A Legacy of Caring

by John McCullagh

  According to historian G.P. de T. Glazebrook, girls under fourteen years of age and boys under twelve were officially barred from factory work — except in food canning, which was seasonal — while ten years was the minimum age for work in stores. However, collusion between employers, families and government inspectors meant that the law was often ignored. In 1882, a survey of nearly 44,000 workers found that 5 percent of them were children between the ages of five and fourteen. As will be described in Chapter 2, newsboys, regarded as running their own businesses, became a special focus of concern under the leadership of John Joseph Kelso, who was to go on to found Ontario’s children’s aid movement.

  Living conditions for many of these families were harsh. They often had no alternative but to rent rundown and unsanitary houses, which contributed to serious health problems and high death rates from such contagious diseases as cholera, typhus and typhoid fever. Tuberculosis was responsible for as many as a third of deaths.

  In 1875, thirty percent of all infants under one year of age died. While some of these deaths resulted from burns, scalding, drowning or other accidents, the main reason was infection, often transmitted by nursing mothers as well as through unpasteurized milk.

  In 1875, thirty percent of all infants under one year of age died. While some of these deaths resulted from burns, scalding, drowning or other accidents, the main reason was infection, often transmitted by nursing mothers as well as through unpasteurized milk.

  In Ontario, there was no equivalent to the British poor laws that provided help for the needy. Public action to address the circumstances of destitute families was held back because of an attitude, developed during the province’s pioneer days, that valued those who were self-supporting, respectable and hard-working.

  Some care, far from sufficient, was available at such houses of refuge as Toronto’s House of Industry and House of Providence — workhouses where the residents received board in return for their labour. Jails sheltered the destitute elderly along with criminals and vagrants. For the most part, though, the poor were expected to fend for themselves or depend upon their families or private philanthropy for assistance.

  Historians Andrew Jones and Leonard Rutman describe how the consequences of urbanization and industrialization nevertheless forced people to reconsider these predominant views about poverty:

  The mass movement of population to new industrial cities such as Toronto created problems of housing, health and employment. Family ties were perceived as weakening and individuals were left without resources to cope with distressing circumstances. The plight of the sick, the poor and the handicapped became more apparent in a closely settled city than in the country. Also, their problems impinged more directly on the lives of the more affluent city dwellers.

  As early as the 1830s, it was recognized that public aid could not be wholly withheld from the sick poor because of the danger posed by the outbreak of cholera. The developments in public health during the century were given impetus by the recognition that disease was no respecter of boundaries and that the slum dweller’s illness was not his purely private misfortune that could be safely ignored by his wealthier neighbours.

  “The developments in public health during the century were given impetus by the recognition that disease was no respecter of boundaries and that the slum dweller’s illness was not his purely private misfortune that could be safely ignored by his wealthier neighbours.”

  —Andrew Jones and Leonard Rutman

  By mid-century, there was a budding acceptance of a sense of public responsibility for the relief of distress as well as the maintenance of social order and stability. In 1859, the province established the Board of Inspectors of Prisons, Asylums and Public Charities to develop governmental social welfare services. Working alongside the board, churches, fraternal organizations and private charitable societies established a wide range of institutions such as inner-city missions, orphanages, reformatories and hospitals, as well as programs to aid prisoners, encourage temperance, prevent cruelty to children and animals and maintain the moral and religious well-being of young women.

  Working alongside the Board of Inspectors of Prisons, Asylums and Public Charities, churches, fraternal organizations and private charitable societies established a wide range of institutions such as inner-city missions, orphanages, reformatories and hospitals, as well as programs to aid prisoners, encourage temperance, prevent cruelty to children and animals and maintain the moral and religious well-being of young women.

  Institutions for children began to emerge under these auspices, first for those who were physically or developmentally handicapped, then for orphans, and finally for young offenders. Between mid-century and the First World War, more than a dozen institutions to protect children were established in Toronto. They included the Roman Catholic Orphans’ Asylum of St. Paul’s, founded prior to 1850; the Protestant Orphans’ Home and Female Aid Society, set up in 1851 and known subsequently as the Protestant Children’s Home and, since 1971, as Family Day Care Services; the Girls’ Home (1856); the Boys’ Home (1859); the Infants’ Home (1875); the Rescue Home for Fallen Girls (1888); the Toronto Children’s Aid Society (1891); the St. Vincent de Paul Children’s Aid Society, now known as the Catholic Children’s Aid Society (1894); and the Jewish Day Nursery and Orphanage (1909). There was also an orphanage connected with the House of Providence; in 1877, it cared for 223 children.

  Between the mid-19th century and the First World War, more than a dozen institutions to protect children were established in Toronto.

  “Women from prominent families played a major initiating role in these private charitable ventures [to protect children]. They usually espoused strong moral, evangelical and humanitarian aims and were committed to the values of respectability, Christian morality, established authority and personal responsibility.”

  — G.P. de T. Glazebrook

  Glazebrook writes that “Women from prominent families played a major initiating role in these private charitable ventures. They usually espoused strong moral, evangelical and humanitarian aims and were committed to the values of respectability, Christian morality, established authority and personal responsibility.”

  Although these agencies were initiated under private sponsorship, it was not long before they were making demands for provincial government funds. This pressure resulted in the passing in 1874 of the Charity Aid Act, which established a funding formula for government assistance. The act also required agencies receiving government funds to submit to inspection by provincial officials and to meet standards set by the province.

  The Charity Aid Act of 1874 established a funding formula for government assistance. The act also required agencies receiving government funds to submit to inspection by provincial officials and to meet standards set by the province.

  The act had the effect of dramatically increasing the number of private agencies in Ontario that were involved in social welfare work. According to Jones and Rutman, within two decades of the law’s enactment, the number of hospitals receiving government aid rose from ten to thirty-two, orphanages doubled from fourteen to twenty-eight and houses of refuge increased more than ninefold to thirty-two. By the 1890s, government-supported private agencies were an established feature of social welfare provision.

  Baby farms

  “Baby farming,” the practice of taking as boarders children under two years of age who had been abandoned, orphaned or born to unmarried mothers, was very prevalent in nineteenth-century Toronto. Until the founding of the Infants’ Home in 1875, there was no alternative for women who could not look after their own children.

  While some of these homes provided adequate care, others did not. Many of the children who boarded in them were neglected and ill treated. If the mother could not afford the fee, the babies were often underfed and given laudanum, an addictive opium derivative, to keep them quiet.

  If the mother could not afford the fee demanded by the care providers, the babies were often underfed and given
laudanum, an addictive opium derivative, to keep them quiet.

  Sometimes, babies were traded for a fee between various care providers. Many infants who survived this treatment were subsequently abandoned and often died. If they were lucky, they might be informally adopted or bound into indentured service.

  According to newspaper reporters who investigated baby farms, many of the children had “bodies that might be transparent if held against the light” and “features scarcely to be discerned through the layer of dirt which covered each face.”

  The concern about conditions in baby farms meant that, for many years, children’s agencies had no interest in developing foster care facilities as an alternative to institutional care. It was in this climate that a group of socially prominent women, alarmed about high infant mortality and the spread of disease, joined together in 1875 to establish the Infants’ Home.

  The founding of the Infants’ Home

  Since the 1850s, Fenton Cameron, a Toronto physician, and his wife, Ann, had been trying to persuade influential friends, and the Burnside Lying-in Hospital, to open a home for destitute mothers and their babies. (The Burnside Lying-in Hospital was an Anglican institution that had been founded in the 1850s as a place where unwed mothers could give birth to their babies. In 1878, it amalgamated with Toronto General Hospital.)

  It took twenty-five years, but, thanks to their efforts, the Infants’ Home opened its doors in a cold, drafty, rented house at 11 Caer Howell Street — known today as Elm Street — on September 1, 1875. The home’s purpose was described at a meeting of the managers of the Burnside Hospital earlier that year:

  To establish a nursery in connection with the hospital for the twofold benefit of preserving the life of the infant and keeping the mother’s in a state of comfortable assurance that, while she was nursing another child, her own would be properly and kindly treated. The fact of children dying so frequently has originated the idea of thus saving them.

  Care and attention was to be expended “[t]o render the system as perfect as possible, deeming it a Christian duty to care for these children, whose feebleness and misfortune makes them worthy of compassion and whose preservation is an advantage because they may be useful in the country’s service.”

  Charlotte Ridout, one of the managers of the Burnside hospital, was named the first president and held that position until 1900. During that time, the organization grew from a cottage of six or eight rooms to a 150-bed institution. As a result of her efforts, the city and the province made grants and the agency received many legacies and donations. Ann Cameron became the vice president and Fenton Cameron the home’s visiting physician. A working board of twenty managers, all women, took turns visiting the home each day to supervise the care of the infants. They were also expected to solicit funds by canvassing from door to door.

  In twenty-five years, the Infants’ Home grew from a cottage of six or eight rooms to a 150-bed institution.

  A working board of twenty managers, all women, took turns visiting the home each day to supervise the care of the infants. They were also expected to solicit funds by canvassing from door to door.

  Mayor William Howland, who dominated municipal politics in the 1880s and was deeply involved in improving the circumstances of the city’s poor, chaired an advisory committee of three businessmen to assist the board of managers in financial matters. A committee of physicians provided medical expertise in the care of the children living in the home, all of whom were under two years of age, many sickly and dying.

  The board of managers never seemed to have been daunted by any of the numerous difficulties that arose, including lack of funds, inadequate legislation, poorly trained staff and continuous epidemics among the children. For many years, they struggled with considerable public opposition to a home in which single mothers and their children were properly cared for — opposition rooted in the prevailing belief that “the weak moral values” of unmarried mothers could lead them to earn a living through prostitution.

  For many years, the board of managers struggled with considerable public opposition to a home in which single mothers and their children were properly cared for — opposition rooted in the prevailing belief that “the weak moral values” of unmarried mothers could lead them to earn a living through prostitution.

  In the agency’s early days, many children from baby farms were admitted after payments from their mothers had ceased or the mother became alarmed at the kind of care her child was receiving. The 1879 annual report describes how “Wan, pinched children were brought to the home in [great] numbers, some half dead from the baby farms of the city, others suffering from the want and privation of the mothers.”

  Not all those who sought assistance from the Infants’ Home were single mothers. Many admissions arose from disruptions to family life caused by death or because there were too many mouths to feed.

  One of the first children admitted was the son of an immigrant widower whose wife’s death had left him with a young baby to care for. At first, he boarded the child in a baby farm, but had to remove him after four months because the child was being neglected. In a letter of appreciation to the Infants’ Home, he wrote:

  The baby had never been strong and was wore away [in the baby farm] to a perfect skeleton. So I applied to the lady president of the Infants’ Home and the baby was kindly admitted. I visited him daily, expecting his death at each visit. By kindness, careful nursing and good nourishment, coupled with perfect cleanliness, my poor baby is now in perfect health and strength and as healthy looking as you could wish to see.

  “The baby had never been strong and was wore away [in the baby farm] to a perfect skeleton. So I applied to the lady president of the Infants’ Home and the baby was kindly admitted. I visited him daily, expecting his death at each visit. By kindness, careful nursing and good nourishment, coupled with perfect cleanliness, my poor baby is now in perfect health and strength and as healthy looking as you could wish to see.”

  Letter of appreciation from an early client

  The Infants’ Home also admitted many foundlings — children abandoned at birth. The home’s managers often named them after the streets where they were found, such as a baby girl who was given the name Adelaide Street. Matthew Yonge was left on the doormat of the Infants’ Home when it was located on Yonge Street. John Dufferin was found at the Dufferin Gate of the exhibition grounds, while Jane Western was left inside the door of the city’s Western Hospital.

  The Infants’ Home admitted many foundlings — children abandoned at birth. The home’s managers often named them after the streets where they were found, such as the infant who was given the name Matthew Yonge.

  Meeting the needs of these children was the motivating factor that led to the establishment of the home. The founders knew that, in the absence of an institution that would admit infants, such children would continue to be abandoned and left to die or be boarded out in unsatisfactory baby farms.

  In 1882, a residence was built at 21 St. Mary Street, on the site of an old reservoir rented from the city for $1 a year. A fundraising drive had secured $14,000 for the new building.

  The house on Caer Howell Street was, however, far too small to meet the heavy demand for admission and so on April 3, 1876, the home moved to a large mansion at 678 Yonge Street, which had been loaned to the organization rent-free in exchange for a promise to maintain it in a state of good repair. That house, in turn, quickly proved inadequate, which led to the decision in 1882 to erect a residence at 21 St. Mary Street, on the site of an old reservoir which was to be rented from the city for one dollar per year. A fundraising drive secured $14,000 for the new building.

  Jessie Watters, who worked at the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto from the 1940s until the 1970s, recalls a legend about the site:

  When workmen were draining the reservoir they came across the bodies of several infants. It was thought that these were children whose unmarried mothers had thrown them into the reservoir to conceal their births,
due to the unyielding Victorian condemnation of child bearing outside marriage.

  Jessie Watters, the agency’s casework consultant, and recipient of the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies’ Outstanding Achievement Award, pictured here in 1996.

  Although it was purpose-built, the agency’s new home began to show its deficiencies at an early date. Because of trouble with the drains, the walls were constantly damp, which also meant that there were regular infestations of such vermin as rats and cockroaches. These invasions compromised the health of children who were already vulnerable and contributed to the epidemics to which the home was subject. It is not surprising, therefore, that in 1885 one of the home’s doctors reported that “Several children are suffering from inflamed eyes and eruptions of the face due to draughts in the nurseries which strike the infants as they lie on the floor asleep.”

  The residents and staff were constantly complaining about the drabness of the building’s appearance, both inside and out. According to Vera Moberly, later to become the chief executive of the Infants’ Home:

  It was a red-brick building, three stories in height, the very picture of an institution. The garden, which consisted largely of cinders, was enclosed by a high board fence surmounted by barbed wire. The lower windows were protected by netting and the doors were always kept locked.

  The ground floor was occupied by offices, the second floor by the dining room and day nurseries and the third by dormitories . . . [where] children whose mothers were [also living in] the institution slept in their mother’s beds.

  The only place for exercise for the mothers was in the corridors, where, because of the draughts, they were advised to wear their shawls. All the radiators were constantly covered with drying diapers.

  “The only place for exercise for the mothers [at the Infants’ Home] was in the corridors, where, because of the draughts, they were advised to wear their shawls. All the radiators were constantly covered with drying diapers.”