Too Bad for Anything Better?

Woodall, Susan

doi:10.1007/978-3-031-40571-6_5

Susan Woodall⁵

Part of the book series: Genders and Sexualities in History ((GSX))

27 Accesses

Abstract

In 1864, The Magdalen’s Friend and Female Homes’ Intelligencer noted that in the Albion Hill Home in Brighton

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 99.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 129.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
The Magdalen’s Friend, V (1864), pp.249–250.
2.
Ellice Hopkins, Notes on Penitentiary Work (London: Hatchards, 1879), pp.11–12.
3.
Material Powers: Cultural Studies, History and the Material Turned. by Tony Bennett and Patrick Joyce (Abingdon: Routledge, 2010), p.8. On the relationships between gender, space and identity and the construction of material environment in a range of settings see Jane Hamlett, Lesley Hoskins and Rebecca Preston, (eds), Residential Institutions in Britain 1725–1970: Inmates and Environments (London: Pickering and Chatto, 2013).
4.
Eleanor Conlin Casella, The Archaeology of Institutional Confinement (Florida: University Press of Florida, 2007), April M. Beisaw and James G. Gibb (eds), The Archaeology of Institutional Life (Alabama: University of Alabama Press, 2009).
5.
Ann Anderson and Elizabeth Darling, ‘The Hill Sisters: cultural philanthropy and the embellishment of lives in late nineteenth-century England, pp.33–70, p.40 in E. Darling and L. Whitworth (eds) Women and the making of built space in England, 1870–1950 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007).
6.
Ibid.
7.
Deborah Cohen, Household Gods: The British and Their Possessions (Yale: Yale University Press, 2006), p.24.
8.
Ibid., p.133. See also Julie-Marie Strange, ‘Fatherhood, Furniture and the Inter-Personal Dynamics of Working-Class Homes, c. 1870–1914’, Urban History, 40 (2013), 271–286
9.
Andrew Scull, ‘The Domestication of Madness’, Medical History, 27 (1983), 233–248. See also Barry Edginton, ‘Moral Architecture: the Influence of the York Retreat on Asylum Design’, Health and Place, 3 (1997), 91–99, Mary Guyatt, ‘A Semblance of Home: Mental Asylum Interiors, 1880–1914’ in Interior Design and Identity, ed. by Susie McKellar and Penny Sparke (Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2004), pp.48–71 and Louise Hide ‘From Asylum to Mental Hospital: Gender, Space and the Patient Experience in London County Council Asylums 1890–1910’ in Hamlett et al, Residential Institutions, pp.51–64. On the importance of domesticity in lodgings for post-institutional patients in the early twentieth century, see Stephen Soanes, ‘“The Father and Mother of the Place”: Identity and Belonging in the English Cottage Home for Convalescing Psychiatric Patients, 1910–1939’, in Residential Institutions, pp.109–139. For an archaeological study of asylum design in the colonial context, see Susan Piddock, ‘John Conolly’s “Ideal” Asylum and Provisions for the Insane in Nineteenth-Century South Australia and Tasmania’, in The Archaeology of Institutional Life, ed. by April M. Beisaw and James G. Gibb (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2009), pp.187–205.
10.
On affective responses, see John Styles, ‘Objects of Emotion: The London Foundling Hospital Tokens, 1741–1760 in Writing Material Culture History ed. by Anne Gerritsen and Giorgio Riello (London: Bloomsbury, 2015), pp.165–172. For acts of refusal, see David Green ‘Pauper Protests: Power and Resistance in Early Nineteenth-Century London Workhouses’, Social History, 31 (2006), 137–159.
11.
Linda Mahood, The Magdalenes: Prostitution in the Nineteenth Century (London: Routledge, 1990). Paula Bartley notes the more homely settings of preventive institutions intended for younger women and girls in contrast to those for fallen women in Prostitution, Prevention and Reform in England 1860–1914 (London: Routledge, 2000). Frances Finnegan provides some detail of the spaces of Good Shepherd Magdalen asylums in Ireland in Do Penance or Perish (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), but focuses mainly on the evolution and operation of the asylums. Valerie Bonham provides useful detail of the interior and furnishings of the Anglican penitentiary at Clewer. See A Place in Life: The Clewer House of Mercy 1849–83 (Windsor: Valerie Bonham and the Community of St John the Baptist, 1992), pp.180–181 and Jacinta Prunty, The Monasteries, Magdalen Asylums and Reformatory Schools of Our Lady of Charity in Ireland, 1853–1973 (Dublin: Columba Press, 2017).
12.
See Mary C. Beaudry, Lauren J. Cook, and Stephen A. Mrozowski, ‘Artifacts and Active Voices: Material Culture as Social Discourse’ in The Archaeology of Inequality, ed. by Randall H. McGuire and Robert Paynter (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991), pp.150–191 (p.165).
13.
Joy Frith photographed the exterior of the present day All Hallows, but does not represent any interiors or objects, as materiality was not her primary focus. See ‘Accounting for Souls: Anglican Sisters and the Economies of Moral Reform’ in The Economics of Providence: Management, Finances and Patrimony of Religious Orders and Congregations in Europe 1773–1931, ed. by Maarten Van Dijck and others (Leuven, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 2013), 185–204.
14.
References here are to the 1874 edition.
15.
Rosa M. Barrett, Ellice Hopkins, A Memoir (London: Wells, Gardner, Danton & Co, 1907), p. 73.
16.
An initial £75 funding for the Shipmeadow premises was given in 1854, CPA AR 1854, p.6. MAP joined in 1878 and received £30 towards extending the laundry in 1881, CPA Council Minutes, LPL, MS 3681.
17.
Susan Mumm cites the revised Statutes at Ditchingham from 1898. See Stolen Daughters, Virgin Mothers: Anglican Sisterhoods in Victorian Britain (London: Leicester University Press, 1999), p.81. MAP 13 July 1891.
18.
Frith suggests that donations amounted to over seventy-five percent of the income of the penitentiary at Ditchingham but does not show how she arrives at that figure. See ‘Accounting for Souls’, p.190. Sarah Flew notes the vulnerability of charities relying on voluntary giving. See Philanthropy and the Funding of the Church of England, 1856–1914 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), p.58.
19.
Susan Ash notes the increasingly ‘crowded charity market’ from mid-century. See Funding Philanthropy: Dr Barnardo’s Metaphors, Narratives and Spectacle (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2016), p.15. See also Sarah Roddy, Julie-Marie Strange and Bertrand Taithe, The Charity Market and Humanitarianism in Britain, 1870–1912 (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2019), pp.10–11.
20.
LPFH 18 January 1875, CFR 19 November 1850.
21.
MAP AR, 1910, p.4.
22.
CFR AR, 1881, p.6; LPFH AR, 1887, p.6; DIT AR, 1886, p.7; MAP AR, 1889, p.3. See also Trevor May, An Economic and Social History of Britain 1760–1990, (Harlow:Longman,1995) 2nd edn and Martin Daunton, Wealth and Welfare: an Economic and Social History of Britain 1851–1951 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), p.33.
23.
Vivienne Richmond notes that clothing societies in the early nineteenth century spurned finery of any kind in favour of ‘useful and necessary clothing’. Clothing the Poor in Nineteenth-Century England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), p.199.
24.
Deborah Cohen, Household Gods: the British and their Possessions (London: Yale, 2006), p.6; Jane Garnett and Alana Harris, ‘Faith in the Home: Catholic Spirituality and Devotional Materiality in East London’, Material Religion, 7 (2011), 299–302.
25.
Cohen, Household Gods, p.12.
26.
Ibid., p.7. Archaeological study of working-class fling privies in London recovered fragments of ‘decorative moralizing china with instructional inscriptions’. See Alistair Owens and others, ‘Fragments of the Modern City: Material Culture and the Rhythms of Everyday Life in Victorian London’, Journal of Victorian Culture, 15 (2010), 212–225 (p.216).
27.
Daniel J. Huppatz, ‘Roland Barthes: Mythologies’, Design and Culture, 3 (2011), 85–100 (p.88).
28.
See Eric Bristow, Vice and Vigilance: Purity Movements in Britain since 1700 (Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1977). For an analysis of visual representations of ‘fallenness’, see Lynda Nead, Myths of Sexuality: Representations of Women in Victorian Britain (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988).
29.
Financial and other material incentives to increase productivity in laundry and sewing were tried at the Edinburgh and Glasgow Magdalene Asylums. See Linda Mahood, The Magdalenes, pp.88–89. See also Louise Hide, Gender and Class in English Asylums, 1890–1814. (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014), p.92.
30.
Michael J.D. Roberts, Making English Morals: Voluntary Association and Moral Reform in England, 1787–1886 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp.195–196.
31.
Gomersall notes that girls might also be rewarded with ‘moral money’ on getting married provided ‘her prospective husband was of a “good character”’. See Working-Class Girls in Nineteenth-Century England: Life, Work, Schooling (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1997), p.65.
32.
Reformatory and Refuge Union, Inspection of Homes Association Minute Book, D239 J4/6/55.
33.
Boyd Hilton, The Age of Atonement (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), p.375.
34.
CFR, 2 August 1842.
35.
LPFH LC, 31 August 1865.
36.
‘“Pseudonuns”’, Anglican Sisterhoods and the Politics of Victorian Identity’ (unpublished doctoral thesis Queen’s University, Canada, 2004), p.278.
37.
CFR AR 1870, p.3.
38.
CFR AR 1871, pp.4–5.
39.
Meg Gomersall, Working-Class Girls in Nineteenth-Century England: Life, Work, Schooling (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1997), p.66.
40.
DIT, Rules for Sisters.
41.
Joy Frith, ‘“Pseudonuns”’, p.262.
42.
22 October 1864. Felicia Skene criticised the ‘luxurious’ provision of sitting-rooms for lady workers and sisters. See ‘Penitentiaries and Reformatories’, Odds and Ends, no.6 (Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas, 1865), p.6.
43.
Hamlett, At Home in the Institution: Material Life in Asylums, Lodging Houses and Schools in Victorian and Edwardian England (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), p.48.
44.
CFR 29 September 1841.
45.
CFR 21 November 1843.
46.
CFR 7 August 1841.
47.
CFR, 21 September 1841.
48.
CFR 9 November 1841.
49.
CFR 4October 1842 and Joshua Wentworth’s bill in CFR R60/27/7 (a).
50.
Deborah Cohen, Household Gods, p.10.
51.
A clock was also acquired for the penitentiary at Maplestead. MAP 30 March 1889.
52.
See Jane Hamlett, ‘Materialising Gender: Identity and Middle-Class Domestic Interiors, 1850–1910’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, Royal Holloway University of London, 2005), p.179.
53.
Ibid., p.188, p.199.
54.
CFR 18 January 1842.
55.
LPFH 5 June 1871.
56.
This parable of redemption is told in the New Testament, in the Gospels of St. Matthew (18: 12–14) and St. Luke (15:3–7).
57.
Susan Mumm notes that thefts from penitentiaries did take place. See, Stolen Daughters, p.105.
58.
InstrumentaEcclesiastica, I, 1847, Pl. XVII. The designs in this volume are all by William Butterfield, one of whose pupils was Henry Woodyer, architect at Ditchingham and Maplestead.
59.
By contrast, secular davenport desks were strikingly plain. See The Furniture Trade Catalogue, Containing Designs for Every Description of Modern Furniture (London: Wyman and Sons, 1881).
60.
Nigel Rapport and Joanna Overing, Social and Cultural Anthropology: the Key Concepts (Abingdon: Routledge, 2007), p.262.
61.
LPFH LC, 22 July 1847.
62.
LPFH 30 August 1866. In The Housewife’s Treasury of Household Information [1879?], Isabella Beeton describes Kidderminster as ‘well-suited’, of commoner fabric [than Axminster or Turkey carpets], usually employed in bedrooms and for similar purposes in middle-class houses’ <https://archive.org/stream/gri_33125012088023/gri_33125012088023_djvu.txt> [Accessed 25/09/2018], p.222.
63.
CFR 24 September 1844.
64.
MAP 31 July 1876
65.
Annual Report 1872–1873, cited in Valerie Bonham, A Place in Life, pp.220–221.
66.
Early examples include the seal of Queen Matilda, 1100–1118. Her seal may have monastic origins and derive from that of her sister-in-law, Cecilia, who was abbess of Caen. See Paul D.A. Harvey and Andrew McGuinness, A Guide to British Medieval Seals (London: The British Library and the Public Record Office, 1996), p. 48.
67.
Ruth 1:16.
68.
See Aliza Shenhar, ‘Ruth’, Encyclopedia of Jewish Folklore and Traditions, edited by Haya Bar-Itzhak and Raphael Patai (London: Routledge, 2013). <http://libezproxy.open.ac.uk/login?url=https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/sharpejft/ruth/0?institutionId=292> [accessed 2 June 2018].
69.
Letter to the Hebrews, 11: 24. W.R.F. Browning, ‘Moses’, A Dictionary of the Bible, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). Katharine Doob Sakenfield, Ruth (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1999), pp. 11–12.
70.
East and West, 1889, pp.11–12. The writer was possibly the editor, Anna H. Drury, an Associate.
71.
CFR AR, 1842.
72.
Pamela Malcolmson suggests that between pre-wash soaking and hanging out to dry, the wet laundry was lifted between containers and wrung out on average, ‘no less than six times’. See English Laundresses: a Social History, 1850–1930 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, c1986), pp.30–32.
73.
The Lincolnshire Chronicle, and Northampton, Rutland, and Nottingham Advertiser, 7 October 1859, p.2.
74.
CFR AR 1899, p.7.
75.
William Scudamore An Account of the Penitentiary at Shipmeadow (1857), p.11.
76.
Theresa McBride The Domestic Revolution: the Modernisation of Household Service in England and France 1820–1920 (London: Croom Helm, 1976), p.55.
77.
Sara Pennell, ‘Mundane Materiality, or Should Small Things still be Forgotten?’ in Karen Harvey, History and Material Culture, pp.173–191 (p.179).
78.
Nigel Rapport and Joanna Overing, Social and Cultural Anthropology, p.39. See also Frank Trentman on the idea of the ‘habit-body’ which draws on ‘bodily memory’ in using tools to perform tasks in ‘Materiality in the Future of History: Things, Practices, and Politics’, Journal of British Studies, 48 (2009), 283–307 (pp.289–290).
79.
LPFH GH2/7, 14 September 1905.
80.
7.Edw.7 c.39. Moritz Kaiser has argued that with twenty-six Peers and two MPs as members, the CPA wielded considerable power to influence the wording and extent of legislation for the inspection of charitable laundries from 1895 in ‘Anglican Magdalen Laundries and the British State, 1850–1914’, a paper given at the Social History Society Conference at the University of Lincoln, 12 June 2019.
81.
LPFH Matron’s Report Book, August 1909.
82.
Ibid., July 1910.
83.
MAP 17 July 1907.
84.
MAP 24 July 1908.
85.
At Cambridge a new drying apparatus was bought by a subscriber (CFR AR, 1870 p.4). In Lincoln, Bradford’s patent washing machine was acquired for the laundry (LPFH 6 Nov 1886).
86.
Opposite p.55.
87.
LPFH LC, 16 April 1870.
88.
Laundry spaces were also exploited in other institutional sites. Vivienne Richmond notes that ‘At Millbank Penitentiary, the laundry was also a site of subversive reclamation. In 1827, the male and female inmates sent messages to each other in laundry bundles in a form of introduction agency. See ‘No finery’: the Dress of the Poor in Nineteenth-Century England (unpublished doctoral thesis, University of London Goldsmith’s College, 2005), pp.268–269.
89.
For a discussion of the meaning of small acts of individual agency relating to appearance in a therapeutic setting, see Jane Hamlett, and Lesley Hoskins, ‘Comfort in Small Things: Clothing, Control and Agency in County Lunatic Asylums in Nineteenth- and Early Twentieth-Century England’, Journal of Victorian Culture, 18 (2013), 93–114 (pp.16–18).
90.
CFR 4 November 1845.
91.
CFR 24 February 1846.
92.
Pamela Sambrook, The Country House Servant (Stroud: Sutton Publishing, 1999), p.166.
93.
Pamela Malcolmson, English Laundresses, p.33. Younger servants were ill-prepared for finer skills such as goffering. See Alison Light, Mrs Woolf and the Servants (Penguin: London: 2007), p.92.
94.
LPFH Matron’s Report Book, July 1909.
95.
CFR 4 January 1842. Hannah went on to be the House Servant in August that year.
96.
LPFH LC, 29 June 1849.
97.
Hopkins, Work Amongst the Lost, p.51.
98.
Gospel According to St John, 8:11. On the significance of ornaments in defining ‘home’ see Thad Logan The Victorian Parlour (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).
99.
LPFH LC, 3 June 1872.
100.
LPFH, 19 April 1877.
101.
LPFH Matron’s Report Book, January 1904.
102.
Ibid., April 1906.
103.
Leach’s cashbook records that in addition to whitening he bought ‘colour for the inside of the ‘Refuge house’. Museum of Cambridge, Frederick Leach Cashbook 1857–1868, p.168. Leach worked under the guidance of leading Gothic revival and Arts and Crafts designers and architects such as William Morris, George Bodley and Charles Kempe at All Saints’ Church, Jesus College, Queens’ College and elsewhere. See Shelley Lockwood, Frederic Leach, a Cambridge Artworkman and his Firm (London: Casita Press, 2001, in association with the David Parr House).
104.
CFR AR 1868, p.6.
105.
Ibid.
106.
CFR 7 December 1841. Julie-Marie Strange notes the same ‘multi-purpose’ use of tables and similar versatile designs in working-class households in ‘Fatherhood, Furniture and the Inter-Personal Dynamics of Working-Class Homes, c. 1870–1914’, Urban History, 40 (2013), 271–286 (p.275).
107.
CFR 20 September 1841.
108.
MAP Sub-Committee 13 November 1876.
109.
Jane Hamlett, At Home, p.46.
110.
LPFH Matron’s Report Book, 12 September.
111.
22 October 1864.
112.
DIT AR, 1930, p.4.
113.
DIT Shipmeadow Council, 7 February 1854.
114.
Account from Barrett, R60/27/7 (a).
115.
CFR R60/27/7(a) 29 September 1841.
116.
Lu Ann De Cunzo, ‘Reform, Respite, Ritual: An Archaeology of Institutions; The Magdalen Society of Philadelphia 1800–1850’, Historical Archaeology, 29 (1995), 1–168 (p.121). The Bishop of London’s Visiting Committee noted in 1899 that ‘prison discipline’ prevailed at the London Diocesan Penitentiary in Highgate. The prison-like environment was reflected in the drinking vessels and the ‘Committee were glad to notice that prison Gallipots were being supplanted by enamelled mugs but Gallipots largely prevail after being in use for 16 years or more’. FP Creighton 15 1899, LPL.
117.
LPFH LC, 12 May 1856.
118.
LPFH LC, 25 February 1858.
119.
LPFH LC, 24 March 1870.
120.
CFR 22 January 1848.
121.
Alyson Brown English Society and the Prison: Time, Culture and Politics in the Development of the Modern Prison, 1850–1920 (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2003), p.73.
122.
In both institutions, poor cooking was one among several indicators of poor management and inadequate staffing. At Cambridge an assistant matron was appointed the month after this incident and at Lincoln, matron Mrs Orfeur was dismissed. CFR 1 February 1848, LPFH 16 April 1870.
123.
Ian Miller notes that published dietaries were not necessarily followed, particularly as dietary quantity was associated with discipline and could be adjusted punitively. See ‘Feeding in the Workhouse: the Institutional and Ideological Functions of Food in Britain, ca. 1834–1870’, Journal of British Studies, 52 (2013), 1–23 (p.8).
124.
CFR 7 December 1841.
125.
CFR 18 January 1842.
126.
LPFH 4 November 1848.
127.
LPFH 29 July 1870.
128.
CFR 6 November 1838.
129.
CFR 19 July 1842.
130.
1866 [3660] Dietaries for the inmates of workhouses. Report to the President of the Poor Law Board of Dr Edward Smith, F.R.S., medical officer of the Poor Law Board, and Poor Law inspector, p.138 (Lincoln), quoted in Valerie Johnston, Diet in Workhouses and Prisons, 1835–1895 (New York: Garland, 1985), p.235.
131.
Harley, ‘Material Lives of the Poor and their Strategic Use of the Workhouse During the Final Decades of the English Old Poor Law’ in Continuity and Change 30, 71–103 (pp.84–85).
132.
CFR 13 December 1842. Mary Turner’s possessions suggest she was from an upper working-class home.
133.
Diet in Workhouses and Prisons, 1835–1895 (New York: Garland, 1985), pp.237–238. See Also Anna Davin, ‘Loaves and Fishes: Food in Poor Households in Late Nineteenth-Century London’, History Workshop Journal, 41 (1996)167–92.
134.
CFR 11 December 1838.
135.
CFR 11 August 1840. Anne McCants has argued the importance of ‘station-appropriate consumption’ which informed decisions on appropriate food consumption over the history of the Amsterdam orphanage. See ‘Meeting Needs and Suppressing Desires: Consumer Choice Models and Historical Data’, The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 26 (1995), 191–207 (p.200). On middle-class ridicule of servants ‘dressing above their station’, see John Styles, ‘Involuntary Consumers? Servants and their Clothes in Eighteenth-Century England’, Textile History, 33 (2002), 9–21 (p.10).
136.
Lincoln Board of Guardians’ Minutes 1862–1866 from June 1863 PL/10/102/8.
137.
LPFH, Matron’s Report Book 1901–1911 GH/4/1, September 1906.
138.
Frith, ‘Pseudonuns’, p.250.
139.
Susan Mumm, Stolen Daughters, Virgin Mothers: Anglican Sisterhoods in Victorian Britain (London: Leicester University Press, 1999), pp.68–69.
140.
William Scudamore, An Account of the Penitentiary at Shipmeadow (1857), p.11
141.
CFR 22 February 1847. Beer features in the cashbook accounts for Cambridge from 1841 to 1859. It was clearly a staple as a beer cellar was included in the specification for the new building, CFR 11 November 1840.
142.
David Englander notes the same social and political participation in complaints from workhouse inmates to the Poor Law Commission. See Poverty and Poor Law Reform in Britain: from Chadwick to Booth, 1834–1914 (Abingdon: Routledge, 2013), p.134.
143.
MAP, p.26.
144.
MAP Admissions Register, September 1883.
145.
CFR AR, 1870, pp.3–4.
146.
Notes on Penitentiary Work (London: Hatchards, 1879), p.12.
147.
Lincolnshire Chronicle, 2 October 1857, MAP 29 July 1910.
148.
CFR 1868 AR p.6.
149.
See Gillian Allmond, ‘Light and Darkness in an Edwardian Institution for the Insane Poor—Illuminating the Material Practices of the Asylum Age’, International Journal of Historical Archaeology 20 (2016) 1–22, pp. 5–8.
150.
DIT AR, 1886, p.9.
151.
LPFH 24 November.
152.
Cambridgeshire Needlework Guild donated clothing to the Refuge AR 1894, p.7, as did the Lincolnshire Needlework Guild, LPFH Matron’s Report Book, October 1902. In 1891, the Suffolk Needlework Guild donated clothing to the Lodge of the Good Shepherd Refuge run by Ditchingham sisters. DIT LGS AR, p.6.
153.
LPFH Matron’s Report Book, April 1907.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK
Susan Woodall

Authors

Susan Woodall
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan Woodall .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Woodall, S. (2023). Too Bad for Anything Better?. In: Material Setting and Reform Experience in English Institutions for Fallen Women, 1838-1910. Genders and Sexualities in History. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40571-6_5

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40571-6_5
Published: 26 September 2023
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-40570-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-40571-6
eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics