The fact that Mary Mears was never married, but did have at least seven children (most, if not all of them by different men) may be regarded as immoral or even disgraceful by early 21st century standards.  It should be remembered however, that Mary was living under extremely difficult circumstances at a time when life was very different than it is today.  We cannot judge people or events of the past by the morals and ideals of the present.  Mary was only doing what was necessary for her to be able to survive.  In the early 19th century a woman without a husband would have found it very difficult to earn enough money on which to live and this would have been almost impossible if that woman also had children to look after and raise.  It is a great tribute to Mary Mears that she not only managed to raise her children, she also managed to keep herself and all her children out of the workhouse.  People were prepared to do almost anything to avoid such a fate and most mothers would fight to the bitter end to protect their children, no matter what it took.   If that meant selling themselves to make some extra money then that is what they would do, even though this was usually not enough.  Without any doubt Mary Mears is a woman who should be admired for succeeding where so many others failed.  Mary was living at a time when (from the early Georgian ear to the early Victorian age) prostitution was very much approved of in England and one out of every eight woman in the country became prostitutes at some time during their lives.  Known as the oldest profession in the world it was approved of by gentlemen, lords, clergymen and royalty alike.  It was not until the mid 19th century that prudish Victorian values took over and prostitution started to be looked upon with disgust.  This way of thinking has continued right through to the end of the 20th and into the beginning of the 21st century.  But anyone who traces their ancestry back eight generations will have 255 direct female ancestors – unless some cross family breeding has taken place, and of those 255 females (dating from about the late 18th century) the chances are that about 30 would have been prostitutes at some time during their lives.  It was not uncommon for girls of 11 or 12 years of age to take up this profession and many women continued well into their forties or fifties.  It would be virtually impossible for anyone in this country to trace their family history back to the time of George I, and not find at least some prostitutes in their direct female line.   

The wages paid to a woman in the 19th century was rarely much more than half the amount paid to a man for the same work.  This meant that Mary Mears was living very near the poverty line and she had to work very long and hard to avoid becoming destitute.  As an example of just how poor she was there is an entry in the records for charity payments by Blacker and Wherrets Charities dated 24th June 1838 listing a payment of 4 shillings and tuppence to Mary Mears for shoes.  Very few charity payments were made to the same individual, because those needing regular charity payments in order to survive were considered to be destitute and sent to the workhouse.  Exactly what type of work Mary was doing during her early life isn’t known but the earliest record so far found relating to Mary Mears and giving her occupation is in 1824 when she was 26 years old.  This is a baptism record for one of her children and it tells us that Mary’s occupation was laundress.  The next record of an occupation for Mary appears in the 1841 census where she is listed as a labourer, and this would have been an agricultural labourer.  This same occupation appears in the baptism records of her children Marianne and George in 1847.  At the time of the 1851 census she was once again a laundress, and both the 1861 and 1871 censuses give her occupation as “formerly laundress.”  The 1871 census also records that two of Mary’s daughter-in-laws, Elizabeth the wife of James and Ann the wife of John, were also laundresses at that time, so this work seems to have been something of a family occupation in the 1860’s and 70’s. 

Agricultural Labours 

The 1851 census shows that Mary was living in Crox Bottom, Binegar with her 16-year-old son Robert, 13-year-old daughter Mary Ann and her 7-year-old son George.  The birthplaces of Mary, Robert and Mary Ann are recorded as Chilcompton and George as Binegar.  Mary’s other children – John, William, James and Ann were all married before the 1851 census was taken and were no longer living with her.  All the census records from 1851 to 1891 tell us that Mary and her first six children were all born in Chilcompton.  Only her seventh child (George who was born in 1844) was born in Binegar, and this shows that Mary moved from Chilcompton to her house in Crocks Bottom sometime between 1841 and 1844.  This is where her grandson Charles was born in 1849.  Living in the cottage next to Mary was her daughter Ann together with her husband Isaac Targett.  By 1861 Mary had retired from work and was living with her brother and his wife in Downside.  In 1871 Mary was living alone at Windsor Cottage, Chilcompton.

The earliest record so far found mentioning Mary Mears is that of the baptism of her son William that took place in Chilcompton in 1822.  The next record in which Mary’s name appears is the Shepton Mallet record of baptisms dated 14th October 1824.  This was a baptism of her son James and although Mary had James baptised in May 1827 in her home parish of Chilcompton, it was not unusual for some parents to have their children baptised twice.  Two baptisms for the same child sometimes took place only days apart in different parishes, one being the parish of the mother, and one being the parish of the father.  There does however seem to have been a very particular reason why Mary Mears had her son James baptised twice, the first time in a parish many miles away from where she was living.  The first column on the page of this baptism record gives the date of the baptisms and also the date of birth of the child.  It is from this record that we know that James was born on 26th December 1823.  The record continues as follows.  Childs Christian name James son of – parents name Mary Mears – abode Bridewell – quality, trade or profession laundress.  The final column in this baptism record is for the signature of the person by whom the ceremony was performed. The name is illegible but beneath the signature is written Chaplain to the Bridewell.  Exactly what Mary was doing in the Shepton Mallet Bridewell in 1824 isn’t  known  because  all the records for several years before and after 1824 are missing.  All we know is that Bridewells were prisons for those who had only committed petty crimes such as stealing a loaf of bread to feed the family or non-payment of a debt such as rent.  Whatever Mary’s crime may have been it would not have been a serious crime and her sentence would probably have been between three and six months.

Shepton Mallet Prison

 In 1824 Mary already had three children, John who was about 4 years old, William who was 3 years old and James who (at the time of the baptism) was only 9½ months old.  John and William would therefore have been old enough to be looked after by a friend or relative while Mary was in prison.  James however would have been too young to leave Mary, and his mother was possibly still nursing him.  This is probably the reason why Mary took her baby into prison with her.  That of course would have been an extremely bad place for a woman to take her baby for the conditions in those early prisons were usually much worse, even than the atrocious conditions of the workhouses.  The adult male prisoners were put together into one large cell while the women and children were put into another, although the conditions were much the same for both sexes.  There was virtually no sanitation and the buildings were rat infested and lousy with fleas, lice and cockroaches. For Mary to have her baby baptised whilst in the Shepton Mallet Bridewell indicates that he was probably becoming ill because of the terrible conditions, and perhaps Mary thought that her baby might die before she was released.  The winter was approaching and the cells would have been starting to get very cold and damp, but as bad as these conditions must have been, Mary obviously looked after her baby well enough.  James survived this ordeal and Mary had him re-baptised in her home parish of Chilcompton 3 years later.

Next