In her new book, Samantha Williams analyzes unwed motherhood in eighteenth-century London largely through the lens of the poor law. By focusing on provision, she contributes to studies of both illegitimacy and poverty, and her time frame allows her to chart the transition from the old poor law to the implementation of the new (1834). She relies on a wide variety of sources, including records of lying-in hospitals, the Foundling Hospital archives, and poor-law establishments in Chelsea, Westminster, Southwark, and Lambeth. The study is grounded in specific locales of varying size and levels of illegitimacy, which is both a strength and a weakness. Her arguments rest on solid evidence, but often the different areas contrast sharply with each other, making firm conclusions elusive.

Williams's approach is thematic. The first two chapters, on shame and pregnancy and childbirth, support narratives already suggested by previous studies. Attitudes about bastardy were negative, partly from moral disapproval and partly from the expense of “fatherless” children. Still, shame was less prevalent during the late eighteenth century than it was before or after, though Williams's evidence indicates that the change was too subtle to amount to a “sexual revolution” (66). The theme of shame was also more prominent with religious and secular authorities than with the mothers themselves, and it was heavily gendered. Despite this, local poor-law guardians remained in favor of holding fathers accountable, in contrast to New Poor Law and its supporters. In other words, the view of illegitimacy as a result of specifically women's behavior was relatively recent and unevenly accepted in 1834. Similarly, Williams's discussion of courtship, sexuality, and pregnancy will not surprise most historians of these subjects. She argues that illegitimacy was the result of courtship failure, particularly in London, though a persistent minority of couples had no wedding plans when they had intercourse. She thus sees the increase in illegitimacy as resulting from both the unstable labor market in London (and its large number of servants) and the freer sexual regime in the capital. Agreeing with Laura Gowing, Williams argues that single women's bodies were under constant scrutiny to avoid infanticide. Nevertheless, though birth in the workhouse or a lying-in hospital became more common over time, most unwed mothers still gave birth at home. Overall, the policy of the parish influenced poor women's decisions about where they had their children; this, too, points to the New Poor Law's break with tradition.

The two following chapters center on support for illegitimate children. The percentage of women giving birth in the workhouses varied from parish to parish but increased over time. Most arrived shortly before birth and stayed a month or two afterward. A frighteningly high number of infants were stillborn or dead within six weeks of birth until parishes began sending children to wet nurses. Given the heavier use of workhouses in London before 1834, the New Poor Law made less of a change in the metropolis than it did in many areas in Britain, but outdoor relief did lessen significantly. These policies forced unwed mothers into workhouses and stigmatized workhouse births. Women's stays in workhouses were also shorter after 1834; they arrived later and left more quickly. Under the old poor law, poor-law guardians attempted to extract support from putative fathers, though this was less in London than in other places. The north of England had a much higher success rate (83 percent) in getting support than did the south (41 percent), but this varied widely, again, sometimes parish to parish. The amounts recovered were usually small, except in the parish of Saint George the Martyr, which had a larger number of well-born putative fathers. Most of the fathers were of a similar class to their lovers and thus had few extra pence to spare. The New Poor Law's abrupt ending to most affiliation suits was, then, a significant contrast to the practices of the old poor law, but it was less so in London than elsewhere. Williams's examination of local parishes indicates that support for the New Poor Law's harsh bastardy clause was in part a result of the failure of local parishes to regain costs from putative fathers, combined with the higher level of illegitimacy in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century (and thus a much bigger expenditure of funds for the parishes).

The final chapter turns to the punishment for unwed parents. Williams sees a decline in punishments over time, both secular and religious. Those few mothers arrested had refused to name the father of the child, had deserted the child, or had made a false accusation of paternity. In many places, women faced more charges than did men, but the Westminster and Middlesex houses of correction reversed this trend, particularly with men who lacked sureties to support their children. Stays in the bridewells were generally short but were increasingly masculinized as unwed mothers were pitied rather than punished (unless they had multiple offenses). Overall, the punishments indicated that a gendered view of parenthood remained, married or unmarried: women cared for children, while men had financial responsibilities. The use of punishment for men in London was either a sign of the failure of the affiliation system or a contributing cause to its failure, as men fled rather than face time in prison. Williams argues for a “cautiously pessimistic” (236) view of the experience of unwed motherhood in London, one with limited agency, severe poverty, and a largely unsympathetic welfare system.

The research for this book is impressive, including numerous records of the poor laws, bridewells, lying-in hospitals, and the Foundling Hospital. Williams does an excellent job of comparing different source bases, such as when she uses both bastardy hearings and maintenance books to determine the experience of provision. She is also well versed in the large secondary literature. This has a down side; many chapters devolve into long discussions of the different views of historians without coming to firm conclusions. One thing this book proves beyond doubt is the wide variety of poor-law provision in London and across Britain both before and after the New Poor Law. Understanding the overall picture of unwed motherhood or poor-law provision will, then, take more research. This book is an important step in that road.