I have come across an interesting reason one vicar gave as to why he entered some baptisms as 'private baptisms' in his register. It had never occurred to me that it might be because there was a lack of suitable Godparents (called sponsors here). The parish was St Mark's, Whitechapel, London. From> http://www.stgite. org.uk/media/registers2.html#stmarkregisters "A number of mid-19th century baptisms are marked as 'private'. A note pinned in the baptism register by Brooke Lambert (Vicar 1866-71) records this response he received from his predecessor D.J. Vaughan (incumbent 1856-60), dated 19 January 1869, to a query made to him about a particular baptism: Where no sponsors were forthcoming as was often the case - or no suitable ones - I often used the form of Private Baptism instead, being satisfied then as I am still, that it is the only reasonable course to adopt. I have no doubt in my mind that the boy in question was baptized in this way. Lambert adds The baptisms in Mr Vaughan's time were often marked 'P.B.' ".
Well that's blown all of my thoughts that the child was possible delicate & not expected to thrive. Particularly when it's the only baptism in a Family with several children. Perhaps tho' pennies were tight in the Family.
I've always understood that private baptisms were more of a cultural phenomenon. Apparently there wasn't actually a fee for performing a baptism (such as there was for marriages and burials) although the piece above does mention that the Baptism Fees Abolition Act 1872 was to prevent any person charging a fee*. In the case of an in extremis baptism Godparents would not have been necessary neither need it have been classed as a 'private baptism'. In any case such a baptism could be carried out by a baptised lay person if absolutely necessary. * http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/35-36/36
Some of the early Baptisms I transcribed mentioned payment made, or if none 'p' or poor was written next to the person's name. I was going to ask why they couldn't -as in marriages- pull in a witness or sponsor off the street or from the church wardens etc, then realised it was ofcourse Godparents they required. I also think it's possible not to have an abundance of such when every one already had plenty of their own children to care for & be responsible for.
Wonder what that does to one of my pet theories. In one Lake District family three out of seven baptisms in the 1780/90's were private, and these had been performed in the winter months, leading to my speculation that the family had been either snowed in or struck down with flu.
Flook's post has made me wonder about some of my private baptisms, it's certainly put a dent in the "sickly babe" theory except perhaps for those that die soon after the baptism. I'm glad that came out though it's always best to be aware of all the possibilities.
Found on another forum on the subject of private baptisms....... "We actually still have a china bowl which was used for emergency baptisms in the 19th century. The glaze is seriously cracked because it was used for beating eggs"
It may well have been rare and obviously depended on the vicar's own approach to these things. This Whitechapel parish was one of the very very poorest in London and I suspect hardly any people would have 'friends and neighbours' as we might expect nowadays. There was also a growing Jewish population in the area which would have reduced the number of possible 'sponsors' available. I think it's very difficult to imagine in what abject poverty most people lived at this time in this sort of area.