Trenholm 1

Her Forgotten Export: Great Britain’s Emigrant Children in Canada

David Trenholm
100077949
02 December 2008
Dr. Gillian Poulter
HIST 3613 X1
 Trenholm 2

Overlooked by many, and perhaps unknown to a great deal of Canadians, are Great

Britain’s “pauper emigrant children”, or Home Children—the tens of thousands of children that

were sent in droves from the British Isles to her colonies abroad. Beginning in the early 19th

century, many of these Home Children arrived in Canada to start a new life, either in the urban

centres where population was growing rapidly, or more likely working as labourers in Canada’s

untamed West.1 Many of these children—aged between two and nineteen years2—left behind

destitute conditions in many impoverished urban areas in Great Britain. The Industrial

Revolution ushered in intense poverty for many rural families that had moved to the major

metropolises of Britain; many parents were faced with great difficulty in clothing and feeding

their children, and bereft of steady employment many of these children found themselves

orphaned and left on the streets to fend for themselves.3 Having these children transported to

Britain’s colonies was considered an acceptable solution, not only for the problem of poverty in

England’s cities, but also for the struggling population and demand for immigration in Britain’s

territorial possession overseas. Canada, South Africa and Australia were all craving for more

immigrants for their farms and developing industrial sectors—tens of thousands of

disadvantaged children from Britain could help satiate immigration concerns abroad, but it could

also help sweep the streets of the child-paupers who had made it their home. Naturally, Canada

had no issue welcoming these children, especially when they were ushered into homes beyond

Upper Canada and into Rupert’s Land—land that needed farm labourers and agriculturalists to

tame and expand the colony’s boundaries. Many evangelical and philanthropic Britons dedicated

1
Marjorie Kohli, The Golden Bridge: Young Immigrants in Canada, 1833-1939 (Toronto: National Heritage Books,
2003), 11.
2
Marjorie Kohli, Young Immigrants to Canada (including home children) [record on-line] (Waterloo: University of
Waterloo, 2000-2002, accessed 24 November 2008); available from
http://ist.uwaterloo.ca/~marj/genealogy/children/lists/middlemore.html; Internet.
3
Kohli, The Golden Bridge, 3.
 Trenholm 3

their working lives to the collection and emigration of these destitute children; unfortunately, due

in part to a lack of supervisory oversight and care, many of these children ended up in homes that

offered very little in the way of familial warmth. Children were often considered tools, farm

labourers—nothing more than indentured servants under the pretext of philanthropic welfare. A

number of these Home Children, having been taken from terrible conditions in Britain and

distributed in Canada have tragically disappeared from the pages of history. These children were

vulnerable to hard labour and difficult working conditions, as well as abuse and exploitation.

Perhaps none of this would have happened, however, if poverty and depravity had not

overwhelmed so many families in the metropolises of England.

Without question, the Industrial Revolution transformed the face of Britain’s poor.

Mechanized industry grew, and with it gave birth to an age of urban factories and manufacturing

plants.4 The rural ‘cottage’ households of England’s countryside moved to find work within the

expanding metropolises of Great Britain, cities like Liverpool, Glasgow and, of course, London.5

Such a booming population, naturally, was more than any of these urban centres could support.

Men and women, usually with a host of children, had difficulties finding suitable employment. In

Britain’s industrialized cities rampant poverty became as contagious, and often as deadly, as the

Black Death. Many families endured in atrocious conditions, unable to scrape enough income

together to feed their children, let alone house them in any degree of safety or comfort. In the

most depraved of situations parents left their children on the street—some purposefully mutilated

—to beg and play on the sympathies of the city’s passerby.6 These children begged or were sold

by their parents to support a lifestyle of gin and substance abuse—it may come as no surprise

that many of these children became orphans as their parents were arrested and locked away in
4
Kohli, The Golden Bridge, 1.
5
Kohli, The Golden Bridge, 2.
6
Kohli, The Golden Bridge, 3.
 Trenholm 4

gaols and asylums on charges of vagrancy and public drunkenness.7 As the conditions of the

impoverished worsened, the number of Britain’s “street-Arabs”—as the children were called—

grew to alarming levels. Many of these children sought employment in the manufacturing and

industrial sector, and often faced horrendous exploitation at the hands of factory owners and

supervisors. While legislation was presented to protect the interest of children in the workplace,

early versions were quickly voted down by politicians with an interest in Britain’s growing

economy.8 Eventually, a response to the impoverishment and mistreatment of these children

surfaced; evangelical moral entrepreneurs, notably Annie Macpherson, Maria Rye, Dr. Thomas

Barnardo and J.W.C. Fegan, developed and opened orphanages and institutions that collected

destitute children and saw to their care. Many children, from the orphaned “street-Arabs” to the

financially disadvantaged, found themselves under the guardianship of these philanthropic

caregivers. While some children voluntarily entered such institutions, others were left by an

impoverished mother or father that could not afford to take care of them.9 These homes for

destitute children grew in number, a corollary to the growing degree of poverty in Britain’s cities.

In a very short order the question of what to do with these children was raised, and a suitable

solution became steadily clear—Great Britain’s possessions and colonies overseas were

continually searching for suitable immigrants, and what better candidate than a young and

impressionable British child? Canada was considered a perfect destination, as it was the closest

colony and the most cost effective to send great numbers of children. During the early 19th

century the colony was insatiably hungry for new immigrants to help farm the western frontier,

and so in 1833 two hundred British Home Children were sent across the Atlantic, the first of a

7
Kohli, The Golden Bridge, 5.
8
Kohli, The Golden Bridge, 4.
9
Kohli, The Golden Bridge, 11.
 Trenholm 5

resounding 78,000 by 1923.10

The growing number of impoverished children most certainly prompted public servants

and moral entrepreneurs into action—it cannot be argued that the welfare of these children, in

some respect, was of some interest to many of those who suggested that they be sent to Canada.

There was little doubt, however, that sending them to the colonies would be instrumental in

reducing the number of street-children, and in so doing reduce vagrancy and the burden being

placed on the homes and institutions designed to shelter them. John Eekelaar, in his article “The

Chief Glory: The Export of Children from the United Kingdom” suggests that instrumentalism

and “welfarism” were both motivators in the campaign to emigrate children from Great Britain,

and that being rid of pauper-children and solving the immigration issue abroad were compatible

objectives.11 Eekelaar goes on to suggest that perhaps these altruistic intentions were actually a

thinly-veiled form of pragmatism—that, by offering these children a “better life” abroad, they

could also eliminate the destitute conditions of child-paupers in Britain.12 During an inquiry into

the status and living conditions of landed Home Children in Canada, questions were raised about

the possible economical incentives in emigrating destitute children—Maria Rye and Thomas

Barnardo were both scrutinized for their financial secrecy, and some targeted Barnardo as an

exploitative profiteer.13 Simply put, there were greater priorities in these operations than the

welfare of the children involved; Andrew Doyle’s investigation into the conditions of Canadian

Home Children found that both Anna Macpherson and Maria Rye were anxious to transport

children from Britain to Canada quickly, and in great quantities. Little attention or effort was

John Eekelaar, "The Chief Glory: The Export of Children from the United Kingdom," Journal of Law and Society
10

21, no. 4 (December 1994): 490.

11
Eekelaar, 487.
12
Eekelaar, 488.
13
Kenneth Bagnell, The Little Immigrants: The Orphans who came to Canada (Toronto: Dundurn Press, 2001), 107.
 Trenholm 6

paid to the supervision of their distribution; in many cases children were handed off to

prospective hosts without an interview conducted or a record kept of such a transaction, and a

transaction it was.14 Canada needed farm labourers, and they accepted them voraciously, which

often meant the hurried and rapid transport of children to Canada so that they could be quickly

distributed. In the 19th century Canada was still searching globally for agriculturalists, especially

Anglo-Saxons, and the prospect of tens of thousands of free labourers in the form of British

children was too lucrative an opportunity to ignore.15 These children were rarely accepted

warmly; viewed as labourers and tools, and with their history in mind (there was a fierce stigma

surrounding them) little attention was given to their welfare, education and future prospects.

Andrew Doyle estimated that no more than ten percent of households accepted children out of a

sense of altruism.16 Back in Britain, children were unceremoniously ushered into the ships that

would send them to Canada—one magistrate, a Mr. Ede, admits that while the children were

required to volunteer for the journey to Canada, “the magistrate always signs [their consent]”17

Ultimately, it would seem that the interests and welfare of these children were not a supreme

concern, and that instead the economical and societal benefits were overwhelmingly more

important. Lord Shaftesbury, in presenting the Pauper Children Emigration Bill in 1852, spoke

candidly on the matter:

It appeared by a return of a year ago that there were 52,000 children in the union houses

of England and Wales; and it appeared equally by statements from Australia, that, were

the whole number transplanted there, the Colonies... would still cry, "Give, give."18

14
Bagnell, 43.
15
Gail H. Corbett, Nation Builders: Barnardo Children in Canada (Toronto: Dundurn Press, 2002), 24.
16
Eekelaar, 491.
17
Eekelaar, 492.
 Trenholm 7

It may be of little surprise that, in the wake of such disregard for the welfare and future of these

children, they would be met with both physical and sexual abuse, neglect and many other forms

of corporeal and emotional maltreatment in Canada. It is the unfortunate experiences of these

children that form the core tragedy of this black mark in the history of immigration in Canada.

A vast majority of the Home Children from Great Britain were received out of reluctant

necessity; there is very little doubt as to the desire for capable labourers for the farms of Canada,

but existing in the colony was a strong dislike for the pauper-children. Considered thieves,

vagabonds, degenerates and low-class rejects, Home Children carried with them an aversive

stigma that ultimately contributed to the abuse they were habitually subjected to.19 Kenneth

Bagnell, a prominent historian of the Home Children debacle in Canada, suggests that such a

strong negative reaction to these children only contributed to their troubles, compounding their

delinquency with outbursts of social deviance.20 Bagnell tells of one child, a boy named

Frederick Treacher, who on his arrival in Elmvale, Ontario, was received with cold informality.

“Fred”, as he was called, was harassed verbally and physically throughout his stay on the

Elmvale farm and abused for his inability to milk the dairy cows (due largely to his urban

childhood—Fred had never seen a dairy cow until he had emigrated to Canada); eventually a

provincial inspector was sent to the farm to check up on Fred, and on confessing all of his

hardships to him was promptly rebuked for his uselessness and bad behaviour, and further

threatened with a whipping.21 In spite of the terms of his emigration, Fred was denied any

schooling. Such a practice was common among many Home Children. Even his brother, Bert

House of Lords, Pauper Children Emigration Bill HL Deb 26 June 1852 vol 122 cc1329-31 [record on-line]
18

(Hansard, the Official Report, accessed 24 November 2008); available from

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1852/jun/26/pauper-children-emigration-bill; Internet.
19
Bagnell, 152.
20
Bagnell, 153.
21
Bagnell, 160-162.
 Trenholm 8

Treacher, drowned suspiciously at a nearby farmstead—not an unheard of end for young, abused

Home Children. Frederick Treacher’s story is one example of the abuses sustained in Canada by

Home Children. Treacher was the product of J.W.C. Fegan’s operation, but there were many

other philanthropists at work—Anna Macpherson and Maria Rye predominately handled young

women. Maria Rye was held in fear by many of her young girls, and the British inspector,

Andrew Doyle, cast her in a contemptible light in his report of the conditions of the Home

Children. William Quarrier, a shoemaker from Glasgow, was also one of the notable caregivers

of the destitute children of Britain. One of his associates, a Mr. Samuel McBrearty, was charged

and convicted for the rape of two girls in his care and was sentenced to twelve years.22 These

children who were subjected to such abuse could have easily suffered from long-term stress and

anxiety. One doctor in the early 20th century diagnosed a former Home Child with a “severe

nervous condition”, stemming from a childhood of abuse and neglect.23 Historian June Rose

recently reviewed Dr. Thomas Barnardo’s care of children during the late 19th century in 1987,

and her conclusions on the issue of Home Children are perhaps the most succinct:

In spite of his efforts, the children's lives in Canada were, even by the standards of the

day, excessively harsh. Records reveal that some children were subject to severe

maltreatment; sexual assault, fierce beatings and whippings; accidents occured with

pitchforks, impalement on fences, [and a] number committed suicide by drowning or

hanging.24

Rose’s words are concise, but powerful. Her conclusions on Barnardo’s handling of destitute

children brought an alarming angle to this piece of history. The mistreatment of these children

Anna Magnusson, The Quarriers Story: One man's vision that gave 7,000 children a new life in Canada (Toronto:
22

Dundurn Press, 2006), 192.

23
Corbett, 81.
24
June Rose, For the Sake of the Children (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1987), 91.
 Trenholm 9

underscores the tragedy of this period in Canada’s immigration history, and brings light to an

issue that has historically been neglected.

Only recently has the mistreatment of these children reached some prominence in

Canadian textbooks—other authors and historians like Gail Corbett and Kenneth Bagnell have

contributed immensely to the dissemination of this tragic period in Canada’s immigration, and it

is important that such an era is not easily forgotten. The chronic abuse and maltreatment of these

children is not difficult to comprehend, given the conditions in which they were sent to Canada.

Philanthropic organisations, such as those administrated by Maria Rye and Dr. Thomas Barnardo,

were quick to gather and send these young children abroad, but often neglected their welfare and

interests. There are clear questions on the mishandling of these operations—an absence of a

supervisory system meant that many children endured abuse and neglect without any oversight.

The excessive secrecy of the financial accounts of Barnardo and Rye only compound the

suspicion that has gathered around their apparent altruistic intentions. Clearly, while many of

these children left behind terrible conditions in the industrialized metropolises of Great Britain,

the care they were received into was questionable at best. June Rose arguably said it best:

Above all, the records reflect the immense loneliness of the children brought up in

crowded cities, or...cut off in a remote homestead; [they were] neither a member of the

family, nor a hired hand; simply a 'home child'.25

The Home Children of Canada remains a black mark in the history of immigration in Canada;

future investigation into subject should continue, as it represents an important history for many

Canadians who once called themselves simply, as June Rose put it, a “home child”.

25
June Rose, For the Sake of the Children (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1987), 95.
 Trenholm 10

Bibliography

Bagnell, Kenneth. The Little Immigrants: The Orphans who came to Canada. Toronto: Dundurn
Press, 2001.

Corbett, Gail H. Nation Builders: Barnardo Children in Canada. Toronto: Dundurn Press, 2002.

Eekelaar, John. “The Chief Glory: The Export of Children from the United Kingdom.” Journal
of Law and Society 21, no. 4 (December 1994): 487-504.

House of Lords, Pauper Children Emigration Bill HL Deb 26 June 1852 vol 122 cc1329-31
[record on-line]. Hansard, the Official Report, accessed 24 November 2008; available
from http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1852/jun/26/pauper-children-emigration-
bill; Internet.

Kohli, Marjorie. The Golden Bridge: Young Immigrants in Canada, 1833-1939. Toronto: Natural
Heritage Books, 2003.

Kohli, Marjorie. Young Immigrants to Canada (including home children) [record on-line].
Waterloo: University of Waterloo, 2000-2002, accessed 24 November 2008; available
from http://ist.uwaterloo.ca/~marj/genealogy/children/lists/middlemore.htm; Internet.

Magnusson, Anna. The Quarriers Story: One man’s vision that gave 7,000 children a new life in
Canada. Toronto: Dundurn Press, 2006.