When I was eight and my sister six (in the 1960s) we moved house from one area in London to another one a bus ride away. We took it into our heads to go to our old library, so, one Saturday morning, with our mother’s blessing, off we went. Chose our books. Set off for home. Unfortunately, we got the wrong bus but I sort of recognised where we were and managed to find our old church. The kindly vicar gave us milk and digestive biscuits and drove us back to our mother, who was a little concerned but not panicking. All’s well etc.
I suppose Mr. Cribb in the story from The Times on 6 April 1812 was naive but perhaps no more so than my mother was. But he does seem to have failed to see the risks of sending the child off with a young man armed with money.
It’s obvious that Edward Sweet promptly drank the better part of the travelling expenses he had been given by Mr. Crabb and pushed his responsibilities off onto someone else. Read on…
UNION-HALL, Saturday, April 4. A Mr. Cribb stated that he had an orphan nephew, about 8 years of age, whom he had brought up from infancy, but the hardness of the times had obliged him to part with the child, and he had determined to send him for a time to his grandmother, who resides at Bristol. Edward Sweet was the son of a neighbour, and was apprentice to a person at Bristol he was, however, about three months ago in London on a visit to his friends, and offered to take charge of the child on his return to Bristol; this offer was gladly accepted and Mr. Cribb gave him a one-pound note to defray the child’s expenses on the road; they left town together about ten weeks since; and, some time after, a letter was received from the grandmother, expressing her surprise that she had not seen the child: this letter produced inquiry, when it was discovered that neither he nor his conductor had ever reached Bristol; nor has the child yet been heard of. Information was given of the circumstance at this office, and a warrant granted for Sweet’s apprehension; and on Saturday he was discovered and taken into custody by Barrett the Officer, at his father’s house. When brought before the Magistrate, he stated that he took the child as far as Reading, where he stopt at the King’s Arms, and got out of the waggon in which they had travelled so far, and whilst drinking with a friend, the waggon went forward, and left him and the boy behind. Upon this he changed his mind, and determined to return to London: he, however, gave the child five shillings, which was what remained of the one-pound note he had received from Mr. Cribb, and recommended him to the care of the landlord, desiring him to put him into the first Bristol waggon that should pass by, and left him: he had not enquired for or heard of him since, but supposed he had reached Bristol in safety. The worthy Magistrate observed, that the prisoner did not seem aware of the awkward predicament in which, by his conduct, he had placed himself; for should the child not be found, unless he could give a much more satisfactory account than he had yet done, it would probably prove of serious consequence to him. So serious did he consider it, that he should feel it his duty to commit him, unless he could produce very sufficient bail, till some information respecting the child was procured. The prison not being able to procure bail, was committed till Tuesday.
The Times, 6 April 1812
It all looked pretty bad for Edward Sweet, until…
UNION-HALL Sweet, in custody on suspicion of having clandestinely disposed of a child entrusted to him by its friends to be taken down to Bristol, was again brought up. The Magistrate had received a letter in answer to one written by his direction to the publican, at Reading, where the prisoner said he had left the child, confirming his story, and stating further, that the landlord kept him several days, when he was fortunately seen by the Commanding Officer of a regiment at that time lying at Reading, who, taking a fancy to him, relieved the landlord from his burthen, and humanely took the child home; he has since sent him to a boarding-school, and declared his intention of providing for him in future. Upon this statement, after an admonition from the Magistrate, Sweet was discharged.
A couple of points stand out:
Why did no one think to ask the boy where his grandmother lived and ensure that he got there?
There seems to have been no question of returning him to his family, just relief all round that this “burthen” was being provided for.
It is interesting that the word of an officer, with no proof that he has done what he has said he has done with the child, was enough for the magistrate.
Our forebears did not love their children less. It’s just that their ideas of child protection were different to ours. The past is another country…
See also this post about an abducted child.
Nancy says
. I do wonder that the officer was able to take the child and say he as sending him to school, etc, without — as far as we know– any discussion of the matter with the grandmother. I do think the officer told the grandmother he would educate the boy, etc though no one had any way of knowing whether he preyed on children or was a man who wanted a boy to raise The child was an orphan whose father doesn’t appear to have provided for him.
You do find the most unusual stories.
m1lt0nk3yn3s says
Thank you, Nancy – I just love rooting around in the archives, and I’ve just taken possession of two years of The Times (1812 and 1801) so hope to find even more. I agree with you – that the officer probably did communicate with the grandmother. As you say, however, there was only the word of an “officer and a gentleman” to safeguard the boy.