m (Text replacement - "FHL([\s_])([mM]icrofilm)" to "FS$1Library$1$2") |
m (Text replacement - "([\s\[\(\=])FHL" to "$1FS Library") |
||
| Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
The social standing of the families was varied and a number of the children came from respectable families. Thomas Wynne (12719), who was admitted on 10 May 1759, was handed to Thorold Lowdell, of Blackman Street, surgeon, on behalf of his father John Douglas, of Elstead, Surrey, schoolmaster, on 20 June 1764. William Downie, of St Martin in the Fields, watchmaker, who retrieved his child Thomas Oakley (4285) on 9 February 1764, had as surety Joshua Bostock, of St Mary le Strand, mathematical instrument maker, and Robert Moore of St Martin in the Fields, jeweller. Prudence Waller (3243), who was abandoned on 21 January 1757 (and not baptised in the Hospital), was retrieved from Shrewsbury by her mother Mary, the wife of George Bally, of Moncton, Hampshire, gentleman, on 17 October 1764. | The social standing of the families was varied and a number of the children came from respectable families. Thomas Wynne (12719), who was admitted on 10 May 1759, was handed to Thorold Lowdell, of Blackman Street, surgeon, on behalf of his father John Douglas, of Elstead, Surrey, schoolmaster, on 20 June 1764. William Downie, of St Martin in the Fields, watchmaker, who retrieved his child Thomas Oakley (4285) on 9 February 1764, had as surety Joshua Bostock, of St Mary le Strand, mathematical instrument maker, and Robert Moore of St Martin in the Fields, jeweller. Prudence Waller (3243), who was abandoned on 21 January 1757 (and not baptised in the Hospital), was retrieved from Shrewsbury by her mother Mary, the wife of George Bally, of Moncton, Hampshire, gentleman, on 17 October 1764. | ||
Distance seems not to have been any problem. Faith Henley (15930), who had been admitted on 8 March 1760, was ordered to be returned to her mother Catherine Flint, of Wheldrake, Yorkshire, spinster, on 9 April 1760. Faith, who was three months old when admitted, was already at nurse with Mrs Birch at Abingdon in Berkshire who wrote to the hospital on 7 April hoping to be allowed ‘to continue my care in looking after the child and seeing due tenderness used to it, and from time to time to inform her [the child’s mother] of its welfare, till she should recall it’. This letter is printed in Gillian Clark, ''Correspondence of the Foundling Hospital Inspectors in Berkshire 1757-8'' (Berkshire Record Society, vol.1, 1994) [not in | Distance seems not to have been any problem. Faith Henley (15930), who had been admitted on 8 March 1760, was ordered to be returned to her mother Catherine Flint, of Wheldrake, Yorkshire, spinster, on 9 April 1760. Faith, who was three months old when admitted, was already at nurse with Mrs Birch at Abingdon in Berkshire who wrote to the hospital on 7 April hoping to be allowed ‘to continue my care in looking after the child and seeing due tenderness used to it, and from time to time to inform her [the child’s mother] of its welfare, till she should recall it’. This letter is printed in Gillian Clark, ''Correspondence of the Foundling Hospital Inspectors in Berkshire 1757-8'' (Berkshire Record Society, vol.1, 1994) [not in FS Library], but Mrs Birch’s suggestion was not taken up. | ||
Mildred Jackson (13786), who had been admitted on 27 August 1759, aged one week, was returned to her mother Isabella Ross, of Inverary, Scotland, wife of George Ross, a sailor on board one of the King’s ships, on 18 June 1760. George Martin (17589), admitted on 6 September 1780, was delivered to his mother, Eleanor Dillon, of Paris, on 18 July 1787. | Mildred Jackson (13786), who had been admitted on 27 August 1759, aged one week, was returned to her mother Isabella Ross, of Inverary, Scotland, wife of George Ross, a sailor on board one of the King’s ships, on 18 June 1760. George Martin (17589), admitted on 6 September 1780, was delivered to his mother, Eleanor Dillon, of Paris, on 18 July 1787. | ||
| Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
Statistics produced in January 1767 showed that of the 16,511 children admitted to the Hospital prior to that date, only two had then reached the age of 21, some 11,140 having died. 4,285 were living in the Hospital or at nurse, 924 were serving apprenticeships and only 160 had been reclaimed. | Statistics produced in January 1767 showed that of the 16,511 children admitted to the Hospital prior to that date, only two had then reached the age of 21, some 11,140 having died. 4,285 were living in the Hospital or at nurse, 924 were serving apprenticeships and only 160 had been reclaimed. | ||
According to these figures, 143 of the reclaimed children were removed in the period of ‘General Reception’ (i.e. between 1756 and 1760) and only five afterwards. Since a volume survives listing 159 reclamations in the short period April 1764 to January 1765, these figures may not be reliable (even allowing for those ‘reclaimed’ who had died). They appear in R.H. Nichols and F.A. Wray, ''The History of the Foundling Hospital ''(1935) [not in | According to these figures, 143 of the reclaimed children were removed in the period of ‘General Reception’ (i.e. between 1756 and 1760) and only five afterwards. Since a volume survives listing 159 reclamations in the short period April 1764 to January 1765, these figures may not be reliable (even allowing for those ‘reclaimed’ who had died). They appear in R.H. Nichols and F.A. Wray, ''The History of the Foundling Hospital ''(1935) [not in FS Library]. Without examining all the records and opening the bundles of petitions mentioned below, it does not seem possible to say how many children were actually returned to their parents. | ||
One presumes that those reclaimed would have abandoned the new surnames they had been given in the Hospital and that they resumed their family names, though they may have kept their new Christian names. They would, if this is the case, only appear in FamilySearch under their hospital names and not under those by which they were later known. | One presumes that those reclaimed would have abandoned the new surnames they had been given in the Hospital and that they resumed their family names, though they may have kept their new Christian names. They would, if this is the case, only appear in FamilySearch under their hospital names and not under those by which they were later known. | ||
edits