Removal Orders

[Just Gillian]

William Rouse, pob unknown, married in Oxford in 1826 and was dead by Oct 1837. His wife, born Oxford, remarried in Surrey in 1839.

In 1841, children of her marriage to William Rouse, William, 15, Lucy, 10, (both born Oxford) and Frederick, 4, born Surrey, are with her and her second husband in Lambeth.
Children John, 13, Mary Ann, 7, both born Oxford, and Martha, 5, born Walworth, Surrey are in the Oxford Workhouse.

As the three workhouse children have returned to their mother by 1851, I'm presuming they were only in the workhouse in 1841 because she could not afford to keep them all.

Can anyone tell me if, in these circumstances, the choice of which children should be removed to Oxford would have been hers, or would the parish have dictated? Unless I am missing something obvious, it seems a very random division, given their ages.

Secondly, does a stepfather's settlement never have any bearing on the disposal of the children?

[Olde Crone]

JG

Removal Orders had finished by 1836, so the family was scattered for other reasons I think - maybe all had been in the Oxford workhouse but some of them came out - William and Lucy were certainly old enough to be working.

No, a stepfather's place of settlement had no bearing on where children were removed to, although a stepfather could put up a fight if he wished. But that is irrelevant here.

OC

[Just Gillian]

Thanks OC - but I'm really puzzled about that 1836 now.

I don't have the papers to hand (lent to a cousin in law who hasn't returned them yet!), but I thought a removal order was issued in the 1840s or 50s for OH's gt gt grandmother and children to Oxford from Somerset (she was spared because of the fact that her marriage turned out to be bigamous).

[Olde Crone]

JG

Oooh, I have never seen a Removal Order after about 1833.

I was under the impression that they stopped once the Union Poor Law Act was passed (1836???) because that law took away the parochial responsibility for the poor and made it a national responsibility, as the old Removal system was completely unworkable and hugely time consuming and expensive once people began pouring into the towns and cities for work.

OC

[Just Gillian]

OC - I checked my notes and the Somerset to Oxford one was 1856. Ancestry's Westminster Poor Law records include "Registers of Orders of Removal to and from other Unions" up to 1895.

[Olde Crone]

JG

Well I absolutely never!!!!!! Knock me down wiv a fevver and so on.

I will need to reread this bit of history. And start having a look for removal orders AFTER 1836 - I have never bothered!

Just goes to show you shouldn't ever believe everything you read. I cannot remember now where I got that information from, it must have been a very long time ago because I have "always known it".

Sorry for giving such monumental misinformation.

*Creeps off and hides*

OC

[Nell]

I can't find out definitely online OC but the poor laws were effectively ended in 1948 with the implementation of the National Assistance Act (1948) and the National Health Service Act (1946).

I suppose we hear more about settlement orders pre-1834 because there were no censuses or bmds to provide information then.

[Olde Crone]

Nell

No, the fundamental change was the change from Parish Poor Laws to the Union Poor Laws in 1836. Before the Union Act, every parish was responsible for its own poor.

After that date, the responsibility was a national one and you went to the nearest workhouse to where to were at the time you needed assistance. Every parish in the land chipped in a bit of money and the parishes got together in Unions to provide one large workhouse rather than lots of little ones dotted here there and everywhere.

Or so I thought! I am really quite shaken by this, not because I'm wrong, but because I have "always known this" and until now, have never read anything to contradict my knowledge!

OC

[Nell]

Well if you don't know OC I'm sure the rest of us don't!

[Just Gillian]

Well if you don't know OC I'm sure the rest of us don't!

That's exactly how I felt last night Nell! I was very hesitant about querying OC's 1836 cut-off date, fully expecting to be told that I had completely misunderstood what Removal Orders were! After all, not only is OC much, much older than I, and therefore, presumably, wiser, but also, I am always aware that I am a relative beginner at this genealogy game!;)

OC - I'd be glad to know more about the whole subject of Poor Laws so please let us know if you come across any good sources. In the meantime, I'll have to see if our main library here has anything useful on the subject.

[Nell]

If I can locate my copy of Ancestral whatsits by Mark Whosit, I'll look it up.

[Just Gillian]

I'm so glad you said that Nell!

I had completely forgotten till then that I too had a book called Ancestral whatsits, although mine was by Whosit Whosit! Son gave it to me 2 or 3 years ago and I have just found it lurking on the bottom shelf of the spare room bookcase. Ancestral Trails by Mark Heber?

There's a fair bit about the Poor Laws in there. I was amazed to read that there were still an estimated 15,000 a year being removed in the early 20th century!

[Olde Crone]

*Decides to give up family history and take up painting by numbers*

OC

[Nell]

That's the one Gillian! I don't know where my copy is at the moment.

OC - you're busy stalking/brooding sorry, looking at the Holden thread carefully! No time for painting by numbers.

[Just Gillian]

lol OC - I swear I wasn't trying to rub salt in the wound! I was just so surprised that removal had still been going on so recently.

But - some good news - Reeves does a Senior Painting by numbers! Would you like the link? Although, to be honest, I feel the pbn on black velvet would be more your style - a little classier and more sophisticated. Plus, they are now apparently collectors' items, so your completed efforts would go very nicely with your day job!

Nell - I'm amazed I found mine - I am the Queen of Chaotic Storage!

[Olde Crone]

It's not that I mind being wrong, I always think it is more important to know the facts.

What bothers me is that I have been confidently disseminating incorrect information for years and I cannot now remember WHERE the information came from, to lodge itself so firmly in my brain.

I've looked at my usual reference books and none of them make any mention of Removal Orders after 1836 at all, either way.

However (she says bravely, gathering tattered shreds of credibility around her comfortingly) this does explain something I always thought was just the people not having caught up with the law, namely, the very common practice of making your birthplace the same as your residence on the census (and thus confusing us researchers). It really WAS because they thought they could be sent back to their parish of birth, so decided to make it difficult for the busybody spies to find out where they came from.

I do wonder though, how on earth they managed to carry out these Removal Orders in the large cities - places like Manchester for instance, where the population had come from everywhere. Or London - what a nightmare.

OC

*Admires the black velvet canvas, licks paintbrush, knocks water over....*

[Just Gillian]

I'm curious too about the mechanics of the removals from major cities.

One of the things I came across was that the parish to which a person/family was being removed would refuse to accept them and send them back. I hope they were at least fed and given a bed at one institution or the other in the meantime.