Adventurers And Exiles_The Great Scottish Exodus
Page 25
In all the different departments of child rescue work, no branch yields so much fruit as the Emigration. It is not only economical for the country but best for the children; they are cut off from the bad corrupting associations in which they have been brought up and to which many of them would go back again if not lifted right away, it assures for them a better future, there is far more scope for them abroad, and with few exceptions they become happy, contented and useful citizens in that great country. We are doing the colonists a great service. They want this young life — they have ample room for it — there is no limit to the demand. There boys and girls have every advantage on their side. We have trained them, drilled and tested them, they are strong and healthy and have no family responsibilities to handicap them. 48
Meanwhile, further north, the Aberlour Orphanage in Banffshire had been founded in 1875 by Canon Charles Jupp as an Episcopalian institution with a nationwide catchment area. Abandoning his original intention that the orphanage should cater only for the children of practising Episcopalians, Jupp promised to admit any child in need, on condition that the parent or guardian agreed that the child be brought up as an Episcopalian. Most of the 3,000 children who passed through Aberlour’s doors up to 1921 were placed in farm work, apprenticeships or domestic service in Scotland, but although only just over fifty were sent abroad — almost all to Canada — this institution too utilized Annie Macpherson’s infrastructure, while its journals and case histories offer perhaps a clearer insight into emigrants’ experiences than the sanitized literature of homes that were more unreservedly committed to emigration.
Just as Quarrier’s work did not go uncriticized, very few of these smaller institutions escaped censure either. Mrs Blaikie closed her home largely because of ‘some collision with parents and guardians’ over her right to appropriate their children. Her rather high-handed approach is evident even in her husband’s endorsement of her policy:
in no case was any pressure brought to bear on respectable parents to allow their children to go. It was only in cases of drunken and ill-doing parents that the benefits of emigration were strongly pressed, and I confess that even in their case we did not apply this pressure without a certain qualm that we were interfering with the law of nature. We could but fall back on the principle, that extreme evils require extreme remedies. For myself, I think I never spent a more uncomfortable half-hour than on one occasion on the platform of the Caledonian Railway. The parents and friends of the children had been invited to bid them good-bye. It was a great mistake, for they made quite a sensation, and created something like a furore by abusing the promoters of the emigration. One woman, very drunk, insisted on getting back her little girl, and almost dragged her from the railway carriage; and Mrs Blaikie was denounced for stealing the children of honest folk and selling them to foreigners. ‘It’s that woman wi’ the white shawl,’ they said, ‘that’s at the bottom o’ it a’. It oughn’t tae be alloo’d.’ I went to remonstrate with the drunken woman, and a report was circulated that I had bribed her to be quiet. I do not think the music of the railway guard’s whistle ever brought such relief as it did that afternoon. 49
William Blaikie also recalled ‘a more amusing scene ’ in which he had deliberately misled a mother who had demanded the return of her child the day before she was due to leave for Canada:
Both father and mother bore the worst character; they had no home, and were seldom sober. The day before the girl was to leave Edinburgh, the mother appeared at my door demanding her child. It did not seem that anything could be made of her by argument, so I resorted to a bit of diplomacy. ‘Have you a home of your own?’ ‘No.’ ‘Where do you spend the night?’ ‘In a lodging-house when we have money, and on a stair when we haven’t.’ ‘And where do you mean to keep your daughter if she stays in this country?’ ‘Oh, we will get her looked after!’ ‘Does your husband work?’ ‘He hasn’t got any clothes.’ ‘Would he work if he had clothes?’ ‘Oh, yes.’ ‘Well, look here. Here ’s a shilling to pay for a night’s lodging, and if you come here at ten o’clock tomorrow morning, I’ll supply your husband with clothes…’ the bait took. The woman went away to tell her husband; and by the following morning the child was on the way to Liverpool. The morning came, and so did the woman, and the whole wardrobe was punctually delivered — with what result it is hard to say. I was sorry for the woman, but who can doubt that in such a case we did the right thing? 50
Both Mrs Blaikie and Emma Stirling were also vehemently anti-Catholic and assumed that they had an unquestionable right to proselytize and convert Catholic children. In Miss Stirling’s case this led to costly litigation, particularly in the case of the three Delaney children, who were sent to Canada against their father’s wishes. According to Stirling herself, Arthur Delaney, ‘a man of notoriously bad character’, had asked for his children to be taken into care and brought up as Protestants, having ‘tired of the neglect and tyranny of the priests’, but after four years had been encouraged by a priest to reclaim them. 51 By that time they were in Canada, and when Delaney raised a lawsuit for their return, Stirling was found in contempt of court for giving evasive answers as to their whereabouts. But it was the directors of ELCARS in Edinburgh who were made liable for her obduracy, a ruling which imposed further strain on the already poor relations between Stirling and her advisory board. Irritated by her unexpected departure to Canada and subsequent refusal to cooperate, and financially embarrassed by the withdrawal of her subsidies, as well as a series of court cases over custody, the directors increasingly blocked Stirling’s attempts to bring children to Nova Scotia. Nor was resentment confined to Scotland, for the fire that destroyed Hillfoot Farm in April 1895 was no accident. It broke out four days after its owner had laid charges against an Annapolis man who had allegedly impregnated one of her former pupils in his employment, as well as the doctor who had allegedly performed an abortion. The arson attack, coming four years after another suspicious fire which had destroyed her sawmill, was the last straw for Emma Stirling, who quickly sold Hillfoot and, disillusioned with the attitude of her Canadian neighbours, moved to the United States for the remaining twelve years of her life.
Perhaps the most puzzling conundrum in this study is the striking absence of evidence that Catholic orphanages in Scotland developed, or even discussed, emigration policies in the nineteenth century. We know that Catholic child emigration from England and Wales was orchestrated by the different dioceses, particularly the Liverpool diocese, and it has been estimated that approximately 1,760 children were sent to Canada by Catholic agencies between 1870 and 1903. After that date the work was coordinated by the Catholic Emigration Association, with most of the children being distributed by New Orpington Lodge in Hintonborough, Ontario, renamed St George ’s Home in 1904. Since the Church hierarchy sanctioned emigration, it seems likely that Scottish Catholics would have participated. Not only was there a fertile recruiting ground in the west-central belt, with its heavy Irish Catholic presence; the development of its own emigration facilities by the Scottish Catholic Church might have addressed the fear that its children would be poached by Protestant agencies, which were most active in areas which contained large numbers of poor — and therefore vulnerable — Catholics. But since the records of Catholic orphanages contain only passing, anecdotal references to emigration and the largest institution of all, the Smyllum Orphanage in Lanark, founded in 1864, is totally silent on the issue, the mystery remains unsolved. 52
Emigrant experiences
How did home children make the transition from emigrants to immigrants? Quarrier himself frequently accompanied his charges on the transatlantic voyage and his annual reports always mentioned the valedictory services held for the separate boys’ and girls’ parties. E. J. Stobo, who in July 1872 accompanied the first contingent of sixty-four Quarrier boys who sailed on the St David from Greenock to Quebec, kept a detailed diary of the voyage and onward journey:
To-morrow I mean to get the boys to pack our traps for our journe
y west. We expect to reach Quebec on Wednesday. We have just had to surrender our passage tickets, and a search has been made for stowaways. If we arrive on Wednesday we shall have been on our passage exactly 14 days. I have had service to-day on deck, and found, as it has been throughout, that many gathered to join us, esteeming it a blessed privilege. Our dear boys, the children of many prayers, have behaved remarkably well, considering the situation and the strong temptation there is on board ship to do out of the way things. Of course boys cannot be made girls, they will be boisterous and romping, and full of fun, and it’s no use trying to coop them up in a corner to look [like] apes mumping nuts to kill time. 53
After disembarking, they travelled on by train, first to Knowlton, Annie Macpherson’s receiving home in Quebec’s Eastern Townships, and then to her other centres at Belleville and Galt. The Marchmont Home in Belleville was, wrote Stobo, ‘a handsome plastered house, with good offices, trim grounds, and pleasant surroundings’ where, after an ‘excellent breakfast’, the children were lectured ‘on the value of good character, the reward of hard work, and the grand future that was before them in Canada if they only behave ’. Both there and at the Blair Athole Home in Galt the children were made to sing to ‘a good many nice ladies’ who came to view the new arrivals before they were distributed to households within a 200-mile radius. ‘The demand for our children far exceeded the supply,’ observed Stobo, ‘and it was quite softening to hear ladies and gentlemen say, as they looked at our children, “Oh, what nice children — how healthy and good-looking. May we not have one, Miss Billborough?” But it could not be: they were bespoke.’ 54
One of the main functions of the receiving homes was to vet applications for children, some of whom were clearly regarded as commodities, or even fashion accessories. One couple wrote to Quarrier’s Fairknowe Home in 1888 with the following specific request:
Hearing you have some children in your Orphan Home, Brockville, and as I am living beside a neighbour who got one three years ago, he being a very good little boy, I wish you would send us one of your girls of 10 to 12 years old. Please send us one with blue eyes, a good countenance, good disposition, and a healthy, active girl. We wish to take her as our own child, and if you send us such we will do well by her. I have 150 acres of land, and am near church and Sabbath school etc. 55
The placement procedure involved formal, legal indentures which were designed to protect the children’s interests. The exact terms varied according to age, but single placements were rare, especially for children who were sent to Canada while still very young. Although it was hoped that those under nine would be adopted, this rarely happened, and it was much more common for young children to be boarded out with foster parents who were paid by the homes for looking after them until they had reached the age of eleven or twelve. Once these payments ceased, many families could not afford to continue boarding the children, who were therefore sent to households which received no fee for keeping them, but where they were expected to perform light duties in return for their board, clothing and schooling. The payment of a wage came only at the next stage, when the children reached school-leaving age and were employed as full-time apprentices, a development which often required a further move, to masters or mistresses who could afford to pay the necessary wages.
Children and employers were not to be left entirely to their own devices once a placement had been negotiated. Every agency was committed — at least on paper — to a system of after-care, implemented by the receiving homes’ staff through regular tours of inspection. Those who accompanied emigrant parties to Canada also used the opportunity to visit children sent out in previous years. E. J. Stobo was in no doubt that the Quarrier children settled around Knowlton were thriving:
They speak well of their treatment and of their food, and are quite delighted with the idea of being counted members of the family. In this country the servant sits at the table with the family, and what a table! — say, breakfast. — There, on the nice, neatly-spread white cloth, is laid out a large dish of mush, fried bacon, boiled green corn, potatoes, bread, stewed and raw raspberries or cherries, cucumbers, tomatoes, honey, dough nuts, brandy snaps, and I know not what. Such a change for our poor street children! Here the little ones, and there is no mistake about it, have a chance of life. 56
When in 1880 Mrs Blaikie took the opportunity to visit several children who had been placed out on her behalf by Annie Macpherson’s three receiving homes, she expressed unqualified satisfaction with their condition and prospects. They included Georgina, who ‘was being trained by a very careful and particular mistress to be a good servant’, Jeanie, who had been adopted by a doctor and his wife, and Minnie, who ‘attends school regularly, but is not a very clever child’. Her only reservation was that one child, who had been adopted by a minister and his wife, ‘should be spoiled by too much indulgence and liberty’, a preoccupation with discipline that was also voiced by Robert Wallace of Quarrier’s in 1866:
In the tours I have been able to make since returning I have seen a large number of this year’s boys, and have been pleased to find them, on the whole, doing very well, settling down to their new life and work, and striving to adapt themselves to their new surroundings, thus by their willingness and industry winning golden opinions from their masters, and laying the foundation for a good character in the days to come…If this is not the case I generally find the fault lies as much with the people as with the boy. In many instances too much liberty is given at first; they are encouraged to talk more than they ought for the sake of hearing the broad Scotch, which causes great amusement but tends to make the boy forward. Prompt obedience is not enforced, nor the general training, begun in the Homes, kept up, till they awake to the change that has taken place in the child. I am frequently told, with a shake of the head, Ah! Johnnie is not the boy he was when I got him. I reply by asking whose fault it is. Some seem to think they are so well trained and disciplined that they cannot possibly relapse, but like a clock wound up must go on and keep right without further trouble or attention. 57
Children were strongly encouraged to keep in touch with both the Canadian receiving home and the sending institution in Scotland. Wherever they went, they were encouraged to regard the receiving home as their base, to which they could return if they were in need, and they were assured that problems of incompatibility would be resolved by immediate relocation. In practice, however, these promises were often rendered meaningless by distance, financial constraints and inadequate after-care provision.
What did the children themselves have to say about their experiences? Most of the boys seem to have followed the advised career of farming, at least initially, and several ultimately left Ontario to try their fortunes in the west. Girls were channelled largely into domestic service, although some became nurses and teachers, while a handful of boys also entered the professions. If we were to take at face value the glowing tributes of the correspondents quoted in the annual reports of the sending institutions, we would have to conclude that the movement was an unqualified success. These reports were liberally peppered with letters from contented children, all expressing gratitude for their fresh start in life. Typical is the following tribute by a girl sent out from Quarrier’s in 1885:
My dear Mr and Mrs Quarrier, I am very sorry to say that I have not written to you sooner, but I know that you will forgive me for this time — you may be sure I won’t do it again. Don’t think it is because I am far from you, and that I have forgotten all about you. Oh, no! How could I forget my best friend next to my father and mother on earth? I have thought on you every day since I left you. Yes, every hour. Sometimes I would like to see you again; but I will never regret coming out the time I did, because I would not have got the home I have if I had stayed another year. I have got a good home and I am very contented in it. I am living with a Methodist minister; they have got three children, two boys and a girl; they are very good and obedient, they do for me just like they would for their mamma or papa. 58
I got a letter from my brother yesterday; he is getting on fine in Ontario and he likes it very well. I had a letter from my brother in Glasgow; he wants to come here too. I think he should apply to the Immigrants’ Agent, and they would send him out at once. I have a good place for him near me, if I only had him out here. I am very thankful you sent me out. I should never be so well off as I am to-day if you had not sent me out. 59
Two years later the Whinwell report carried an effusive letter from a girl whose family had been reunited in Canada:
Montreal, June 1906. Dear, Dear Miss Croall. These few lines to let you know that our sister, Lizzie, arrived all safe in Canada. She sailed from Liverpool on 24th May. So we are all in Canada now, except our wee sister, Christina, thanks to you, as I suppose as a family of orphans (five in number) we would not be out here and so well done for, only for your kindness. 60