The Quest for Improvements

By 1887 it seemed as if the differences between the British authorities and the Dominion government concerning the proper supervision of Poor Law children in Canada had been resolved. Yet a nagging dissatisfaction remained among the LGB's officers that led to renewed efforts to persuade the Dominion to provide more frequent inspection and to continue it up to the age of 16. One of those who was most outspoken in his criticism of the prevailing arrangements was W.E. Knollys, the chief inspector. In 1895 he appeared before the Poor Law Schools Committee to give evidence on a range of matters connected with the education and care of Poor Law children. Part of that evidence concerned their emigration. What he said revealed the nature of his unease and probably that of his department. For example, in answer to a question put by Mundella, the chairman, he replied that:

In answer to another question he explained that only about 75 per cent of the children who should have been reported on were seen and that no second reports had so far been forthcoming. When reports did reach the LGB they were scrutinised and then copies sent to the union or parish from which a child had been emigrated, with attention drawn to anything untoward. Thus, the responsibility for dealing with any inadequacies or abuses was laid at the door of the local guardians. One wonders what kind of action the numerous boards of guardians involved could take, except through the emigrating societies with which they had made the arrangements; and that meant that any action to right the wrongs noted in the reports depended on the ability and willingness of these societies to do so. As we have seen the Canadian inspectors carried no such responsibility.

There were, however, other deficiencies in the system of furnishing reports that Knollys did not mention. One was the Canadian practice of only carrying out a first inspection in the calendar year following that of the child's arrival.