Genealogy Chat

He appears to have had a good occupation, and had been working in India during the mutiny. He was back in England by 1871, so why do I find him as a pauper inmate with an occupation of fitter in 1891. He is married but I can't find his wife in the poorhouse, and she was living in Birmingham in 1901. He died in 1898. On the census it states 'pauper inmate' so he can't have been ill.

I'm really confused and like to hear other's views.

Thanks, Lou

do you want to say who "he" is so we can maybe find him and have a look?

Hi Anne, He is William Baker b 1825 Tipton Staffordshire, Engineer/ Engine Fitter. 1891 Census; RG12; Piece: 2274; Folio 117; Page 8; GSU
Thanks, Lou his wife was Sarah b 1827 Tipton, Staffordshire, I cna't find her in 1891 but she's living with her daughter in 1901.

thanks, LOu

A lot of the people on the page seem to be retired. Perhaps their house went with the job and when he retired he had nowhere else to go but the workhouse. Just a thought because there were all sorts of reasons why people went to the workhouse. Sometimes it was because they were ill. Sometimes it was just a temporary move and other times it was a permanent move.

Do you have his death certificate? If so was he still at the workhouse when he died?


Kath. x

Hi Kath, No I don't have his death certificate. I did think it might be because of illness but would have thought it wouldn't say the word 'pauper' if he was ill. That's what confused me.

Lou

If he had no savings and fell ill he wouldn't have been able to support himself through work and may have had to resort to the workhouse. As he's listed as a fitter it doesn't necessarily mean he was working, just what his regular trade was. My 3xGGrandfather was in the workhouse on the 1891 and died there in 1900. He's listed as a pauper watchmaker on the census and also on his death certificate hes listed as a watchmaker. Now someone on the census page has helpfully written in pencil all those who were actually retired. (This doesn't happen very often)

I know for certain that he was not working as a watchmaker when he died. He was suffering from dementia brought on from breaking his femur sometime before.

Hi Janet,

thanks for that. I suppose I will just have to get his death cert to find out.

Do you know if it's possible to find more info from the Workhouse records?

Thanks again, Lou

It depends on which workhouse and how many of the records survive - you can check this on the workhouses website at www.workhouses.org

My grandfather was born in the workhouse in Southwark in 1870 and a kind person on Genes went to the LMA for me and managed to get copies of the admission register and discharge register for when his mother went in and came out. She lived just round the corner from the workhouse so was obviously just there for the birth (although she was actually there for 3 and a half weeks).

Kath. x

My grandfather was born in Birmingham workhouse in 1880, listed as pauper inmate, his mother a barmaid was also listed but unable to find any more information from Birmingham workhouse as I beleive the records no longer exist.( the blitz is probably the reason0. I have deperately been trying to find more information. How they left, when etc but drawn a blank. I know he left and later joined the Royal Warwickshire regiment and later a tramdriver but I cant fill the gap.

Hi Heather, Thanks for the info on the workhouse records. Have you tried looking for them on the 1891 cenus or 1901? They may shed some light for you. If you pm me the details I will look them up for you.

Lou

I have one who is on the census twice. Once as a servant living in with the family, and secondly as an inmate of the nearby workhouse.

There was a piece on The Antiques Roadshow last night about a workhouse and it said that "paupers" usually meant the unemployed.

This is one definition of "pauper" found on Google:-

One who is extremely poor; One living on or eligible for public charity.

I would imagine that this would cover someone who had retired (possibly no pension in those days).

Kath. x

Hi Brinsleys & Kath, Thanks for your comments. That's a strange one alright.

Kath, the problem is if he was in the workhouse because of unemployment, then why isn't his wife with him? I can't find her with any of their children and she's not with him in the workhouse. Surely if he was unemployed she'd be with him? But on the otherhand if he was there through illness surely it would just state inmate? He appeared to have a good occupation and as said previously had been working for the East Indian Company which I thought was a well paid job for those days.

I have just received a reply from his local cemetary and apparently he is buried in a public grave, so I suppose he was there because he had no money.

Thanks again to you all,
Regards, Lou

Depending on the year, workhouses were also used as hospitals I think. People would go in there to get medical treatment if they couldn't afford it.

I have one ancestor who died in there but it listed his usual address where his wife and children were living as somewhere else.

The workhouse often provided the ONLY free hospital in an area .................. so someone who was without much money and was sick or having a baby would go there for treatment .

They would be counted as an inmate of the workhouse on the census because that was the address, but would actually be in the hospital.


Patient Inmate is actually the giveaway that this is what is the case here!


................... so I would suggest that he was in fact sick and in the hospital, and his wife was living at home or with others because she was not sick and not eligible to be with her husband!.



as far as 3½ weeks in the workhouse hospital for a baby .................. that would be about par for having a baby at that period. In 1952, my sis-in-law was in hospital for a week, and in 1974 I was in hopsital for 10 days after a caesarean ............................ so it used to be much longer recovery time!



sylvia

Yes, I thought the 3 and half weeks was about right for a confinement in those days. I, too, had a caesarean in 1976 and spent 10 days in hospital.
These days they are out in a couple of days!!

Kath. x

even overnight over here!!


Honestly ................ I know of someone who was only in for 24 hours after a caesarean!




sylvia