Genealogy Chat

Adding for future ref Ann

Clive I can assure you I have done extensive reading on this subject - non fiction. I agree that the drive pre 20th century, was to populate the new countries and there were many srenuous schemes which did NOT involve children, but were encouraged at attracting adults. However, all the FREE schemes (well, most of them) were directed at the Poor, and paid for by the Poor Law Guardians or the Government and the idea behind it was to rid this country of those who were a burden on the rates, whilst apparently doing a wonderful thing for the new world. So why was the Child Migration Scheme still going on as late as 1975 in this country, and why did it consist entirely of recruits from Children's Homes, or other 'disadvantaged' groups of children, and why are many of the stories told by survivors of that era the same - they were taken from their parents, told they were orphans, and now discover many years later that they were not orphans and in most cases their parents consent was neither sought, nor given. Yes, conditions were terrible in this country, for poor children, in the 1800s. This scheme was officially meant to give them a better life and better opportunities. In some cases it did, but in many it just increased their misery, and did it thousands of miles from their home, and everything and everyone familiar to them. I understand that the Australian Government, for one, have been particularly obstructive by refusing to open files held on some of these people, fearing, quite rightly, that they will be sued, as has already happened. I don't doubt that emigration was the making of some people - I said just that at the beginning of this thread somewhere. But the fact remains that the Child Migration Scheme, from the outset, was surrounded by lies, trickery, coercion, force and a total neglect of the eventual welfare of the children in their care. I am not pointing the finger at any one particular agency here - they were ALL to blame, everyone of them. OC

nudging for future refs Hazel.

I think OC is not completely correct. Part of the reason for sending 'young people' to the colonies was to populate them with young British people before all the foreigners took over. There is no way I will do anything other than condemn the Australian treatment of the kids. However I think many of the others were better off. Do some research on so called living conditions in this country. In 1851 life expectancy was only to the age of 27 in Liverpool. Out in country life expectancy was 59. It was from the towns that the kids went out. Read the comments of the old soldiers who saw the walking skeletons arrive at army training camps in WW I, watched them fatten up in a few weeks, only to go off to slaughter in the trenches. It is a few years now since we did fostering. I find it hard to say anything good about the vast majority of social workers we encountered. Their personal politics took high priority over any well being of the children involved. Clive - with as big but slightly different soap box to OC

I've got a family fo 9 - 6 of which are missing but interestingly 3 brothers that I have traced all died in BC in Canada. Their mother died in 1894 and although they are with their father in 1901 after that nothing.........I think I need to look at these harrowing sites.

nudge for later . Kathy

nudge. This is terrible. I never knew anything about it. Caz

nudge - brill site - thanks...joanie

nudge

Much earlier on, also discovered that Lord Egremont from the Petworth Estate (West Sussex) shipped many of the poor from his estate off to Upper Canada. It was called the Petworth Emigration Scheme and yes, of course, it was to save the landowners having to keep contributuing funds towards their upkeep. They obviously thought it was far more economical to pay their passage to Canada. http://www.petworthemigrations(.)com/ http://www.rootsweb(.)com/~canon/research-topic-immigration-petworth.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petworth_Emigration_Scheme

nudge for later

Thank you George - Nudging for future reference. Netty.

Hi Thanks for the tip: Nudging for future reference Lou

nudge Chris

Bookmarked for later. What sad stories, and what sadness for both the parents and the children. Families torn apart with little hope of being reunited. Interestingly, my mother-in-law told me some years ago about a Barnado connection in her family. After a couple of years investigating that side of the family tree, I found that Harriett Anne NEWTON married Bernard Charles E BERNADO in 1885. She was already in her 40s. However, I know very little else, despite googling. I seem to remember he might have been born in Ireland.

This is a new British Home Child website, recently set up: http://bhc(.)kindredbond(.)com/index(.)php remove brackets George

great site...thanks J

nudging for future ref Mhairi

Would this apply to children in Scotland ? Anthea

I think this is terrible. It reminds me of those stories about the unmarried mothers in the 50s who had no choice but to give their babies up for adoption, and those Magdalen laundries that the Catholic church still doesn't want to take responsibility for. (And I'm talking both as an adopted person and a Catholic, born in the eighties.) Interesting also that not a lot changes as regards Social Services. Intervening in families that should stay together and not intervening with those that need help. I knew a friend at college not long ago who self-harmed and whose parents were abusive to her and her younger siblings and she used to tell me all about it, but when I and a friend went to a senior tutor (this was at sixth-form) they couldn't do anything about it because the girl in question wouldn't speak out about it herself.