1871 census

[MonicaL]

Great info JJ, I hadn't seen before on any of the posts which home the girls had been sent from.

10 Renfrew Lane appear to be in Blythswood, Glasgow.


More siblings....let's see where we get to with the extra names!

Monica

[Lindyloowho]

Hi Ladies:

Again thanks for  the interest.  The info re the additional names came second hand, so perhaps it was the best interpretation of a bad scan - I agree it does look more like 17!

 That would be rather to neat to see photos of the home in Belleville.  I also had not seen the actual address of the Quarrier home in Glasgow.  I think initially his intentions were good as you say, but the almighty lure of money took over - try Googling Perry Snow, his father was a Home Child sent to Canada, and he has written book about the scheme - partial quote as follows:

 "“The child-care organizations regarded the children as simply commodities for export. It cost them 10-15£ each year to keep a child in their care. It cost them only 2£ to emigrate each child. They saved a great deal of money by exporting children at the earliest possible age -- many as young as six years old. Not only did they save money, but also they profited. Canada’s need for cheap farm labour was insatiable. For every child sent, there were requests for ten more.
The Canadian government paid the organizations $2.00 for each child (Wagner 1982 154). The British Parish Guardians paid them $75.00 for each child they emigrated. The Canadian government paid them a cash bonus of $5,000.00 for every 1,000 they sent (Bagnell 1980b 69). The organizations sold the children as slave labour. The Canadian government bought them. The scheme was always about money and never about the best interests of children.

The Waifs and Strays Society saw Canada as a void to fill with their “surplus” children. By 1919, the scheme had been in operation for 50 years. Fifty British child-care organizations sent 73,000 to Canada unaccompanied by parents or guardians (Stroud 78-79). Between 1882-1908, Barnardo shipped 14% (4,500) of his children to Canada illegally - - without parental consent. A further 9% (3,000) were sent because of court orders and the Home Secretary’s authorization, but not parental consent. One quarter (7,500) of all Barnardo children were sent to Canada illegally (Parr 67).” Snow, p 25

We may never find their true identity, but reading that certainly makes you want to try!

Linda.

[KarenM]

Hi Linda,

I do think it was not nice the home children scheme, but I do like to mention that not all children were treated horribly.  My husband's family had a home child, Arthur, he was part of the family and still is part of the family.  He has since died, but my mother in law still looks after his grave.  There have been a few documentaries on the children, and some we ever so thankful to be sent here.  Please don't get me wrong, there are alot of horrible stories to be told, and the stigma attached to being a home child, only they will know, but just wanted people to know that not everyone was so bad.

Karen

[Lindyloowho]

Karen:

Oh I agree wholeheartedly, some of them definitely had a better life here than in England - I didn't mean to give the impression they were all abused and neglected.

My limited involvement was with another friends father and that one really got to me, because they stripped him of who he was - name, birthdate, family, everything. They gave him the name of a child that had died, and repeatedly told him they didn't have any further information for him.  His mother and siblings were still alive in England and later in his life he could have afforded to go and see them, or brought them over here.  Only after he died was his daughter finally given access to his records.  I think it's for those kids that we need to keep looking and demanding access.

Okay enough of me on my soap box 

Take care, Linda

[J.J.]

Hi, all...

  I simply have to agree with Karen, that although an aweful thing to have to go through, leaving home, not all had horror stories... How aweful Karen's in-laws must have felt to hear the horror stories and feel as though they were part of the accused...
 I have also heard some stories about children watching their parents go by the U.K. homes and pulling the "wanted" children along so as not to stop and acknowledge their siblings...Times were hard and not all children were treated as preciously as they are today...
  We have a real soft spot in our hearts for these children, but if you read some of these stories on the boards you will see that some of these children were handed their fate by a parent...who wanted to remarry, no less...but children had to out of the picture, first...
  We also see children from households becoming good friends with their new mates...which is always heartening.

Your Mother-in-Law is a great lady to be so caring, Karen!    J.J.


I should add, here, that the Governments of both countries who represent us did handle the situation horribly and that we should not have to feel responsible for their actions so many years in the future....I guess I get a little miffed when we are all branded with this black mark.  J.

[MonicaL]

  The new names haven't as yet opened any doors. Audrey is very rare in Scotland, much more on an English name.  Age 17 in 1872 would make her (or him still open to that) born around 1855, maybe end of 1854 and the start of official reg. in Scotland in 1855. Should show in the censuses for 1861/71 and nothing to date with the other sibling names. Without Pat(rick)'s age it is hard to follow up - lots of Patricks (and Peters with name variant)  born from 1855 onwards.

Monica

[J.J.]

I looked through the page again and again and could not find the Patrick...
and I just had to glance at the entry above again to see the name Archy look back at me. One has to stretch to see Audrey...although if the person saw a cleaner version on the reel, it may look more like Audrey. Did anyone else find a Patrick on the page? The 2 are 45/46 out of 59 on page 5...then page six has four more...to round out the 63.  Navigation at bottom of page for those looking...J.J.


Hmmmm. page 4 also seems to have three more at the top...so were there more (67,perhaps?) on this trip than accounted for in the stated numbers...? J.

[MonicaL]

I'm also struggling to find the Pat Archie entry. Linda, you said your friend had been given this info from an inquiry she had made ~ what was the source out of interest. I understand the four children had the same ref., is this what linked the family groups?

[Lindyloowho]

Hi:

I'm at work now and going away for the weekend, but just wanted to quickly reply to you all.  The information was obtained via a lady who works/volunteers in a family history library and had access to the records.  The reference given for the four children was Q72BO.  Perhaps it was her "best guess"?

I am sorry if I have perhaps led you up the "garden path", and wasted time and effort.

Certainly Christina and Annie are siblings as we have the records from the Marchmont Home, via the Childrens Society in England, and Christina herself acknowledged that Annie was her sister.

Linda

Linda