The Women of the British Army in America:
Part 2b - Sober, Industrious Women
The following article by Don N. Hagist, 22nd Regiment of Foot, appeared originally in the Brigade Dispatch (XXIV, No. 3, Summer 1993), a publication of the Brigade of the American Revolution and is reprinted here with his permission.
The Women of the British Army in America: A General Overview
Part 2a - Sober, Industrious WomenWomen as Nurses
One of the more obvious services that army wives might perform is that of nurse. This subject is so well covered by military writers of the period, that we need only look at their works to get a detailed picture of the nurse's duties.
An experienced, careful woman must be constantly employed to attend in the Regimental-hospital, as a Nurse, whose wages should be paid, either by the Surgeon when he has an + allowance for it, or from the savings of the sick Men's Pay; when neither of these will answer, it must be a charge in the Non-effective account: an orderly Man, or more if necessary, should be appointed daily from the Companies, in turn, to assist in the attendance of the sick.
+ An allowance is made to the Surgeon of each Regiment, on the Irish establishment of thirteen shillings and three-pence three farthings per month for a Nurse.(21)
Clearly, a nurse could earn a decent wage if paid directly by the regimental surgeon - slightly more per month, in fact, than a private soldier's base pay.
The Serjeant attending the infirmary must keep an exact account of the pay of each ward; see it properly expended by the nurse, according to the Doctor's directions; give receipts for coals, candles, and sheeting, and close the account every half week... No sick soldier can have his wife employed as one of the nurses; and if any of the nurses husbands are taken ill, such nurse must be dismissed, or her pay discontinued till the recovery of her husband; but married men of good character, who live near the infirmary, and who have careful wives, if they are taken ill, may be allowed to remain in their lodgings, at the discretion of the Surgeon.(22)
You [the regimental Surgeon] are to appoint a head nurse (and the others to be under her) and the greatest attention must be paid that she is of exceeding good character, sober, healthy, and experienced in her duty, and in every other respect qualified for the employment.(23)
You [the regimental Surgeon's Mate] are to visit the sick twice a-day, and, if necessity demands it, oftener, to see that the head nurse and nurses of the infirmary keep their wards clean; that they behave themselves soberly and orderly, and give all necessary attention to their patients; that their food is good and properly dressed, their pots, kettles, &c. free from copperas, lest they endanger the healths of the sick; you are to see that the food and medicines ordered consist of such only as were directed by the surgeon, or in his absence by you.
If any nurse should be found out of not having paid all due attendance to their patients and wards, and of keeping them as neat and clean as the nature of the distempers admit of; to give them their diet regularly; to be particularly careful to see them take their medicines as ordered them; to have their chamber-pots and close-stools early out of their wards, emptied and well washed before brought back again; or who shall connive at, or be present at any faults or irregularities, which any of their patients may have committed; or if they do not maintain good order and regularity throughout the infirmary; it is your duty to report the same to the surgeon, that they may be dealt with accordingly.(24)
Notice the emphasis on character and sobriety, always requirements of a woman who is to hold a job with the army.
The above extracts pertain to regimental hospitals, for which we would expect only one or a few nurses; on service in America, however, there were additional nursing opportunities in the general hospitals of the various garrisons. Orderly books are replete with entries such as the following:
A Discreet active Woman from each corps to be ordered to attend the sick of their respective Corps in the General hospital, where they are to be sent to morrow morning at six o'Clock, to prepare the rooms for the reception of the sick.(25)
It is again recommended to send a good nurse from each Regiment with the men, such as are encumbered with children, are by no means proper for that duty.(26)
Twenty Women from the 1st., 3d. and 4th. Brigades, and 71st, to be sent to Horne's Hook to-morrow morning at 8 o'Clock, to be Employed in the Hospitals.(27)
The 43d and 63d Regiments are immediately to send two Nurses each to the General Hospital.(28)
Two Nurses from each British Regiment in the Country to be sent to the General Hospital immediately.(29)
Such Corps as have not already sent a Woman as a Nurse to attend their Sick in Town are to order one there immediately.(30)
Similar orders, with a bit more emphasis, were given after major engagements. We find examples given after Bunker Hill:
The Regiments are to oblige two Women of each Corps to attend at the hospital immediately; the wounded being in the greatest want of assistance.(31)
The General requests the officers Commanding Corps will order sober careful women, to be sent to the General hospital, to take care of their wounded men, who are greatly suffering for want of proper attendance.
Two more women from each Corps to be sent as soon as possible to the General hospital.(32)
After Brandywine:
Four Women from each Brigade British to be sent to the General Hospital to attend the Wounded; Surgeons of the Hospital will dispose of them.(33)
After Guilford Courthouse:
All the Women of the army Except one a Compy to be Immediately sent after the Wounded men of the Army.(34)
From this assortment of orders, we find that the numbers of nurses demanded varied with the need; as we would expect, on campaign and soon after major engagements, more nurses were required. Notice that each regiment or brigade was required to provide the same number of nurses; either qualifications were not important, or ample qualified women were available. We have found no information, other than that published in popular military guides, to indicate how the nurses were selected from among the wives of the regiment. It is evident, however, that the women did not have a choice about this service:
Any women who may be wanted as nurses at the General hospital, or to do any other business for the service of the Garrison, and shall refuse to do it, will immediately be struck of[f] the provision list.(35)
Complaint having been made that Women decline serving in the Hospital Ships, The Commander in Chief determined not to allow any Woman to remain with the Army, that refuses to take a duty of this necessary Office.(36)
The various orders cited here do not give a clear picture of how many women from a given regiment were serving as nurses at any particular time. There are references to hospitals, general hospitals, hospital ships, and "sick in town." Additional research is required to determine how many of these places were operating simultaneously, and whether regiments provided one or two nurses altogether, or to each hospital location. All that can be concluded so far is that a few women from a regiment - maybe between one and six - could be expected to be working as nurses at any given time.
Women as Laundresses
The image of the washer woman camp follower is somewhat cliché, but evidence suggests that this may have been the most common occupation of regimental women who followed the army on campaign. An order given shortly before the war began suggests that washing was the only reason that women were to be with the army in the field:
Six women, wifes of men belonging to the detachment may be sent there [Marshfield, Massachusetts] at the same time the necessaries go, who will be employed in washing for the men, that they may be kept clean.(37)
Most of the orderly book references to laundresses that we found address restrictions on where they could work, to insure cleanliness and sanitation.
The Commanding Officer having observed some women washing in the Barracks, which must be prejudicial both to the Rooms & the mens health therefore it is his positive order that the women find some other place to do that Dirty work in, the Commanding Officer being Determined to Drum out of the Corps such as are Guilty of so shameful a practice.(38)
Commanding Officers of Corps are not to suffer their Women, on any account, to Wash in the Streams near the Watering Places.(39)
An order given when the British Army was at Halifax in 1776, partly on board transports and partly encamped ashore, persuades us that washing was best done away from the encampments, and certainly not on board ship:
The Commanding Officers to be answerable that proper People are sent on Shore at Dartmouth to Superintend the Women and others that may be left there to Wash, or for any other Purpose, who are to be accountable for all Depredations that may be Committed on the houses or Estates of the Inhabitants.(40)
An entry from an orderly book kept in England in the Summer of 1779 indicates that the "washerwomen" of each company were allowed one wood ration.(41) This gives a little insight into the requirements of this line of work.
The military publications that we reviewed made little mention of laundresses, except for the following extract. This passage sheds a little more light on the logistics of the job, clarifies that this was a paid occupation, and mentions one of the improprieties that could occur if finances were poorly managed:
As it often happens, that the women who wash for the Soldiers are not punctually paid, by which means, they are unable to provide that quantity of soap the linen must require, and thereby sooner rub it out, the Pay-Serjeants should be directed to stop for washing from those, who are so idle to neglect a punctual Payment, and every week clear off the Women, who, by this method, can have no excuse for not doing justice to the linen.(42)
Our research on the Brigade of Guards has turned up some tidbits about laundresses ("Women of the British Army: A General Overview - Part 2: Sober, Industrious Women." Brigade Dispatch, Vol. XXIV No. 4). None of the information is totally conclusive, but each fragment adds to the picture.
National Archives Microfilm Publication M922, "Orders, Returns, Morning Reports, and Accounts of British Troops, 1776-1781" contains all material concerning the composite battalion of Foot Guards serving in America. One of the items is "Lt. Colo. Sir John Wrottesleys Acctent. Book 1778." It is the pay book of the company and includes records for approximately 78 privates and 8 NCOs (approximately, since there were some who started out the year with the company but were captured, killed, died, deserted, etc. - the figures given here are those who were with the company most of the year). Of the privates, eleven had debits from their accounts "To Ms Foster for Washing." Another had debits for washing by three other women. All four washer women were married to men in the company, or at least appear to be, since the last names match up. The charges ranged from 2 shillings 1 pence, to 18 shillings 9 pence. Four of the men also had debits for stays in the Grand Hospital, but the others did not. This made me wonder whether men who could not do their own laundry utilized the laundresses. But many other men who had been the Grand Hospital had no debits against their accounts for washing. Does this mean they used a laundress out of the company, used no laundress, or paid cash? Possibly the laundry payments were managed in the manner prescribed by Cuthbertson, cited on page 15 of the Brigade Dispatch article - stoppages were made for those men "who are so idle to neglect a punctual Payment, and every week clear off the Women".
There are also a number of mentions of laundry and laundress in courts martial involving members of the Brigade of Guards (W. O. 71/84 p. 317-332, /87 p. 1-9, /88 p. 144-166, /91 p. 55-62). In one trial, Sarah Serjeant of the 1st Regiment of Guards, testified that "She got up at Gun firing, & felt a pair of Breeches by her Washing Tub". Other wording in the trial proceedings implies that the wash tub was actually in the camp, something we might not expect since washing was not allowed in barracks and was sometimes ordered to be done outside of the encampments. There is not enough information given to conclude where this woman's laundry tub was, or whether it was at this time in the location where it would normally be used.
In three other trials, soldiers testified that they were washing their own cloths. In one case, a soldier on trial for plundering a house testified
that he went to the house for soap, which he was told was to be sold there; that he had been washing with many other Soldiers just before and had thrown off his shirt and being unwilling to go into the house naked, he put on a Check shirt, which he found by the water side, which he thought might be his own, as he had brought a check shirt to the water side...
This soldier did wash his own shirts, but did not seem to have a way to identify this checked shirt as his own (it bears noting, though, that the checked shirt was one of the items allegedly stolen, so the soldier may have just been creating a alibi). At a trial held in New York in 1779, a witness deposed that "he went to the Barrack in Dock Street, to which the Prisoner belongs; in going into one of the lower Rooms, he there found the Prisoner Washing his Shirt..." These testimonies can be interpreted in several ways. Perhaps some soldiers did all of their own laundry. Perhaps soldiers routinely did their own washing, and only sometimes hired it out. Or maybe their was "light washing" which soldiers did themselves and could even do in the barracks, and "heavy washing" which was done by professional laundresses.
Another testimony does nothing to clarify the issue, and raises other questions; a soldier charged with desertion testified that
he went to the Waterside to wash his Trouzers... and on Serjeant Fouler finding fault with the Dirtiness of his Shirt, at Evening Roll calling, he got a clean one from his Washing Woman...
A second soldier at the same trial gave similar testimony, saying
his Shirt being dirty, he went to his Washing Woman's and got a Clean one; which he put on and put the dirty one into his Pocket with an intention to carry it to the Washing Woman...
This makes it sound as though a "washing woman" kept a stock of shirts, such that a soldier would bring in a dirty shirt and exchange it for a clean one; there is not enough evidence to be sure of this.
Women as Seamstresses
Our 20th-Century intuition would tell us to expect women to be employed in the making and altering of clothing for regiments. New regimental clothing had to be fitted after it was received by a regiment. In addition, British regiments in America often received cloth with which to make up campaign clothing such as leggings, overalls or trowsers, and linen breeches. When the amount of repairs required for a regiment on service is considered, it is clear that there was much sewing work to be done.
But tailoring was typically a male profession, and Britain's extensive textile industry provided many skilled tailors who had joined the army as soldiers. So certain was this, that extensive information about the duties of the tailors and the payments that they were to receive for their work can be found in orderly books and published military writings.
There were some cases where women could find employment in producing or altering clothing for their regiments. One such example is described by Simes:
No Serjeant employed to buy necessaries for the men shall receive any advantage thereby, except that of employing his wife to make up the linen; and even that shall be absolutely at the choice of the men for whom it is bought, who shall be present at the buying, and see the money paid...(43)
The necessaries, of course, consisted of shirts, stockings, and shoes, items which wore out frequently and were procured locally by companies when they were required. The company Captain was responsible for the procurement of these articles, but might delegate a Serjeant to actually locate and purchase them.(44) Apparently, a privilege associated with this responsibility was an opportunity for the Serjeant's wife to realize some extra income.
On occasion, women could be pressed into service to assist the tailors, when clothing had to be produced quickly. When the Brigade of Guards was in Charleston, South Carolina, in December of 1780, preparing to march into the country on campaign, the following Brigade orders were given:
the 1st Battn to be providd with Brown Trowsers, in order that the Brigade may be Uniform in this as well as the other part of their dress... The Taylors & Women of the whole Brigade to be Employ'd in Compleating the 1st Battn in Trowsers; a Return of whom will be given in for the Comds of the 1st Battn immediately.(45)
Another example which ties in with the nursing occupation is given in the journal of Thompson Forster, Surgeon to the General Hospital, while sailing with Clinton's first expedition to Charleston, South Carolina, in 1776. In March, while still on board ship, Thompson relates:
we employed all our women - soldiers wives intended for Nurses to the Hospital - in sewing four thousand Bandages which we two Surgeons made during that week.(46)
We see, then, that it was not typical for soldiers' wives to be employed making or repairing clothing, but there were occasional opportunities for this type of work.
Other Employment
There were other opportunities offered by the army for wives of soldiers to earn an income, albeit on a temporary basis. Two examples are given in the following orders:
If the soldiers wives chuse to go a Hay making Mr Fairbank will employ them.(47)
As there are many women in the different Corps, who understand making of hand turf, a list of their names to be given to the Barrack Mr General immediately, who will employ them, and pay them for their work. Any woman who is capable of doing this work, and shall refuse, will be struck off the provision list.(48)
Here we have another case where work was offered, but women were not given a choice of whether to participate. "Hand turf" was used for fuel.
There is also an example of an activity from which women were specifically excluded. The following note was included in orders given for fighting fires in Boston early in the war:
Women belonging to the Army will not be allowed to be present at any fire that may happen.(49)
It is not stated whether this was due to the nature or hazard of fire fighting, or as a precaution against plunder.
Occupations and Numbers
We have shown that there were many opportunities for "sober, industrious women" to earn a living with the army. This information improves our overall image of the situation of the soldier's wife, since we know that her husband's pay was not enough to subsist her, much less her family, even if a reasonable amount of food was provided by the army. What we do not have are examples of exactly how many women of a regiment were employed at any given time. The information presented above offers enough to do some general guesswork.
We have seen that it was typical for a regiment to have about 80 women, or eight per company, when on service in America, although actual numbers varied widely. When on campaign, a number of women were allowed to follow each company; we will use four as a typical figure, remembering that this number also varied widely. Our scant evidence suggests that the primary employment of these women was as laundresses. If we assume that these women worked as laundresses in garrison also, then we have about half of a regiment's women employed as laundresses.
We know that some women worked as sutlers; it appears that only one was allowed per regiment, while others were sometimes allowed to keep shops in the vicinity of encampments. We also see opportunities for women to be nurses, and occasional sewing work. All of these occupations might account for another 5 or 10 women in a typical situation.
This leaves move than a third of the women of a regiment with no steady employment from the army. Temporary opportunities occurred now and then, and certainly some wives were not "discreet active women," but we still must suppose that some army wives sought employment outside of the army. Continuing research may provide evidence of this, or at least uncover details about the proportion of regimental women who were actively employed.
Notes
21. Cuthbertson, Bennett. A System for the Compleat Interior Management and Èconomy of a Battalion of Infantry. Dublin, 1768, p. 42-43 (section titled, "Of the Treatment of the Sick, and management of a Regimental-Hospital.") The reference to the Irish Establishment is a reflection of the location of the first publication of Cuthbertson's work.
22. Simes, Thomas. A Military Guide for Young Officers, London, 1781, p. 212.
23. Simes, The Regulator, The Regulator, London, 1780, p. 80 (section titled, "Of the Surgeon, and his Duties").
24. Ibid., p. 70 (section titled, "Of the Surgeon's Mate, and his Duties").
25. General Orders, America, W. O. 36/1, Public Record Office, London. Entry for May 25, 1775.
26. Ibid., entry for June 2, 1775.
27. "General Sir William Howe's Orders." Collections of the New York Historical Society, 1883. Entry dated New York Island, October 10, 1776.
28. General Orders, Rhode Island. Op. cit. Entry for January 27, 1777.
29. Ibid., entry for February 10, 1777.
30. Ibid., entry dated Camp at German Town, September 28, 1777.
31. General Orders, America. Op. cit. Entry for June 18, 1775.
32. Ibid., entry for June 27, 1775.
33. "General Sir William Howe's Orders," op. cit. Entry dated Brandywine, September 12, 1777.
34. Orderly Book, Brigade of Guards, August 28, 1780 - March 20, 1781. Published as "A British Orderly Book, 1780-1781," A. R. Newsome, ed., The North Carolina Historical Review. Entry for March 17, 1781.
35. General Orders, America. Op. cit. Entry dated Boston, May 25, 1775.
36. "General Sir William Howe's Orders, 1776." Op. cit. Entry for October 15, 1776.
37. General Orders, America. Op. cit. Entry for January 27, 1775.
38. Orderly book, Marine garrison at Halifax, June - August, 1776, New York Public Library mss. Undated entry.
39. "General Sir William Howe's Orders", Op. cit. Entry dated Staten Island, July 2, 1777.
40. Ibid., entry for April 13, 1776.
41. Order books, W. O. 34/242-244, Amherst Papers, PRO. Entry dated London, June 5, 1779.
42. Cuthbertson, Bennet. Op. cit., p.21-22 (Section titled, "Of the Stoppages necessary to be made in a Regiment.")
43. Simes, Thomas. A Military Guide for Young Officers, op. cit., p. 197.
44. An example of this is given by an advertisement placed in the New York Gazette and Weekly Mercury on September 19, 1778; Serjeant Blackgrove of the 45th Regiment of Foot offered a reward for the return of 50 pair of white worsted stockings lost between New York city and Kingsbridge, where the regiment was encamped. Presumably Blackgrove had purchased the stockings in the city for his company.
45. Orderly Book, Brigade of Guards. Op. cit. Entry for December 15, 1780.
46. "Diary of Thompson Forster, Staff Surgeon to his Majesty's Detached Hospital in North America. October 19, 1775 - October 23, 1777. Transcribed in 1938 from the original in the possession of Robert Ethelstone Thompson Forster." Typescript provided by Gilbert Riddle, 2nd New Jersey Regiment.
47: Orderly book, Marine garrison at Halifax. Op. cit. Undated entry.
48. General Orders, America. Op. cit. Entry dated Boston, September 17, 1775.
49. Ibid. Entry for November 18, 1775.
Return to Canadian Resources
Return to Resource Center
The Genealogy Forum - Main Page
Beginners' Center | Internet Center | Message Boards
Surname Center | Reunion Center | File Library
Genealogy Forum News
Shop With Us
Genealogy Forum.com is a production of
Golden Gate Services, Inc. of Armada, Michigan.
© 1998 - 2006 All Rights Reserved. Brenda Jean Bova, President.
The Genealogy Forum is a member of the National Genealogical Society.
Tree logo provided by MeadPond Designs and is the trademark of GenealogyForum.com.© 2006 Some graphics By Carol, All Rights Reserved
If you have any questions or comments,
please contact GenealogyForum@aol.com
