Hi,
In my novel that I am writing, there is a rich character who wants to shut down an orphanage because it is rather dirty and insalubrious, and is damaging the welfare of the people living there. It is set in the Edwardian era, and I am rather confused on how they would have gone about shutting down places, if they even did that.
Any answers would be much appreciated!
To begin with, most poor children ended up in workhouses; so to be in an orphanage at all was (in theory) a step up. Such places were frequently privately funded, so that the great and good could have their names publicly associated with benevolence. Whether that translated to good, clean, healthy living conditions, of course, is another matter. Just getting the kids off the streets was praiseworthy enough; what you did with them after that was irrelevant.
It's likely, therefore, that instead of shutting down such an institution on the grounds you mention, it would be praised to the skies for existing at all. Dirt was part and parcel of life for millions - not the horror we see it as today.
Should your rich character want to make a difference, he's more likely to invest in the place, and then, if his conscience moved him, to remove the staff and replace them with better.
There was a trend that began in the Victorian era and continued until the 1960s to build institutions in the countryside (fresh air was good for the unfortunates). One way of moving an orphanage on from the salubrious suburbs would be to offer to purchase land and erect a new building further into idyllic countryside. Only after the papers are signed does matron realise she's accepted a derelict shed in a swamp!