Amos Chaplin

Amos Chaplin

b: ABT 1742
d: 1792
Fitzroy House North
Kentish Town
London


England
Alan Ray-Jones writes:

The snippets of information I have collected give the impression that Amos Chaplin was very much an early member of the English middle class, which has turned out to be of tremendous importance politically because it can be vocal when necessary in a way that the poor find impossible and, as it becomes more numerous and prosperous, a sturdy foundation for democracy and good government. I wonder how he met Maria von Stocken, and how it was that she came to the UK. The Society for Constitutional Information, of which he was a member, was set up at a time of great reforming interest (see "English Historical Documents Vol x 1714-1783 on the web). The members were all 'men of standing, some titled esquire'. It was established by Major John Cartwright in 1784 as part of the campaign for parliamentary reform, partly at least to increase the number of voters. It was re-established by Thomas Paine (of "Rights of Man" fame) in 1791, and worked with the London Corresponding Society, of which Olaudah Equiano, an African ex-slave was one of the founder members, along with many craftsmen who wanted more representation in parliament. The SCI attracted many ex-Wilkes-ites and craftsmen. Members called each other 'citizen' and adopted French fashions. But by 1793, following the French revolution, they were seen as traitors and French agents, and a threat to law and order. Most were peaceful, moderate reformers, who wanted universal (male) suffrage, secret ballots, and annual general elections.

His first child, Elizabeth, was born in 1760, and died in infancy. Of his children, Elizabeth, Mary, Sophia, Ann, Maria and Charles all died young, and only Sarah and Edward lived to have families of their own. His son Edward's children, born from 1796 onwards, also had a heavy death rate, but with his grandson John Clarke Chaplin, whose first child was born in 1837 (the year when the Birth Marriage and Death registers started), it all changed, for all John's children lived. Of course that was true only of the middle class.

From 'The Chaplin and Skinner Families' December 1902 (page 4):

>> Amos Chaplin carried on business at Bridge Street, Covent Garden, and lived at Kentish Town, where he bought some three or four acres of land and built his residence, Fitzroy House North.

On the 14th January, 1759, he married Maria von Stocken, whose father was Librarian to the King of Prussia. He was a keen politician, and took a considerable part in the Wilkes agitation, being himself a strong supporter of Wilkes.

He died in 1792, and on the 7th November in that year his will was proved by his widow (who had previously assumed the English name of Mary Anne), his son the Rev. Edward Chaplin and his daughter Sarah, afterwards Lady Holroyd.

Mrs. Mary Anne Chaplin died in 1799.

Of his eight children only these two grew up, namely:-

(1) Sarah, who was born on the 18th June, 1768, and on the 10th September, 1787, married George Sowley Holroyd, Barrister at Law, Grays Inn, who was on the 14th February, 1816, raised to the Bench and knighted.
(2) The Rev. Edward Chaplin <<


From Andi Smith, a Chaplin researcher, in 2005:

Name: Amos Chaplin
> Dates: 1776-1800
> Location: London
> Occupation: boot & shoe maker shoe making(m)
> Gender: Male
> Address(es): No.1, Brydges street, Covent garden, London
> Occupation:
>
> Occupation(s): boot & shoe maker, shoe making(m)
> Source Date: 1790
> Source Info:
>
> Listed in Third Edition of Andrews's London Directory, (for the year
> 1790),
> 1790, ANDREWS, J.. London
> Printed and sold by J. Andrews and Son, Printers in General, No. 10,
> Little-Eastcheap, near the Monument
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --

Name: Amos Chaplin
> Dates: 1776-1800
> Location: London
> Occupation: boot & shoe maker shoe making(m)
> Gender: Male
> Address(es): No.1, Brydges street, Covent garden, London
> Occupation:
>
> Occupation(s): boot & shoe maker, shoe making(m)
> Source Date: 1789
> Source Info: Listed in Andrews's New London Directory, (for the year 1789)
> ... [2nd edition], 1789, ANDREWS, J.. London
> Printed and sold by J. Andrews and Son, Printers in General, No. 10,
> Little-Eastcheap, near the Monument
___________________________________________________

Name: Amos Chaplin
> Dates: 1776-1800
> Location: London
> Occupation: boot & shoe maker shoe making(m)
> Gender: Male
> Address(es): Bridges street, Strand, London
> Occupation:
>
> Occupation(s): boot & shoe maker, shoe making(m)
> Source Date: 1785
> Source Info: Listed in Bailey's British Directory [for 1785]; or,
> Merchant's
> and Trader's Useful Companion, for the year 1785 ... In Four Volumes ...
> Volume 1. The Second Edition, 1785, BAILEY. London
> Printed for William Richardson, No. 91, Cornhill; And to be had of the
> Author, No. 53, Basinghall-street, and of the Booksellers in Town and
> Country
_______________________________________________________

> Name: Amos Chaplin
> Dates: 1776-1800
> Location: London
> Occupation: boot & shoe ware house shoe making(s)
> Gender: Male
> Address:
>
> Address(es): Bridges street, Covent garden, London
> Occupation:
>
> Occupation(s): boot & shoe ware house, shoe making(s)
> Source Date: 1784
> Source Info:
>
> Listed in Bailey's British Directory [for 1784]; or, Merchant's and
> Trader's
> Useful Companion for the year 1784 ... in 4 Volumes ... Volume 1. London;
> Volume 2 The Western Directory; Volume 3 The Northern Directory; Volume 4
> The Eastern Directory. The First Edition, 1784, BAILEY. London
> Printed by J. Andrews, Little Eastcheap, and to be had of the Author, No.
> 53, Basinghall-street; No. 4, Queen-street, Cheapside; Mr. Long, Optician,
> Royal Exchange, and of every Bookseller in Town and Country
______________________________________________________

Name: Amos Chaplin
> Dates: 1776-1800
> Gender: Male
> society/club membership:
>
> Societies/Clubs: Society for Constitutional Information, Member of
> Source Date: 1783
> Source Info: Appears in list of members Tracts published and distributed
> gratis by the Society for Constitutional Information, with a design to
> convey to the minds of the people a knowledge of their rights; principally
> those of representation. Volume the first., 1783. London
> Printed by W. Richardson, No 403, Strand, M DCC LXXXIII.


END
Brydges Street, from www.coventgarden.uk.com/catherine.html:

"Few streets in Covent Garden can rival Catherine Street for its elegant, workmanlike demeanour, it is much like Catherine of Braganza, after whom it is named: resolute and unprepossessing in an atmosphere of frenzy. This however has not always been the case: to quote the 1858 journal: ‘The night side of London’ by J. Ewing Ritchie: “Here in Catherine-street vice is a monster of hideous mien... there is a free-and-easy after the theatres are over, almost every house you come to is a public house or something worse. There is a lounge open all night for the entertainment of bullies and prostitutes, and pickpockets and thieves. Every stone is red with blood, you can almost hear the last dying shriek of virtue.” Fortunately it has changed...

Before the construction of Aldwych, Catherine Street connected Covent Garden and the Strand and was very much busier with traffic than it is today. By day market traders would ferry their produce to and from chefs and wholesalers, by evening carriages would transport theatregoers to see the stars of the stage and by night the bawd, the wench and the hussy would ply for the trade of the degenerate, the degraded and the drunkard. While these strumpets carried on their latch-key bastard children would menace the neighbourhood with their misbehaviour and thievery.

As it stands today Catherine Street is an amalgam of Brydges Street which was laid out in 1630, White Hart Inn, the grounds of Exeter House and an earlier Katherine Street. For 100 years the street has been in its present form and many of the institutions and businesses have a strange and marvellous tale to tell. The most famous building is probably the Theatre Royal which is the longest continually-used theatre in London, however the present (fourth) building only dates back to the reign of the Prince Regent. The first and third having been destroyed by fire; the second, a building designed by Christpher Wren, was demolished in 1791."
Tom Paine

The idea of "making poverty history" did not begin with Bob Geldof, Bono or the commitment of rich countries to disburse 0.7 of national income in development aid. It goes back to the time of the French and American revolutions towards the end of 18th century and to a transformation in outlook as momentous as that produced by the revolutions themselves. A small group of visionaries, the followers of Tom Paine in England and Antoine-Nicolas de Cond- orcet in France, ceased to regard poverty as a divine imposition on sinful human- ity. It was seen as remediable in princi- ple, since it was man-made in practice. What this political pamphleteer and aristocratic administrator depicted for the first time was a planned world in which the predictable misfortunes of life no longer plunged people into chronic poverty. This plan was not a Utopia. It was a template for a future reality; in the 20th century it came to be known as the welfare state. For centuries before the two revolutions, Christian polities had followed Christ's teaching as reported in St Matthew's Gospel. When a woman came to Christ in the house of Simon the Leper and poured a precious ointment over his head, the disciples objected to "this waste". But Christ responded: "Why trouble ye the woman for she hath wrought a good work upon me? For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always." The presence of the poor was inescapable. For the good Christian, poverty was not a condition to be remedied, but the spur to the exercise of charity. As for the poor themselves, they should accept their allotted rank with humility. But in the 18th century, opinions began to change. Large parts of Europe experienced prolonged internal peace and a quickening of trade and industry. For the first time observers could see an under- lying pattern to economic life. The afflic- tions of the lives of wage earners were clearly visible. For the first time, these afflictions were seen to form part of a pattern pre-existing the temperament or behaviour of particular individuals. Changes in the conditions of life not only generated a new confidence in progress, but also the growth of institutions designed to deal with the practicalities of managing the future. Life insurance dev- eloped, as did the provision for families of "the middling sort" against death or bankruptcy. All this depended in turn on mathematical progress, notably calculus developed by Newton and Leibniz, which allowed for actuarial calculations. These innovations were crucial in shaping the proposals of Condorcet and Paine for universal pensions and schooling, death duties and tax-based systems of social insurance. But it is doubtful whether the idea of a comprehensive system of social security would have been imagined but for the political needs and opportunities opened up by revolution. In the 1790s, almost everyone was poor. If critics mutter about the naive impracticality of making poverty history today, how much more fantastic would the idea have seemed then? But politics dictated otherwise. After the French king deserted the revolution in 1791, leading revolutionaries argued that France must become a republic like the fledgling US. Yet sceptics argued that a large modem republic was not possible in Europe, with its overpowerful feudal nobilities and its hordes of miserable poor. It was; therefore, to support the idea that an American-style republic was possible in Europe that Paine spelled out his proposals for abolishing want in ‘The Rights of Man’ of 1792, and Condorcet jotted down his ‘Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind’ while hiding from the forces of revolutionary terror in 1793. Against those who maintained that the gulf between rich and poor was an inesc- apable part of "civilisation", Condorcet argued that inequality was largely to be ascribed to "the present imperfections of the social art". "The final end of the social art" would be "the abolition of inequality . between nations" and "the progress of equality within each nation". Slavery would be abolished, colonies would become independent and there would be worldwide free trade. Asia and Africa would break free from "our trade mon- opolies, our treachery, our murderous contempt for men of another colour or creed, the insolence of our usurpations". Through a universal scheme of social insurance, such inequality could be "in great part eradicated". It was the applica- tion of such a scheme to England, in the shape of a detailed set of proposals to replace the poor rate by a tax-based sys- tem of universal insurance, that was set out in The Rights of Man. In two respects, the thoughts of the 1790s revolutionaries still seem ahead of the "make poverty his- tory" campaigners of today. First, they were committed not so much to aid as to the equalisation of the opportunities of rich and poor, nationally and internationally. Second, they were far more critical of the role of charity - or, in today's world, the place of NGOs. Appeals to relieve debt, alleviate famine and provide start-up resources reproduce on an international scale the approach of 19th-century Poor Law administrators and charity organisers at a national level. In terms of the abolition of poverty, the debate is stuck in a pre-1914 time warp. The Rights of Man was one of the best- sellers of the century; 250,000 copies were sold by 1793. The authorities took fright. In the winter of 1792-3, Paine was burnt in effigy in 300 or so towns and vil- lages in England and Wales. Particularly alarming was the spread of the notion that the poor should no longer be the grateful recipients of charity - that they had a right to social security. In France, where Condorcet’s ambition to eliminate poverty by education and a network of social provision was shared by many of France's new revolutionary legislators, legislative proposals remained stillborn, either pushed aside by the needs of war or made worthless by the headlong devaluation of the currency. By 1800 all thought of implementing such a scheme had been abandoned. And so it was that the idea of a welfare state as.the means to extinguish extreme poverty and economic insecurity was first adopted not by revolutionaries, but by Bismarck in Germany as part of an effort to keep a working-class movement at bay. Only as a result of two world wars and the need to promise a real end to the old world of the Poor Law did Britain at last adopt a set of proposals for the welfare state, outlined in the Beveridge report of 1942, finally building upon the arguments of Paine and Condorcet. In large parts of the industrial world, the vision of the revolutionaries has become a consensual reality; and even in the US, the Bush administration is finding it hard to dislodge the social-security system instituted by the New Deal. But in relation to the poorer countries of the world, Africa above all, thinking has barely yet accepted the ideas of Condorcet and Paine. It is to such a programme, transforming the recipients of charity and aid into empowered citizens, that the visionaries of today should be looking. For only a politics combined with justice - in other words, the building of a global social-democratic programme - can make poverty history.

Gareth Stedman Jones is the author of An End to Poverty? - A Historical Debate comment@@guardian.co.uk
Biography
Fitzroy House North
Kentish Town
London


England Alan Ray-Jones writes:

The snippets of information I have collected give the impression that Amos Chaplin was very much an early member of the English middle class, which has turned out to be of tremendous importance politically because it can be vocal when necessary in a way that the poor find impossible and, as it becomes more numerous and prosperous, a sturdy foundation for democracy and good government. I wonder how he met Maria von Stocken, and how it was that she came to the UK. The Society for Constitutional Information, of which he was a member, was set up at a time of great reforming interest (see "English Historical Documents Vol x 1714-1783 on the web). The members were all 'men of standing, some titled esquire'. It was established by Major John Cartwright in 1784 as part of the campaign for parliamentary reform, partly at least to increase the number of voters. It was re-established by Thomas Paine (of "Rights of Man" fame) in 1791, and worked with the London Corresponding Society, of which Olaudah Equiano, an African ex-slave was one of the founder members, along with many craftsmen who wanted more representation in parliament. The SCI attracted many ex-Wilkes-ites and craftsmen. Members called each other 'citizen' and adopted French fashions. But by 1793, following the French revolution, they were seen as traitors and French agents, and a threat to law and order. Most were peaceful, moderate reformers, who wanted universal (male) suffrage, secret ballots, and annual general elections.

His first child, Elizabeth, was born in 1760, and died in infancy. Of his children, Elizabeth, Mary, Sophia, Ann, Maria and Charles all died young, and only Sarah and Edward lived to have families of their own. His son Edward's children, born from 1796 onwards, also had a heavy death rate, but with his grandson John Clarke Chaplin, whose first child was born in 1837 (the year when the Birth Marriage and Death registers started), it all changed, for all John's children lived. Of course that was true only of the middle class.

From 'The Chaplin and Skinner Families' December 1902 (page 4):

>> Amos Chaplin carried on business at Bridge Street, Covent Garden, and lived at Kentish Town, where he bought some three or four acres of land and built his residence, Fitzroy House North.

On the 14th January, 1759, he married Maria von Stocken, whose father was Librarian to the King of Prussia. He was a keen politician, and took a considerable part in the Wilkes agitation, being himself a strong supporter of Wilkes.

He died in 1792, and on the 7th November in that year his will was proved by his widow (who had previously assumed the English name of Mary Anne), his son the Rev. Edward Chaplin and his daughter Sarah, afterwards Lady Holroyd.

Mrs. Mary Anne Chaplin died in 1799.

Of his eight children only these two grew up, namely:-

(1) Sarah, who was born on the 18th June, 1768, and on the 10th September, 1787, married George Sowley Holroyd, Barrister at Law, Grays Inn, who was on the 14th February, 1816, raised to the Bench and knighted.
(2) The Rev. Edward Chaplin <<


From Andi Smith, a Chaplin researcher, in 2005:

Name: Amos Chaplin
> Dates: 1776-1800
> Location: London
> Occupation: boot & shoe maker shoe making(m)
> Gender: Male
> Address(es): No.1, Brydges street, Covent garden, London
> Occupation:
>
> Occupation(s): boot & shoe maker, shoe making(m)
> Source Date: 1790
> Source Info:
>
> Listed in Third Edition of Andrews's London Directory, (for the year
> 1790),
> 1790, ANDREWS, J.. London
> Printed and sold by J. Andrews and Son, Printers in General, No. 10,
> Little-Eastcheap, near the Monument
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --

Name: Amos Chaplin
> Dates: 1776-1800
> Location: London
> Occupation: boot & shoe maker shoe making(m)
> Gender: Male
> Address(es): No.1, Brydges street, Covent garden, London
> Occupation:
>
> Occupation(s): boot & shoe maker, shoe making(m)
> Source Date: 1789
> Source Info: Listed in Andrews's New London Directory, (for the year 1789)
> ... [2nd edition], 1789, ANDREWS, J.. London
> Printed and sold by J. Andrews and Son, Printers in General, No. 10,
> Little-Eastcheap, near the Monument
___________________________________________________

Name: Amos Chaplin
> Dates: 1776-1800
> Location: London
> Occupation: boot & shoe maker shoe making(m)
> Gender: Male
> Address(es): Bridges street, Strand, London
> Occupation:
>
> Occupation(s): boot & shoe maker, shoe making(m)
> Source Date: 1785
> Source Info: Listed in Bailey's British Directory [for 1785]; or,
> Merchant's
> and Trader's Useful Companion, for the year 1785 ... In Four Volumes ...
> Volume 1. The Second Edition, 1785, BAILEY. London
> Printed for William Richardson, No. 91, Cornhill; And to be had of the
> Author, No. 53, Basinghall-street, and of the Booksellers in Town and
> Country
_______________________________________________________

> Name: Amos Chaplin
> Dates: 1776-1800
> Location: London
> Occupation: boot & shoe ware house shoe making(s)
> Gender: Male
> Address:
>
> Address(es): Bridges street, Covent garden, London
> Occupation:
>
> Occupation(s): boot & shoe ware house, shoe making(s)
> Source Date: 1784
> Source Info:
>
> Listed in Bailey's British Directory [for 1784]; or, Merchant's and
> Trader's
> Useful Companion for the year 1784 ... in 4 Volumes ... Volume 1. London;
> Volume 2 The Western Directory; Volume 3 The Northern Directory; Volume 4
> The Eastern Directory. The First Edition, 1784, BAILEY. London
> Printed by J. Andrews, Little Eastcheap, and to be had of the Author, No.
> 53, Basinghall-street; No. 4, Queen-street, Cheapside; Mr. Long, Optician,
> Royal Exchange, and of every Bookseller in Town and Country
______________________________________________________

Name: Amos Chaplin
> Dates: 1776-1800
> Gender: Male
> society/club membership:
>
> Societies/Clubs: Society for Constitutional Information, Member of
> Source Date: 1783
> Source Info: Appears in list of members Tracts published and distributed
> gratis by the Society for Constitutional Information, with a design to
> convey to the minds of the people a knowledge of their rights; principally
> those of representation. Volume the first., 1783. London
> Printed by W. Richardson, No 403, Strand, M DCC LXXXIII.


END Brydges Street, from www.coventgarden.uk.com/catherine.html:

"Few streets in Covent Garden can rival Catherine Street for its elegant, workmanlike demeanour, it is much like Catherine of Braganza, after whom it is named: resolute and unprepossessing in an atmosphere of frenzy. This however has not always been the case: to quote the 1858 journal: ‘The night side of London’ by J. Ewing Ritchie: “Here in Catherine-street vice is a monster of hideous mien... there is a free-and-easy after the theatres are over, almost every house you come to is a public house or something worse. There is a lounge open all night for the entertainment of bullies and prostitutes, and pickpockets and thieves. Every stone is red with blood, you can almost hear the last dying shriek of virtue.” Fortunately it has changed...

Before the construction of Aldwych, Catherine Street connected Covent Garden and the Strand and was very much busier with traffic than it is today. By day market traders would ferry their produce to and from chefs and wholesalers, by evening carriages would transport theatregoers to see the stars of the stage and by night the bawd, the wench and the hussy would ply for the trade of the degenerate, the degraded and the drunkard. While these strumpets carried on their latch-key bastard children would menace the neighbourhood with their misbehaviour and thievery.

As it stands today Catherine Street is an amalgam of Brydges Street which was laid out in 1630, White Hart Inn, the grounds of Exeter House and an earlier Katherine Street. For 100 years the street has been in its present form and many of the institutions and businesses have a strange and marvellous tale to tell. The most famous building is probably the Theatre Royal which is the longest continually-used theatre in London, however the present (fourth) building only dates back to the reign of the Prince Regent. The first and third having been destroyed by fire; the second, a building designed by Christpher Wren, was demolished in 1791." Tom Paine

The idea of "making poverty history" did not begin with Bob Geldof, Bono or the commitment of rich countries to disburse 0.7 of national income in development aid. It goes back to the time of the French and American revolutions towards the end of 18th century and to a transformation in outlook as momentous as that produced by the revolutions themselves. A small group of visionaries, the followers of Tom Paine in England and Antoine-Nicolas de Cond- orcet in France, ceased to regard poverty as a divine imposition on sinful human- ity. It was seen as remediable in princi- ple, since it was man-made in practice. What this political pamphleteer and aristocratic administrator depicted for the first time was a planned world in which the predictable misfortunes of life no longer plunged people into chronic poverty. This plan was not a Utopia. It was a template for a future reality; in the 20th century it came to be known as the welfare state. For centuries before the two revolutions, Christian polities had followed Christ's teaching as reported in St Matthew's Gospel. When a woman came to Christ in the house of Simon the Leper and poured a precious ointment over his head, the disciples objected to "this waste". But Christ responded: "Why trouble ye the woman for she hath wrought a good work upon me? For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always." The presence of the poor was inescapable. For the good Christian, poverty was not a condition to be remedied, but the spur to the exercise of charity. As for the poor themselves, they should accept their allotted rank with humility. But in the 18th century, opinions began to change. Large parts of Europe experienced prolonged internal peace and a quickening of trade and industry. For the first time observers could see an under- lying pattern to economic life. The afflic- tions of the lives of wage earners were clearly visible. For the first time, these afflictions were seen to form part of a pattern pre-existing the temperament or behaviour of particular individuals. Changes in the conditions of life not only generated a new confidence in progress, but also the growth of institutions designed to deal with the practicalities of managing the future. Life insurance dev- eloped, as did the provision for families of "the middling sort" against death or bankruptcy. All this depended in turn on mathematical progress, notably calculus developed by Newton and Leibniz, which allowed for actuarial calculations. These innovations were crucial in shaping the proposals of Condorcet and Paine for universal pensions and schooling, death duties and tax-based systems of social insurance. But it is doubtful whether the idea of a comprehensive system of social security would have been imagined but for the political needs and opportunities opened up by revolution. In the 1790s, almost everyone was poor. If critics mutter about the naive impracticality of making poverty history today, how much more fantastic would the idea have seemed then? But politics dictated otherwise. After the French king deserted the revolution in 1791, leading revolutionaries argued that France must become a republic like the fledgling US. Yet sceptics argued that a large modem republic was not possible in Europe, with its overpowerful feudal nobilities and its hordes of miserable poor. It was; therefore, to support the idea that an American-style republic was possible in Europe that Paine spelled out his proposals for abolishing want in ‘The Rights of Man’ of 1792, and Condorcet jotted down his ‘Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind’ while hiding from the forces of revolutionary terror in 1793. Against those who maintained that the gulf between rich and poor was an inesc- apable part of "civilisation", Condorcet argued that inequality was largely to be ascribed to "the present imperfections of the social art". "The final end of the social art" would be "the abolition of inequality . between nations" and "the progress of equality within each nation". Slavery would be abolished, colonies would become independent and there would be worldwide free trade. Asia and Africa would break free from "our trade mon- opolies, our treachery, our murderous contempt for men of another colour or creed, the insolence of our usurpations". Through a universal scheme of social insurance, such inequality could be "in great part eradicated". It was the applica- tion of such a scheme to England, in the shape of a detailed set of proposals to replace the poor rate by a tax-based sys- tem of universal insurance, that was set out in The Rights of Man. In two respects, the thoughts of the 1790s revolutionaries still seem ahead of the "make poverty his- tory" campaigners of today. First, they were committed not so much to aid as to the equalisation of the opportunities of rich and poor, nationally and internationally. Second, they were far more critical of the role of charity - or, in today's world, the place of NGOs. Appeals to relieve debt, alleviate famine and provide start-up resources reproduce on an international scale the approach of 19th-century Poor Law administrators and charity organisers at a national level. In terms of the abolition of poverty, the debate is stuck in a pre-1914 time warp. The Rights of Man was one of the best- sellers of the century; 250,000 copies were sold by 1793. The authorities took fright. In the winter of 1792-3, Paine was burnt in effigy in 300 or so towns and vil- lages in England and Wales. Particularly alarming was the spread of the notion that the poor should no longer be the grateful recipients of charity - that they had a right to social security. In France, where Condorcet’s ambition to eliminate poverty by education and a network of social provision was shared by many of France's new revolutionary legislators, legislative proposals remained stillborn, either pushed aside by the needs of war or made worthless by the headlong devaluation of the currency. By 1800 all thought of implementing such a scheme had been abandoned. And so it was that the idea of a welfare state as.the means to extinguish extreme poverty and economic insecurity was first adopted not by revolutionaries, but by Bismarck in Germany as part of an effort to keep a working-class movement at bay. Only as a result of two world wars and the need to promise a real end to the old world of the Poor Law did Britain at last adopt a set of proposals for the welfare state, outlined in the Beveridge report of 1942, finally building upon the arguments of Paine and Condorcet. In large parts of the industrial world, the vision of the revolutionaries has become a consensual reality; and even in the US, the Bush administration is finding it hard to dislodge the social-security system instituted by the New Deal. But in relation to the poorer countries of the world, Africa above all, thinking has barely yet accepted the ideas of Condorcet and Paine. It is to such a programme, transforming the recipients of charity and aid into empowered citizens, that the visionaries of today should be looking. For only a politics combined with justice - in other words, the building of a global social-democratic programme - can make poverty history.

Gareth Stedman Jones is the author of An End to Poverty? - A Historical Debate comment@@guardian.co.uk
Facts
  • ABT 1742 - Birth -
  • 1792 - Death -
  • 1783 - Societies -
  • FROM 1784 TO 1790 - Occupation - Boot & shoe ware house, shoe making ; Covent Garden, London
Ancestors
   
?
 
 
?
  
  
  
?
 
Amos Chaplin
ABT 1742 - 1792
  
 
  
?
 
 
?
  
  
  
?
 
Family Group Sheet - Child
PARENT (U) ?
Birth
Death
Father?
Mother?
PARENT (U) ?
Birth
Death
Father?
Mother?
CHILDREN
MAmos Chaplin
BirthABT 1742
Death1792
Marriage14 JAN 1759to Maria.A. von Stocken at St Clement Danes, Westminster, London, England
Family Group Sheet - Spouse
PARENT (M) Amos Chaplin
BirthABT 1742
Death1792
Marriage14 JAN 1759to Maria.A. von Stocken at St Clement Danes, Westminster, London, England
Father?
Mother?
PARENT (F) Maria.A. von Stocken
Birth
Death1799
Marriage14 JAN 1759to Amos Chaplin at St Clement Danes, Westminster, London, England
Father?
Mother?
CHILDREN
MEdward Chaplin , MA, Rev.
Birth7 JUL 1771Kentish Town, London
Death14 NOV 1858
Marriage10 SEP 1795to Margaret Clarke Theodorick at Edgefield in Norfolk, by Rev. Bransby Francis, Rector of Edgefield
FSarah Chaplin
Birth18 JUN 1768
Death11 NOV 1848Exmouth,Devon.
Marriage10 SEP 1787to George Sowley Holroyd , Kt.
FElizabeth Chaplin
Birth3 JAN 1760
DeathIn infancy
FMary Chaplin
Birth21 DEC 1761
Death1782
FSophia Chaplin
Birth21 OCT 1764
Deathinfancy
FAnn Chaplin
Birth24 JAN 1765
Death1786
FMaria Chaplin
Birth18 APR 1773
Deathyoung
MCharles Chaplin
Birth8 APR 1778
DeathIn infancy
Evidence
[S25250] International Genealogical Index (Ancestral File)
[S37957] Family book of Common Prayer
[S37943] Baileys's British Directory, 1784
Descendancy Chart
Amos Chaplin b: ABT 1742 d: 1792
Edward Chaplin , MA, Rev. b: 7 JUL 1771 d: 14 NOV 1858
Margaret Clarke Theodorick b: 4 JAN 1771 d: 29 NOV 1827
John Clarke Chaplin b: 25 AUG 1806 d: 2 JUN 1856
Matilda Adriana Ayrton b: 1 JUN 1813 d: 26 JAN 1899
Holroyd Chaplin b: 17 MAR 1840 d: 23 DEC 1917
Euphemia Isabella Skinner b: 7 JUN 1847 d: 10 SEP 1939
Irene Kate Chaplin b: 1 MAR 1873 d: 22 JUN 1962
John William Ernest Pearce b: 4 APR 1864 d: 25 JAN 1951
Edward Holroyd Pearce , Lord b: 9 FEB 1901 d: 27 NOV 1990
Erica Priestman b: 1906 d: DEC 1985
Richard Bruce Holroyd Pearce b: 12 MAY 1930 d: 1987
James Edward Holroyd Pearce b: 18 MAR 1934 d: 11 JUN 1985
Phyllis Margaret Pearce b: 8 FEB 1910 d: 6 JUN 1973
Edward Douglas Eade b: 7 FEB 1911 d: 24 DEC 1984
John Allan Chaplin Pearce b: 21 OCT 1912 d: 15 SEP 2006
Helen Nugent Pearce b: 22 NOV 1917 d: 6 APR 1920
Effie Irene Pearce b: 18 AUG 1899 d: 26 JAN 1996
Raymond Ray-Jones R.E., A.R.C.A. b: 31 AUG 1886 d: 26 FEB 1942
Holroyd Anthony Ray-Jones b: 7 JUN 1941 d: 13 MAR 1972
Allan Nugent Chaplin b: 8 JUN 1871 d: 1917
Son Chaplin b: 29 NOV 1900 d: ABT 29 NOV 1900
Matilda Effie Chaplin b: 20 JUN 1874 d: 20 DEC 1874
Phyllis Chaplin b: 7 JUN 1879 d: 27 JUL 1924
Philip Herbert Cowell b: 1870 d: 1949
Theodoric Chaplin b: 14 FEB 1881 d: 29 OCT 1906
Daphne Grace Chaplin b: 6 SEP 1884 d: 16 FEB 1964
Daphne Grace Chaplin b: 6 SEP 1884 d: 16 FEB 1964
Cecil Arbuthnot Gould b: 1883 d: 1917
Allan Chaplin , Col b: 20 JUN 1844 d: 19 AUG 1910
Maud Elizabeth Skinner b: 25 OCT 1844 d: 24 JUN 1904
Wyndham Allan Chaplin , Mus. Bac. Oxon., Rev b: 12 NOV 1872 d: 29 AUG 1914
Mabel Florance Ida Chaplin b: 7 OCT 1875 d: 1970
Charles Nugent Hope-Wallace b: 3 FEB 1877 d: 15 OCT 1953
Philip Hope-Wallace b: NOV 1911 d: 1979
Nina Mary Hope-Wallace b: 14 DEC 1905 d: 1995
Edward O'Bryen Hoare , Sir b: 29 APR 1898 d: 1969
Maud Dorothea Fanny Chaplin b: 23 JUL 1880 d: 6 NOV 1899
Louisa Sarah Chaplin b: 23 APR 1838 d: 9 JUL 1897
John Edwin Hilary Skinner b: 11 JAN 1839 d: 20 NOV 1894
John Allan Cleveland Skinner b: 19 SEP 1865 d: 8 SEP 1925
Hilary Francis Cleveland Skinner b: 10 OCT 1889 d: 25 JUL 1916
John Adrian Dudley Skinner b: 2 SEP 1891 d: 30 MAY 1965
Bruce Allan Maclean Skinner b: 29 AUG 1927 d: 2002
Caroline Louisa Marianne Skinner b: 22 FEB 1873 d: 20 JUN 1936
Roandeu Albert Henry Bickford-Smith b: 3 MAY 1859 d: 13 DEC 1916
William Nugent Venning Bickford-Smith b: 14 MAY 1892 d: 3 SEP 1975
Amy Evelyn Holme b: 6 SEP 1906 d: 21 JUL 1979
Leslie Evelyn Bickford-Smith b: 1928 d: 1990
Leonard James Jacob b: 1928 d: 1989
John Allan Bickford-Smith Capt RN b: 23 APR 1895 d: 8 MAY 1970
Joan Angel Allsebrook Simon b: 8 AUG 1901 d: 13 APR 1991
Norman Kennedy d: 1926
Aubrey Louis Bickford-Smith b: 4 FEB 1902 d: 9 JUL 1975
Roger Bickford-Smith b: 1939 d: 1997
Clifton Wyndham Hilary Skinner , R.F.A. b: 26 MAR 1880 d: 17 FEB 1908
Ayrton Chaplin , Rev b: 19 OCT 1842 d: 1930
Edith Elizabeth Pyne b: 28 SEP 1845 d: 1928
Ursula (Ulla) Chaplin , M.D. b: 30 NOV 1869 d: 1937
Adriana (Audrey) Chaplin b: 26 APR 1872 d: 15 DEC 1945
Ursula Joan Gregory b: 29 JUL 1896 d: 17 JUL 1959
Christopher John (Kit) Gregory b: 11 JUL 1900 d: 1977
Marion Eastty Black b: 3 MAY 1902 d: AUG 1998
Elizabeth Gregory b: 22 OCT 1933 d: 1938
Henry Ayrton Chaplin , L.R.C.P. & S. b: 21 AUG 1876 d: 2 JUL 1905
Matilda Charlotte Chaplin , M.D. b: 20 JUN 1846 d: 19 JUL 1883
William Edward Ayrton , F.R.S. F.R.S. b: 14 SEP 1847 d: 6 NOV 1908
Edith Chaplin Ayrton b: 1 OCT 1874 d: 5 MAY 1945
Israel Zangwill b: 21 JAN 1864 d: 1 AUG 1926
Oliver Louis Zangwill b: 29 OCT 1913 d: 12 OCT 1987
Joy Moult b: 1924 d: 2016
David Ayrton Zangwill b: FEB 1952 d: 1953
Ayrton Israel Zangwill b: 15 AUG 1906
James Edward Nugent b: 3 JAN 1833
Margaret Louisa Nugent d: JUL 1905
Philip O'Reilly d: 24 SEP 1912
Edward Amos Chaplin b: 20 DEC 1796 d: 19 APR 1851
Georgina Morland d: 21 SEP 1879
Edward Morland Chaplin , Rev b: 24 SEP 1830 d: 1 JUN 1877
Kathleen Anna Chaplin b: 26 NOV 1863
Iris Florence Sackville Baddeley b: 10 MAY 1902 d: 11 MAY 1902
Anna Edwina Chaplin b: 16 NOV 1866 d: 1884
George Frederick Chaplin b: JUL 1839 d: 21 JUN 1842
Ellen Georgina Blake b: 10 JUL 1867
Arthur Edward Blake b: 26 FEB 1874
Louisa Margaret Chaplin b: 3 APR 1810 d: 24 JAN 1846
Ann Chaplin b: 21 MAY 1811 d: 21 APR 1880
Edward James Feild b: 1852 d: 14 NOV 1891
John T Taylor d: 14 SEP 1908
Ellen (Nellie) Taylor b: ABT 1870
Sarah Chaplin b: 13 SEP 1813 d: 20 SEP 1855
Thomas Theodorick Chaplin b: 19 DEC 1798 d: 10 MAR 1817
George Frederick Chaplin b: 10 MAR 1800 d: 24 SEP 1821
Charles Tower Chaplin b: 26 AUG 1801 d: 8 SEP 1801
Henry Chaplin b: 23 MAR 1803 d: 20 NOV 1822
Mary Anne Chaplin b: 5 JUN 1804 d: 23 NOV 1808
Charles Chaplin b: 2 JUL 1805 d: 30 MAR 1810
William Warmoll Chaplin b: 4 FEB 1809 d: 2 MAR 1809
Sarah Chaplin b: 4 JUL 1812 d: 10 JUL 1812
Sarah Chaplin b: 18 JUN 1768 d: 11 NOV 1848
George Sowley Holroyd , Kt. b: 31 OCT 1758 d: 21 NOV 1831
Mary Anne Holroyd b: 31 DEC 1788 d: 14 MAY 1813
Charles Court b: ABT 1784 d: 9 SEP 1821
Daughter Court b: 1812 d: 1812
George Chaplin Holroyd b: 9 SEP 1790 d: 24 NOV 1871
Virginie de la Fontaine d: 1 AUG 1845
Mary Anne Holroyd b: 8 AUG 1829
Virginie Lucy Mills b: 15 MAY 1851
Mary Anne Mills b: 1 DEC 1852
Ada Mills b: 5 NOV 1856
Henry Holroyd Mills b: 20 SEP 1860
William Holroyd Mills b: 14 SEP 1862
Catherine Mills b: 26 SEP 1863
Agnes Mills b: 12 JAN 1870
Priscilla Mills b: 27 JAN 1872
Virginie Holroyd b: 29 JAN 1835
Mary Virginie Mills b: 7 JUL 1864
Katharine Mills b: 9 OCT 1869
George Holroyd b: 18 FEB 1819
Emily Garstin b: 1823
Emily Mary Anne Holroyd b: 10 JUL 1846 d: 16 JUL 1847
George Augustus Holroyd b: 29 NOV 1847 d: 1860
Emmeline Louisa Holroyd b: 22 AUG 1849
Kate Virginie Holroyd b: 15 DEC 1851
Georgiana Kate Martelli b: 14 NOV 1873
Emelyn Irene Martelli b: 26 DEC 1874
Kate Virginie Martelli b: 2 OCT 1877
Henry William Holroyd b: 26 MAR 1854 d: 1894
Florence May Holroyd b: 5 FEB 1861
Henry Holroyd b: 14 JUL 1820
Louisa Gordon Holroyd b: 13 JAN 1860
Mary Virginia Holroyd b: 25 JUN 1861
Henrietta Holroyd b: 10 MAY 1863
Charles Holroyd b: 16 OCT 1822
Mary Florence d: 31 AUG 1863
Anna Eliza Smith d: 7 JAN 1880
Patrick Charles Holroyd b: 4 JUN 1874
Norah Palmer Holroyd b: 30 JAN 1877
John Holroyd Doveton b: 20 DEC 1823
John George Holroyd Doveton b: 29 JUL 1848 d: 23 APR 1864
Mary Holroyd Doveton b: 16 SEP 1854 d: 21 SEP 1854
James Amand Holroyd Doveton b: 13 MAY 1856
Fanny Harrington d: 25 MAR 1874
Charles Holroyd b: 31 JAN 1792 d: 13 SEP 1830
Henry Amos Holroyd b: 24 MAY 1793 d: 23 FEB 1794
Edward Holroyd b: 24 JUL 1794 d: 29 JAN 1881
Sarah Louisa Holroyd b: 6 OCT 1821
Arthur Edward Margetts b: 25 DEC 1856 d: 25 AUG 1880
Caroline Edith Margetts b: 2 MAR 1859 d: 1884
Francis Edward Margetts b: 25 APR 1860 d: 1881
Amy Louisa Margetts b: 5 FEB 1862
Eleanor Charlotte Margetts b: 26 NOV 1863 d: 10 NOV 1880
Catherine Anna Margetts b: 26 NOV 1863 d: 10 NOV 1880
George Frederic Holroyd b: 6 MAY 1824 d: 15 SEP 1874
Charlotte Lavinia Johnson b: 1828 d: 29 NOV 1870
Gertrude Beryl Holroyd b: 26 JUL 1866
Brenda Holroyd b: 20 FEB 1868 d: 20 MAR 1868
Minna Holroyd b: 20 FEB 1868
Violette Holroyd b: 19 NOV 1870 d: 6 JAN 1871
Edward Dundas Holroyd , QC b: 25 JAN 1828 d: 5 JAN 1916
Catherine Compton Holroyd b: 1 FEB 1863
Ethel Hardman Holroyd b: 17 APR 1864
?
Arthur George Holroyd b: 15 MAY 1865
Spencer Edward Holroyd b: 2 MAR 1867
Sophie Marion Holroyd b: 4 SEP 1870
Arthur Holroyd b: 3 MAR 1833 d: 30 MAR 1835
Alice Marion Holroyd b: 11 AUG 1868 d: 2 MAY 1869
Geraldine Holroyd b: 21 AUG 1869
Lucy Beatrice Holroyd b: 3 JAN 1873
Caroline Holroyd b: 31 MAR 1838
Sarah Louisa Holroyd b: 4 JUL 1796 d: 11 JAN 1876
Frederick Court Holroyd b: 28 NOV 1797
Thomas Holroyd b: 23 MAR 1799 d: 27 NOV 1893
Sarah Morgan b: 1803 d: 29 JUN 1853
Sarah Morgan Holroyd b: ABT 1824
William Charles Chamberlain , RN b: 21 APR 1818 d: 27 FEB 1878
James John Holroyd , Rev b: 28 SEP 1800 d: 3 FEB 1876
Sophia Tyssen b: 1804 d: 5 JUL 1870
Sophia Baker Holroyd b: 27 JUN 1834 d: 15 DEC 1874
Sophie Catherine Street b: 27 JUL 1872
Louisa Mary Street b: 18 APR 1864
Charlotte Henrietta Holroyd b: 2 MAY 1836 d: 22 APR 1850
Tyssen Sowley Holroyd b: 11 JAN 1839
Mary Anne Jane Corbett b: ABT 1843
Mary Anne Thesiger Holroyd b: 24 FEB 1840 d: 11 MAY 1850
Louisa Boddicot Holroyd b: 14 MAR 1842
Charles Radcliffe b: 21 SEP 1864
Henry Radcliffe b: 30 MAR 1866
George Vaughan Radcliffe b: 6 JUN 1867 d: 7 SEP 1868
Marian Louisa Radcliffe b: 13 APR 1870
John Frederick Radcliffe b: 15 DEC 1871 d: 1882
Seymour Arthur Radcliffe b: 16 AUG 1873
Alfred Radcliffe b: 1879
George Ridley Holroyd b: 6 FEB 1844 d: 14 JUL 1850
John Henry Graham Holroyd b: 5 APR 1846
Ada Lilian Louisa Holroyd b: 6 JAN 1876
Helena Anna Mary Holroyd b: 7 MAR 1877
James William Holroyd b: 13 FEB 1848 d: 4 MAR 1848
Charles Whish Holroyd b: 13 FEB 1849
William James Holroyd b: 20 AUG 1802 d: 6 MAR 1803
Henry Holroyd b: 5 APR 1804 d: 29 SEP 1859
Lucy Franks b: ABT 1808 d: 29 SEP 1859
Elizabeth Holroyd b: 18 SEP 1832
Catherine Holroyd b: 8 DEC 1834 d: 9 OCT 1857
Henry Graham Tayler b: 8 NOV 1855
?
Lucy Sarah Holroyd b: 31 AUG 1837
Edward Grey , BCS b: ABT 1833
Catherine Lucy Grey b: 23 SEP 1864
Mary Elizabeth Grey b: 17 AUG 1865 d: 19 JAN 1866
Charles Edward Grey b: 16 DEC 1866
Ralph Henry Grey b: 30 NOV 1868
George Sowley Holroyd b: 23 DEC 1841 d: 7 SEP 1870
Sarah Maria Holroyd b: 26 MAY 1805 d: 3 AUG 1815
Charlotte Holroyd b: 8 SEP 1806 d: 30 JUN 1811
Frederick Holroyd b: 14 MAR 1810 d: 29 JUN 1811
Elizabeth Chaplin b: 3 JAN 1760
Mary Chaplin b: 21 DEC 1761 d: 1782
Sophia Chaplin b: 21 OCT 1764
Ann Chaplin b: 24 JAN 1765 d: 1786
Maria Chaplin b: 18 APR 1773
Charles Chaplin b: 8 APR 1778