The Ragged School Movement and the Education of the Poor in the Nineteenth Century
This is the work of D.H. Webster who wrote a thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the University of Leicester, 1973. It remains an important historical document and analysis of the Ragged School and free education movement in Britain. It will be reproduced and published verbatim in installments for educational purposes to facilitate review and discussion about education. This post is the first part of the thesis where the references have been reproduced inline within the text.
This study attempts to construct a picture of the emergence and. growth of the ragged schools in England during the nineteenth century. It assesses the influence on these schools of the work of John Pounds and Sheriff Watson but finds their origin in the Sunday School Movement. The history of the Ragged School Unions in London, Manchester and Liverpool is traced. Differences between metropolitan and provincial schools with regard to the philosophy of voluntaryism are noted. The problems of compiling statistics relating to ragged schools are discussed and a preliminary list of English ragged institutions is offered.
Material from widely varied sources and representing different stages in the development of the schools has been used to show the patterns of ragged school education, organisation, finance and management. Particular attention has been given to the social status of the children and the parents served by these institutions.
The case study of a single school with good records offers insight into the way schools responded to religious pressures, political decisions and the social and economic conditions at the local level. The study offers an estimate of the significance of the Ragged School Movement to nineteenth century educational history. It analyses the effects on the Movement of the work of Lord Shaftesbury and shows how the schools responded to the political decisions affecting education made by Parliament.
I wish to acknowledge the help given during the preparation of this study by the staffs of the libraries,, record offices, societies and schools to whom I have applied for information. My thanks are due to the staffs of the Public Libraries at Barnsley, Blackburn, Bradford, Bristol, Chester, Cheltenham, Ealing, Gloucester, Gravesend, Halifax, Haringey, Huddersfield, Hull, Lancaster, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Norwich, Oxford, Portsmouth, Sheffield, Southampton, Stockport, Swansea and York, in England; in Scotland, to the Public Libraries in Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Paisley; to the University Libraries at Leeds, Leicester, London, Oxford and Reading; to the Institute of Education Libraries at Birmingham, Cardiff, Hull, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, London and Manchester; to County Hall Library, London, the British Museum, the Guildhall Library, London, and the Record Offices of Norfolk and Hampshire; to the Library of the Department of Education and Science. The staff of the Shaftesbury Society, London, gave not only help but encouragement – and frequent cups of tea. Local historians whom I contacted were very welcoming, invariably deluging me with facts, frequently giving me articles and books they had written and occasionally regaling me with lunch or tea.
I would like to express my gratitude to the staffs of the libraries at James Graham College of Education, Leeds, Bretton Hall College of Education, Wakefield, and the Institute of Education, University of Hull. They have cheerfully undertaken a burden of extra work by tracing and procuring books and theses relevant to the theme of this essay.
Most of all, I would like to thank Mr. Malcolm Seaborne and Mr. Donald Jones of the Department of Education, the University of Leicester. They acted in succession as my supervisors and both provided a valuable critical corrective to some of my more speculative hypotheses. I wish that this study reflected more creditably their kind assistance and unflagging interest.
That this work was ever undertaken, let alone completed, I owe in no small part to Professor G.H. Bantock, Professor of Education in the University of Leicester. I am particularly grateful for his support and encouragement in a period of heavy college responsibility.
The manuscript has been typed by my former student, Mrs. Molly Tickner. Her ability to decipher what I euphemistically call my handwriting has been extraordinary. She has prevented many inelegancies of expression, as well as mistakes of grammar and syntax. Her generosity of time, interest in the work, skill as a typist and imperturbability have resulted in the completion of this study earlier than I had dared to hope.
D.H. Webster, University of Hull, February, 1973.
Contents of Thesis
Chapter Section I: Origins Of The Ragged Schools.
Section II: Foundation And Development Of Ragged Schools.
4 The London Ragged School. Union
5 Manchester And Salford Ragged Schools
6 The Ragged School Union In Liverpool
7 The Number And Location Of The Ragged Schools In England, Scotland And Wales: Some Problems And A Preliminary List
Section III: The Functioning Of The Ragged Schools.
8 The Ragged School Children And Their Parents
9 The Organisation, Finances And Management Of The Ragged Schools
10 The Ragged School Education
Section IV: A Case Study
11. A Case Study Of The Ragged Industrial School: Stockport Ragged And Industrial School, 1854- 1860
Previous Studies of the Ragged School Movement
The Ragged School Movement receives no mention in recent general histories of education in England. It is excusable, though disappointing, in the studies of H. C. Barnard (H. C. Barnard, A History of English Education. 1961, 2nd Revised Edition) and W. H. G. Armytage (2. W. H. G. Armytage, Four Kindred Years of English Education. 1965). Both are hard pressed by the problems of selection and compression.
Its omission in M. Sturt is more serious and further distorts a perspective already flawed by excessive reliance on the records of central government (3. M. Sturt, The Education of the People. 1967). An assessment of the effects of the movement would have offered G. Sutherland a more perceptive understanding of the educational and social provision for the destitute than she is able to give (4. G. Sutherland, Elementary Education in the Nineteenth Century. 1971).
A wider consideration at some depth would have enabled D. Wardle to set English education even more forcefully in a socio-economic framework (5. D. Wardle, English Popular Education. 1970) The older histories of F. Smith (F. Smith, A History of English Elementary Education, 1760-1902. 1931, pp.201-203) and S. J. Curtis (S. J. Curtis, History of Education in Great Britain. 1957, pp.219, 532-3) paid brief court to the ragged schools, perpetuating the myth of their foundation by John Pounds and alluding to the efforts of Sheriff Watson and Dr. Guthrie to establish a national system.
The neglect of the subject in the general works is a reflection of the fact that neither a critical appraisal of the development of the movement at national level, nor local and regional studies which relate to this level, exist. The church histories of the nineteenth century are indifferent to the ragged schools, with the exception of 0.Chadwick (8. 0. Chadwick, The Victorian Church. Vol.2, 1970, p.307). It is sad that his very short report confuses national and local statistics, assumes that there was no ragged movement outside London, misunderstands its aims and is mistaken about the place of Lord Shaftesbury.
The account of the social role of the Victorian Church given in D. Bowden is new and forms a valuable background to the welfare agencies which arose with the ragged Sunday schools (9. D. Bowden, The Idea of the Victorian Church. 1970). The studies of Lord Shaftesbury make plain his concern with the schools.
That by J. L. and B. Hammond (J. L. and B. Hammond, Lord Shaftesbury. 1923) underestimates the religious questions and is to some extent supplemented by J. Wesley Bready (11. J. Wesley Bready, Lord Shaftesbury and Socio-Industrial Progress. 1926). E. Hodder remains the undisputed authority (12. E. Hodder, The Life and Work of the Earl of Shaftesbury. 3 Vols., 1886). However, a major study of Shaftesbury, which will balance his religious and social involvements and set them against the background of Victorian history, is needed.
Local historians and educationalists tracing the developments in a specific area have been scrupulous in noting the existence of ragged schools but tardy in the analysis of their records and sparing in the number of histories of these institutions which they have produced. Of those writing about contemporary events, J. Glyde’s picture of the rapid urban growth in Suffolk and his account of Ipswich Ragged School have value (13. J. Glyde, The Moral, Social and Religious Condition of Ipswich in the Middle of the Nineteenth Century. 1850, pp.124-127).
Thomas Britain’s sketch of the first industrial ragged school in Manchester is tantalising in that it evades all of the major questions and answers all of the minor ones (14. T. Britain, Manchester Industrial Schools. 1884). The study of Nottingham’s schools by D.Wardle is exemplary. It is unfortunate that, in spite of the most careful searching and collection of evidence, the loss of his major primary sources on ragged schools enables him to paint only a thin picture and prevents his arguing a case (15. D. Wardle, Education and Society in Nineteenth Century Nottingham. 1971, pp.49, 52, 77-9).
Unpublished studies by students offer glimpses of the schools functioning as part of a total pattern of education for various parts of the country. In his work H. W. Gwilliam includes a consideration of ragged schools in Worcester (16. H. W. Gwilliam, The Provision of Education for the Poor in the City of Worcester during the 18th and 19th Centuries. Diploma in Education, University of Birmingham, 1966), H. E. Walsh outlines their development in Bradford (17. H. E. Walsh, An Outline of the History of Education in Bradford before 1870. M.Ed., University of Leeds, 1936), while W. C. Darwell quickly etches the growth of the school in Huddersfield (18. W. C. Darwell, A History of Elementary Education in Huddersfield from 1780 to 1902. M.Ed., University of Leeds, 1951).
It does not detract from the skill and patience with which these writers have located and used their evidence to note that their simple descriptions of the contents of the annual reports of a ragged school, without reference to other schools in its own and differing towns, separated from its social and economic context and unrelated to the policy of the central government or the theology of voluntaryism, have a limited value. It is surprising in view of the richness and abundance of some of the source material that more adequate and scholarly studies of ragged schools have not been produced.
Of the more substantial accounts of the ragged schools which exist, that by C.J .Montague is the best known (19. C. J. Montague, Sixty Years in Waifdom. 1904). He was deeply involved with the movement and utterly convinced of its role. His book is a popular work, largely anecdotal, offering a view of the history of the schools grounded in evangelical Protestantism. It would be unfair to expect from this source more than the author intended to give. He is an advocate defending his cause, not a scholar carefully sifting evidence. His portraits of leading members of the London Union lift the book out of history into hagiography.
However, as at present it is regarded as the basic text for a student wishing to investigate the ragged movement, important limitations have to be noted (20. Subsequent books covering in part the same area draw heavily on Montague. Others are mere compilations from selected Ragged School Union Magazines with additional pious comments. Reflection on the probable market for these books quickly shows why they neglect the more academic historical analysis. E.g. G. Holden Pike, Pity for the Perishing. 1884; H. Begbie, The Little That Is Good, n.d.; H. Redwood, Harvest. 1944; R. H. Sherard, Child Slaves of Britain. 1905; A London Rambler, Romance of the Streets, 1872).
It is an account of the London Ragged Schools and their Union and does not sketch the developments in the provinces. The assumption of later historians, that what occurred in the provinces was simply a pale reflection of the metropolitan situation and could be safely ignored, derives from Montague. He does not discuss the significance of political and social changes, preferring simply to report them. His historical locus in the London Ragged School Union and its Reports, Minutes and Publications affects his work in two ways.
It results in an emphasis which favours the central policy-making body at the expense of the thinking of individual schools and their supporters. It focuses attention on the internal politics of the Union and does not show the educational and social problems affecting the schools in any but the most general way. Even the account offered of the London Union is unsatisfactory.
The origins receive more attention than they warrant, unexplained gaps in the development of the Union occur, structure finance and organisation are virtually ignored and the welfare services springing from the schools are dealt with in a hasty manner. It is curious that Clark finds that ‘Montague’s is a lucid and systematic survey . . . written with the special insight of the life-long worker’ (21. E. A. G. Clark, ’The Ragged School Union and the Education of the London Poor in the Nineteenth Century’, M.A. (Ed.), University of London, 1967, p.9).
This writer’s view is that there is a grave imbalance of material and opinion which affects the book and that its oversimplifications have the effect of misstatements. The Ragged School Movement deserves a better book, one more scholarly and more discriminating in its use of sources and with a wider reference.
The thesis by K. Heasman (22. K.Heasman, ’The Influence of the Evangelicals Upon the Origins and Development of Voluntary Charitable Institutions in the Second Half of the Nineteenth Century’. Ph.D., University of London, 1960) has been published as a delightful book (23. K.Heasman, Evangelicals in Action. 1962). Both book and the unpublished work give an account of the ragged schools as part of the longer appraisal of the social work connected with the evangelical churchmen in the Victorian era.
Within the framework imposed by the nature of her study Mrs. Heasman is not required to consider the development of the schools, their educational policies, their responses to the policies of central government and the rise of the non-metropolitan institutions. The evidence she uses in confined to the records of the London Ragged School Union and its publications and she has chosen to present this in a descriptive manner.
The evangelical background of the ragged school movement is carefully drawn by W .H .Wright. (24. W. H. Wright, ’The Voluntary Principle in Education: The Contribution to English Education made by the Clapham Sect and Its Allies and the Continuance of the Evangelical Endeavour by Lord Shaftesbury’. University of Durham, 1964). Although nothing that he says about the schools themselves is new – it derives largely from J. Montague and E. Hodder – he effectively links Lord Shaftesbury with his predecessors, the Claphamites. He demonstrates with care and skill how Shaftesbury was to his generation what they were to theirs.
Two regional studies offer a picture of ragged schools outside London. The first, by R. G. Bloomer, is in two parts (25. R. G. Bloomer, ’The Ragged School Movement before 1870 with Special Reference to some Lancashire Ragged Schools’. M.Ed., University of Manchester, 1967). Part 1 gives the pattern propounded by Montague and reiterated in most other works. Part 2 is devoted to ’some Lancashire Schools’. In it six schools are selected for examination.
A chapter is devoted to each and simply consists of a description of high points in the school’s history and functioning. The value of the thesis is in its decision to look away from London. Its failure lies in its method. It would be unjust to label the work as a rather banal exercise in eclecticism. However, the descriptive approach needs to be based on an understanding of the significance of the model. It requires an appreciation of the relationships between models upon which evaluative comparisons may be built. This framework is missing and, although the fundamental questions have not been asked, they have not thereby disappeared.
The second study, by A. V. Parsons, throws new light on the relationship between the ragged schools and the Sunday schools and is valuable in that it locates the changes which the social class of the parents encouraged (26. A. V. Parsons, ‘Education in the Salford District, 1780 to 1870’. M.Ed., University of Manchester, 1963, Ch.2 and Appendix to Ch.4).
The only academic work on the London Ragged School Union is by E. A. G. Clark (27. A. E. G. Clark, ‘The Ragged School Union and the Education of the London ’Poor in the Nineteenth Century’. M.A. (Ed.), University of London, 1967). This is a major essay of considerable distinction but is not a definitive study. It is valuable in that he is the first historian of the movement to show a concern for the location and number of schools in London and to demonstrate the meaning of the statistics relating to the numbers of children and teachers.
The history of the London Union is depicted in broad terms from its Minutes and Reports and is a welcome correction to the views offered by Montague. The present study is in disagreement with Dr. Clark in many major matters of interpretation and emphasis, but this should not obscure the debt which all subsequent students owe him for his brave and scholarly attempt to chart this area for the first time. The weaknesses in his work spring from his heavy reliance on the central records of the London Union and are fivefold.
Firstly, many of his analyses need the modification or correction which a study of the records of the ragged schools would give. While it is true that the Ragged School Magazine, which he uses extensively, quotes from school reports sometimes at length, these quotations were selected because they were in concord with the official policy of the Union. Secondly, this concentration leads to the complete omission of a discussion of the organizational structure of the schools and, more importantly, of their finances.
This latter was the crucial problem for most schools throughout the period. Thirdly, his estimate of the origins of the Ragged Movement is narrowly based. The popular myth of John Pounds’ connection with the schools, which was widespread in London (and actually fostered by its Ragged School Union), needs some treatment. The relationship of Sunday schools to ragged schools is complex and needs arguing for, not simply stating. His estimate of the implications of the Scottish ragged industrial schools, and particularly the work of Sheriff Watson for English schools, is perfunctory.
Fourthly, it prevents him from giving a proper account of the role of the churches in the formation of the schools or an accurate estimate of importance of the voluntaryist philosophy to their supporters. Fifthly, it dissuades him from probing deeply some of the more important questions for they do not appear in the Union records as of especial importance. Thus he fails to make the connection between the social class of the parents of the ragged children and the pool of casual labour. And he is unable to discern the economic factors of organizational structure and rhythm of employment which made the destitute helpless to respond to the religious and moral imprecations of the middle classes.
Part 2: Sources for a Study of the Ragged School Movement and Areas for Further Investigation
Two sets of primary source material are available for a study of the Ragged School Movement. They are the documents relating to individual schools and the material available from the Ragged School Unions. Most of the ragged school annual reports have not been preserved. The ephemeral nature of the schools, their size and their financial difficulties prevented many from issuing annual reports and one doubts whether there was any need to formalise meetings by keeping a minute book.
It is a general rule that annual reports were given of the larger and better organized schools which had some formal subscription arrangements for their support. These required more financing and were obliged to account to their supporters. Few of the manuscript minute books of these larger schools have survived. Where they are available, complemented by annual reports, they offer an intimate picture of the children, the teachers, the function of the school and financial minutiae as well as a detailed discussion of political and social problems.
Material exists in manuscript and printed form for Norwich, Upper Tottenham, Huddersfield, Chester and Stockport Ragged Schools. For Stockport Ragged and Industrial School the complete Minutes and Reports, Logbooks, Visitors’ Book and Inspection Reports are available, together with a wide variety of other related papers. None of this has been previously investigated and is of sufficient value to form a major study.
There are primary sources for ragged schools in Bradford, Bath, Brighton, Birmingham, Cambridge, Chester, Cheltenham, Croydon, Gloucester, Gravesend, Halifax, Huddersfield, Newcastle, Leeds, London, Liverpool, Manchester, Oxford, Sheffield and Salford. Consecutive reports over a period of ten years offer a valuable picture of schools’ problems and successes, but even single ones can be of use, particularly if they happen to include the foundation report. Little of this material has been used before, except as part of a larger study of provision for education in a specified area.
The documents to hand in Manchester, Huddersfield, Chester and Leeds deserve scholarly appraisal in individual studies and offer a picture of an aspect of educational history which has been largely neglected. Reports of the ragged industrial schools in Scotland are available and are essential to an appraisal of the development of the English schools. Accounts of the establishment and growth of the schools in Dundee, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Glasgow, Greenock, Penicuik (Midlothian), Angus, Kilmarnock, Paisley and Kirkcudbright exist.
A substantial study of the schools of industry (commencing with the attempt of the S.P.C.K. to establish industrial work in the charity schools) which analysed the ideal of labour in the ragged, industrial and reformatory schools would be helpful in recording the practice and philosophy of a popular notion which seemed incapable of success.
The second set of primary source material derives from the Ragged School Unions. There were three which functioned with any efficiency and which can be traced: the Manchester and Salford, the Liverpool and the London Unions. A single report of the Liverpool Union survives. Slight though the document is, its value is that it gives a list of the schools in association with the Union and details of their finances and modes of operation. The Manchester and Salford Union has better records which can be complemented by a large number of individual schools’ reports.
This Union’s work was closely tied to that of the Sunday schools, and the mass of archival material on the Sunday school movement in Manchester – and, incidentally, nationally – deserves the attention of educational historians . Earlier studies by clergymen, superintendents and teachers who usually taught in them have failed to root the movement in its social and economic context. A modern study is lacking and needed (28. P.Sangster, Pity My Simplicity. 1965, is too partial and limited to fulfil this need).
The reports and minute books of the London Union are complete. The Shaftesbury Society holds with them complete runs of the various magazines and journals issued during the life of the Union. Although these were originally intended for the use of the London schools, they became national publications in evangelical circles and were also used in most of the larger non-metropolitan ragged schools.
The very richness of this source can lead to neglect of the study of the reports of the schools in London. However, for three reasons the Unions’ views need to be balanced against those of the managers and supporters of individual institutions. Firstly, not all of the ragged schools in London, Liverpool or Manchester were members of the Unions. Secondly, although all schools had a set of common problems centering around finance, personnel, welfare and buildings, many had unique difficulties associated with their locality.
And, thirdly, minutes of schools, where they are available, and annual reports, show that management committees regarded themselves as autonomous and acted appropriately. The unions had supporting and advisory roles, but schools were not afraid to move independently. The Shaftesbury Society has not had a historian to chart its growth and analyse the changes which have resulted in its assuming its present role. It deserves better than The Shaftesbury Story (29. R. Bennett, The Shaftesbury Story, 1965), virtually no more than a publicity pamphlet, and H. Redwood’s tale which is unctuous in manner and uncritical in analysis (30. H. Redwood, Harvest. 1944).
Similarly the fine records of the London City Mission, within which ragged schools were nurtured, remain unexplored in the British Museum. The story of the city missions in the nineteenth century is much more than a footnote to theological fundamentalism and rigid Protestantism. They also played a significant role in social and welfare work among the lower classes which has been neither recorded nor appreciated.
Other material on the schools requires a search of the files of nineteenth century newspapers. Most areas recorded in their papers the foundation of the larger ragged schools and usually gave some prominence to the annual reports. The topic occasionally arose in the editorial columns when the problems of crime among juveniles, the destitution of children, neglectful parents and the immorality of the lower classes were discussed.
School Board Minutes record the inspection of ragged schools for their suitability or otherwise as board schools. They are usually included in a Board’s survey of the existing educational provision in a particular area. They are valuable in indicating the numbers of ragged schools functioning beyond 1870 and in recording any subsequent change of status.
The newspapers and School Board material show the necessity for looking carefully at the whole background within which the ragged schools functioned. Local economic factors like the closure of a mill or a factory, the failure of a crop or a business, the upheaval created by a new technology, all affected the population of the schools, their physical condition and their length of stay. They affected donations and subscriptions from supporters and could throw schools into a crisis.
They also showed the willingness or otherwise of the very wealthy to make benefactions or take responsibility for children’s education by feeding and clothing them. The siting of a school was important and the street maps of major towns in the period 1840-1870 are informative about the areas within which the schools were situated and the industries located there. The gap in terms of physical location between the city centre slums and the wealthy outer areas is very marked and one of the ways in which it showed itself was in the likelihood of serious epidemics of diseases among the ragged children and their parents rather than among the wealthier groups. Sanitation, hygiene, quality of food, quality of housing, street cleanliness and lighting are relevant here. This is all work for the local historian.
Part 3: Aims of the Present Study
The present study attempts to achieve four ends. Firstly, it tries to construct a picture of the emergence and growth of ragged schools in England. This has not been previously attempted. In doing so, some attention has been given to the origins of the schools which have long been a matter of myth or uncritical speculation. The national pattern in terms of numbers of schools, numbers of pupils on roll, the time during which they functioned has not been drawn.
It is impossible to ascertain accurately for three reasons: the ephemeral nature of many of the schools, some of which functioned for only a few months with a single teacher and half-a-dozen children; the lack of clarity as to what to include under the heading ’ragged school* — they range from large industrial ragged schools in receipt of government grants to small classes operating on only one evening a week as an extension of the Sunday school system; the lack of complete archival material and documentation. Despite the problems the effort to sketch the growth of the movement nationally is worth making. The gaps and uncertainties are inevitable but it is no bad thing for the historian to content himself with small truths rather than large lies. This comprises Part 1.
Secondly, it tries to show the patterns of ragged school education, organization and financing against the background of the children and parents whom the institutions served. Material from widely varied sources and representing different stages in the development of the movement has been utilised. This enables clear models to be constructed and the significant variations to be understood. The material has not been used for any similar study at this breadth. This comprises Part 2.
Thirdly, it attempts a case study of a school with good records. This enables a school to be studied in its proper context and with a detail which any other method would preclude. The existing school histories are few and without merit (31. E.g. H. Liddell, A Brief Account of the Hull Ragged and Industrial Schools, 1856; Field Lane Institution, The Field Lane Story, 1961. Schools, 1856; Field Lane Institution. The Field Lane Story. 1961). Yet these schools are rewarding to the historian of education. For even in the histories of single schools the religious pressures, political decisions, the social and economic conditions with the localities are evident. It is fascinating to relate these to the national picture. This comprises Section 3.
Fourthly, it offers an estimate of the significance of the Ragged School Movement to nineteenth century educational history. This comprises the concluding chapter.
In attempting to achieve these aims the policy has been to adhere closely to the primary materials offered to the student. There is a sense in which this topic links with many others of major importance in Victorian England. However, the eschewing of prolonged discussion of matters to which others have contributed major studies or about which controversy still rages has enabled a deeper and wider study of the schools.
For example, there is little in this essay about the homes of the ragged children and the issues of housing, rents and wages in the middle of the last century. There is little about the health of the children and the issues of nutrition, disease and sanitation. Behind this policy has been the awareness of balance in the essay. I have preferred to tackle some of the under-explored areas about which little has been written rather than browse over the more exposed and close-bitten pasture.
H.C.Barnard, A History of English Education. 1961 (2nd Revised Edition)
W.H.G.Armytage, Four Kindred Years of English Education. 1965
M.Sturt, The Education of the People. 1967
G.Sutherland, Elementary Education in the Nineteenth Century. 1971
D.Wardle, English Popular Education. 1970
F.Smith, A History of English Elementary Education, 1760-1902. 1931, pp.201-203
S.J.Curtis, History of Education in Great Britain. 1957, pp.219, 532-3
0.Chadwick, The Victorian Church. Vol.2, 1970, p.307.
D.Bowden, The Idea of the Victorian Church. 1970.
J.L. and B.Hammond, Lord Shaftesbury. 1923.
J. Wesley Bready, Lord Shaftesbury and Socio-Industrial Progress. 1926.
E.Hodder, The Life and Work of the Earl of Shaftesbury. 3 Vols., 1886.
J.Glyde, The Moral, Social and Religious Condition of Ipswich in the Middle of the Nineteenth Century. 1850, pp.124-127.
T.Britain, Manchester Industrial Schools. 1884
D.Wardle, Education and Society in Nineteenth Century Nottingham. 1971, pp.49, 52, 77-9.
H.W.Gwilliam, The Provision of Education for the Poor in the City of Worcester during the 18th and 19th Centuries. Diploma in Education, University of Birmingham, 1966.
H.E.Walsh, An Outline of the History of Education in Bradford before 1870. M.Ed., University of Leeds, 1936.
W.C.Darwell, A History of Elementary Education in Huddersfield from 1780 to 1902. M.Ed., University of Leeds, 1951.
C.J.Montague, Sixty Years in Waifdom. 1904.
Subsequent books covering in part the same area draw heavily on Montague. Others are mere compilations from selected Ragged School Union Magazines with additional pious comments. Reflection on the probable market for these books quickly shows why they neglect the more academic historical analysis. E.g. G.Holden Pike, Pity for the Perishing. 1884; H.Begbie, The Little That Is Good, n.d.; H.Redwood, Harvest. 1944; R.H.Sherard, Child Slaves of Britain. 1905; A London Rambler, Romance of the Streets, 1872.
E.A.G.Clark, ’The Ragged School Union and the Education of the London Poor in the Nineteenth Century’, M.A. (Ed.), University of London, 1967, p.9.
K.Heasman, ’The Influence of the Evangelicals Upon the Origins and Development of Voluntary Charitable Institutions in the Second Half of the Nineteenth Century’. Ph.D., University of London, 1960.
K.Heasman, Evangelicals in Action. 1962.
W.H.Wright, ’The Voluntary Principle in Education: The Contribution to English Education made by the Clapham Sect and Its Allies and the Continuance of the Evangelical Endeavour by Lord-Shaftesbury ’. University of Durham, 1964.
R.G.Bloomer, ’The Ragged School Movement before 1870 with Special Reference to some Lancashire Ragged Schools’. M.Ed., University of Manchester, 1967.
A.V.Parsons, ‘Education in the Salford District, 1780 to 1870’. M.Ed.,
University of Manchester, 1963, Ch.2 and Appendix to Ch.4.1967.
A.E.G.Clark, ‘The Ragged School Union and the Education of the London ’Poor in the Nineteenth Century*. M.A. (Ed.), University of London, 1967
P.Sangster, Pity My Simplicity. 1965, is too partial and limited to fulfil this need.
R.Bennett, The Shaftesbury Story, 1965.
H.Redwood, Harvest. 1944.
E.g. H. Liddell, A Brief Account of the Hull Ragged and Industrial Schools, 1856; Field Lane Institution, The Field Lane Story, 1961. Schools, 1856; Field Lane Institution. The Field Lane Story. 1961.