Private Women and the Public Good: Charity and State Formation in Hamilton, Ontario, 1846–93 by Carmen J. Nielson (review)

Nielson’s Private Women and the Public Good is an effective reminder of the value of micro-histories. The book is a case study centring on a charitable institution founded in 1846 in Hamilton, Ontario, by 46 white middle-class Protestant women, which developed into one of the region’s most important social welfare institutions. The institution was formed in response to a demand for services (stemming largely from an influx of immigrants into the region) and because of ‘the cultural expectation that upstanding women of means would provide for the poor’ (p. 4). Focusing on the Ladies’ Benevolent Society (LBS) and the Hamilton Orphan Asylum (HOA), two distinct associations jointly administered by these women, Nielson reveals that nineteenth-century women’s charitable work was seen to be ‘private’ (as it was voluntary and feminine) yet was simultaneously fuelled by public funds, legitimised by law, and functioned to serve the ‘public’. This tension is explored amidst the public-private dichotomy shaped by gender ideologies which gave the public world to men and attempted to relegate women to the domestic sphere. Adding nuance to the historiography of this debate, Nielson presents a balanced view of the opportunities and boundaries these women faced in their charitable work. Although this work was politically important, Nielson argues that it was ultimately unable to overcome the public-private divide and therefore ‘the challenge that women’s charitable endeavours posed to the ideology of separate spheres has been overestimated’ (p. 3).

Relying on the charity’s lengthy and thorough records provides readers with a meticulous level of detail. Across seven chapters, Nielson contributes to four separate fields of historiography: female voluntary associationalism, the evolution of the liberal project of rule, state formation, and the history of childhood. The book’s first chapter provides an interesting history of Hamilton coupled with biographical information about the women behind the LBS/HOA. The next three chapters revolve around the LBS, chronicling the women’s efforts to legitimise its work, appeal to public opinion, and negotiate a working relationship with the city council. Chapters 5 through 7 examine the care provided to children by the HOA. Nielson’s discussions of the methods of care (institution, adoption, and apprenticeship) are particularly well crafted and begin to uncover nineteenth-century Canadian perspectives on child saving, a topic examined more frequently in the British and Australian contexts or through the lens of child immigration. Although it might have strayed from the focus on the women running LBS/HOA, including the children’s perspective or voice would have made an even greater contribution to the study of childhood and added a further dimension to the work. This omission, however, symptomatic of the methodological problems facing historians of childhood, could be the result of a void in the charity’s records. Overall, Nielson’s well-crafted study provides a unique lens through which to examine gender, the public-private spheres, and politics in nineteenth-century Canada.