimacy was the result. There is no doubt that some young women had no option but to barter sex for food or shelter or plain companionship and perhaps, even for solace. Similar is happening today in the Syrian exodus.

Nor was a puritanical outlook (in the religious sense) a governing factor in controlling illegitimacy. It was about command and control – women were subservient to men either as wives, daughters or servants. With licentious behaviour they gained personal independence, and if prostitutes, a measure of economic freedom. The male ‘Establishment’ response was to castigate and shame 'fallen women' as a depraved and dangerous element in society because they threatened male order/domination. The Contagious Diseases Acts (permitting prostitutes to be detained if suffering from venereal diseases) of the late 1800’s were instigated primarily to protect their sexual partners, mainly soldiers and sailors, and not as a puritanical measure.

Much of the Puritanism was very superficial, the ‘Monto’ (reputedly) was the biggest red-light district in Europe 1850 – 1925-ish until nationalism tainted by a large streak of Roman Catholicism as Tabbey succinctly put it -"….the new regime, both sides of the civil war divide, were anxious to show themselves as more moral than their perceived pagan predecessors."

Peregrinus

I agree with most of what you say, Pedro. But just one comment:

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

The outlook in Ireland during and after the Famine remained more Malthusian than ‘Marie Stopes’. An extremely punitive attitude to extramarital sex would result not in raising but in lowering the marriage age. For example in today’s Traveller community premarital sex is abhorred so the marital age is far below the average in the settled community.

I'd argue that a negative attitude to pre-marital sex is a necessary support for the trend to a later age of marriage. If one of the considerations that underpins late marriage is that it's unwise/irresponsible/reckless to marry until you're in a position to house and feed a family - so, you wait until you inherit the farm, or equivalent - deferring marriage is pointless unless you also defer reproduction. Hence, social conventions must encourage not only later marriage, but less or no sex before marriage. The two go hand-in-hand, I think.

Ferrari3600

kildarejohn wrote: »

I have read a few reports in newspapers in 1920's/30's of inquests into babies found dead in public places. These were very small reports that did not make headlines. The inquest jury returned a "verdict in accordance with medical evidence"; no comment was passed either by the jury or the reporter on how the baby came to be abandoned or who the mother might be. It seems it was taken as just part of life. In fact, despite the strong religious views at the time, respect for life of babies seems to have been very low.

Respect for life of babies was indeed extremely low in the Catholic confessional state, particularly if the babies were borne out of wedlock, or from the wrong side of town. 'Respect' for the unborn was high, but it was entirely fake and faux.

pedroeibar1

Peregrinus wrote: »

I agree with most of what you say, Pedro. But just one comment:
I'd argue that a negative attitude to pre-marital sex is a necessary support for the trend to a later age of marriage. If one of the considerations that underpins late marriage is that it's unwise/irresponsible/reckless to marry until you're in a position to house and feed a family - so, you wait until you inherit the farm, or equivalent - deferring marriage is pointless unless you also defer reproduction. Hence, social conventions must encourage not only later marriage, but less or no sex before marriage. The two go hand-in-hand, I think.

I see where you are coming from but we could be entering into specious argument because the period under discussion is too long and during it attitudes and economics changed considerably.

The historical economics of agriculture have to be understood to put birth-rates (legitimate or illegitimate) in context. In the Napoleonic era there was a swing from pasture to arable farming to take advantage of high grain prices. Some claim that this ‘incentivised’ landlords to ‘grow’ the population of a labouring class required for labour-intensive tillage by turning a blind eye to the subdivision that enabled early marriage. I believe the cause primarily was due to bad estate management (too many middlemen, poor lease terms) that allowed uninhibited subdivision and to some extent this suited estates as they benefitted from the reclamation of now-inhabitable marginal land on mountain and bog.

Peregrinus wrote: »

(“social conventions must encourage not only later marriage, but less or no sex before marriage.”)

While the latter part is correct, it did – but it does not fully explain a later age of marriage. Neither could reproduction be deferred, it happened, continuously after marriage, with a very high rate of fecundity, which also was a warning against resorting to non-marital sex. The Devon Report, census returns and social commentators, from Arthur Young onwards gives countless examples of social convention which (in rural areas) was that the majority of the population lived (eked an existence?) in crowded one-room mud cabins sharing with an animal or two (in a stall at one end), with hens in the rafters, and already containing an extended family. In a moral peasantry that is not an ideal domestic ambiance for the introduction of a young bride.

Many younger sons had no hope ever of gaining a ‘farm’ of their own; in the congested areas there was not enough land to provide for the large number of viable (size) farms required. Neither did they have the capital to lease a farm without the earnings of ‘off-farm’ labour. Acceptance of celibacy was not a question of being ‘wise’ or ‘not reckless’, it had strong religious and economic inputs. (In whatever order of importance one wants). Sons had to have either a farm or money to marry, and, given the labour-intensive methods of farming (spadework) their input often was a necessity for the survival of the family unit. Girls too wanted husbands, but only accepted those that had a farm or strong prospects of one and were not receptive to younger sons with no prospects.

For the eldest sons it is hard to be exact because there are so many extraneous and linked factors – particularly incomes - that need to be taken into account in the 1850 - 1900 period, many caused by the several agricultural crises (e.g. crop failures, farm re-valuations, etc.,), and the onset of the Land Acts. These factors would have affected the tenantry differently - the upland cottiers/farmers (by a decline in mutton/wool prices) and the lowland farmers (a decline in butter and beef prices). These economic declines would in turn have caused a reduction in the demand for farm labour, reflected not only in an impact on the roles of locally-resident labourers but also in a decline in demand for non-resident labourers (i.e., the migratory workers drawn largely from dependent children and non-heirs (accepting the ‘primogeniture’ model current in Irish holdings). These were the children who went ‘walkabout’ to earn some money prior to marriage.
On more marginal land (that is where the folk we are discussing mainly came from) farmers became more reluctant to permit next-of-kin to reside on their land, (i.e. to subdivide) because the margin of profitability of land came under pressure from falling prices, and would not sustain multiple family units. As the oldest son you built up some seed capital, you kept your trousers on until you had a clear way to marry (i.e. father died), and if you were an ambitious girl or a younger son you took the boat.

O’Grada & others have an interesting paper on Irish fertility here