List children who drowned in forth and clyde canal
Executive summary
Records reviewed for this briefing show documented reports of multiple child fatalities in and around the Forth and Clyde Canal across different periods, but none of the provided sources supply the personal names of the children who drowned; instead the reporting records counts, local inquiries and calls for safety measures [1] [2] [3]. Any attempt to produce a definitive list of named child victims from these sources would be impossible because the sources cite numbers or incidents without giving names [1] [3] [2].
1. Historical parliamentary tally: eight children, Firhill timber basin, 1937–38
A question raised in the House of Commons in November 1938 recorded that a circular to Scottish Members stated that eight children had drowned in the timber basin at Firhill on the Forth and Clyde Canal “during the past year,” and the parliamentary exchange focused on pressing Glasgow Corporation for remedial action — the source records the number but does not give the victims’ names [1]. That Hansard entry is an official parliamentary record and reflects government-level awareness of child drownings in that part of the canal system, and it also exposes the political angle: the exchange is aimed at prompting municipal authorities to act, not at publishing victim identities [1].
2. Local histories and aggregated incident counts, not identities
Local-history summaries and canal safety retrospectives recount multiple drownings associated with canals and sometimes cite aggregated figures — for example, a regional historical account of Camelon and the Forth and Clyde Canal recounts fatal incidents and loss sustained on the canal but does so narratively and without naming individual child victims [2]. A focused pamphlet on canal deaths elsewhere notes episodes leaving “eleven children” bereaved families in the context of other canal tragedies, but it reports numbers and social consequences rather than giving a roster of names of children who drowned specifically in the Forth and Clyde Canal [3].
3. Modern reporting confirms continued risk but not a named-roll
Contemporary news coverage of drownings around UK canals highlights that children still die in inland waterways and that reporting often focuses on circumstances, safety measures and official responses rather than publishing young victims’ names; several modern articles about canal or river deaths describe ages and contexts but do not create a comprehensive named list tied to the Forth and Clyde Canal in the material provided [4] [5] [6]. This emphasis reflects journalistic practice and privacy concerns when reporting on child fatalities, and it means the supplied sources document incidents without giving the precise, named inventory requested.
4. What the sources do and do not permit researchers to conclude
From the supplied material it can be concluded that multiple child drownings have been associated with the Forth and Clyde Canal and its timber basins at different times [1] [2], and that public bodies and local histories have recorded counts and sought safety interventions [1] [2]. However, the sources do not provide the personal names, dates of birth or full identifying details of the children who drowned in the canal; therefore any exhaustive, named list cannot be compiled from these documents alone [1] [3] [2]. If names are required, the historical Hansard citation and local-archive leads point to where further archival or civil-record searches — coroners’ inquests, contemporary newspapers, municipal records — would need to be undertaken, but those primary-name sources are not present in the package provided [1] [2].
5. Alternative explanations, reporting priorities and implicit agendas
The materials suggest competing priorities in public records and reporting: parliamentary questions aim to spur municipal action and may emphasize counts to justify policy, local histories frame incidents within broader social narratives, and modern news reports balance public interest with privacy and sensitivity toward families; none of these priorities necessarily produce a named ledger of child victims [1] [2] [4]. Readers should note that archival or local-press reporting contemporaneous to specific drownings often carried names, but those specifics were not included among the supplied sources, so absence here should not be taken as proof that names never existed in other archives [1] [2].