Advice on Workhouse/poor in Liverpool

[itsrobert]

Hello,

I've been looking at the admissions/religious creed registers for the Liverpool Workhouse which used to be located on Brownlow Hill and have come across some interesting entries for my 3rd great grandfather in the year before he died.

To cut a long story short, he was an Irish immigrant although he came with his family much later than the famine - I've pinpointed their arrival to about 1876. He was a boot maker and lived in the Mount Pleasant/Copperas Hill area.

The reason I'm posting this is because he was admitted to the workhouse a total of 8 times between December 1907 and when he finally died there in September 1908. His death certificate states that he died from "morbus cordis" which seems to have generally meant heart failure or death by natural causes if the doctor wasn't certain of the exact cause of death.

The interesting part is that I know his wife and son (married) were living at various houses on Blake Street (which seem to vary slightly month-to-month!) and on some occasions he was admitted from Blake Street. However, on about 3 of the occasions he was admitted to the workhouse that year, he was admitted from 129 Islington, or "Hignett's L.H.". After some research using the 1911 census, it seems that this was a lodging house on Islington.

Does anyone have any idea why he might have been living in a lodging house when I know his wife/son were on Blake Street (even when he is recorded as having been admitted from the lodging house, his wife is listed as being on Blake Street)? And why do you think he was admitted so many times in such a short amount of time? On one of the admissions, it says he was "found on Gill Street". Do you think this might suggest drunkenness? Or could it really have been his heart that caused him so much trouble? If it's any help, his stays in the workhouse were always fairly short (usually a few days) and in one case, he was admitted and discharged twice in a week!

Hoping that someone more educated in such things might be able to give me some suggestions to help explain this.

Many thanks,

Rob

[Milliepede]

Was he an elderly chap?  Possibly he was in poor health and needed care, or as you say he could have been on the drink and wife had kicked him out temporarily! 

Are the admissions from the lodging house chronological ie did those admissions happen all together at the end or are they interspersed with the admissions from Blake Street?

[itsrobert]

Thanks Milliepede.

Yes he was fairly elderly for the time - he was in his 60s. 

Interestingly, the admissions from the lodging house are interspersed with the ones from Blake Street, as follows:

1. Admitted 3 Dec 1907 from 43 Blake Street, discharged 9 Dec 1907 (6 days). Wife at same address
2. Admitted 17 Feb 1908 from 129 Islington (the lodging house), discharged 20 Feb 1908 (3 days). Son at 23 Blake Street
3. Admitted 25 Mar 1908 from 129 Islington (the lodging house), discharged 30 Mar 1908 (5 days). Wife at 29 Blake Street
4. Admitted 9 Jul 1908 from 43 Blake Street, discharged 13 Jul 1908 (4 days). Wife at 16 Blake Street
5. Admitted 23 Jul 1908 from 43 Blake Street, discharged 28 Jul 1908 (5 days). Wife at same address
6. Admitted 15 Aug 1908 from 43 Blake Street, discharged 18 Aug 1908 (3 days). Wife at same address
7. Admitted 22 Aug 1908, found in Gill Street, discharged 26 Aug 1908 (4 days). Wife at 43 Blake Street
8. Admitted 12 Sept 1908 from Hignetts L.H. (the lodging house at 129 Islington), died 29 Sept 1908 (17 days). Wife at 29 Blake Street

So as you can see he was obviously at the lodging house in February and March 1908 and again in September 1908. But in between he was admitted from home on Blake Street. The one that really interests me is the admission in August where he was found on Gill Street. It's that one that suggests to me something untoward. He mustn't have had all his faculties if he was found on a street. I guess that could have been either drink or frailty of some sort? What do you think?

[Blue70]

What was his name? I'd like to view these records to see if I can deduce more information. For anyone wondering here is a link to the Creed Registers for Liverpool Workhouse below. As you can see you need the name to look up a specific dated entry for these registers:-

https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/507318?availability=Family%20History%20Library


Blue

[purlin]

If drink was a problem for your relative, i think the first port of call for him would be the local Bridewell.  There were a few in that area of Liverpool including Prescot Street and Copperas Hill.  However it would only be an enforced one night stay unless it was a Friday night. The area was thick with Pubs and i believe a number of Common Lodging Houses.  These premises were paid for on a nightly basis.  The inmates having to vacate the premises early morning and re-applying in the evening.  If that was the case, it would not have been a place of choice for a sick person.  The  Workhouse although free, demanded that an inmate did some form of work.  This again would not be the ideal for your relative with a heart condition.
I suggest that the problem may have been marital, a means of escape!

[itsrobert]

Many thanks for your insight there, purlin. That sounds like an interesting theory - I guess I'll probably never know for certain but it's certainly an amusing thought! There's no other evidence I have to suggest drink (unlike other parts of my family at the time, one or two of whom actually died from excessive drinking) and I guess if he had a heart condition he may well have collapsed on the street on the occasion he was found and admitted to the Workhouse. He may even have had something like angina. I know his great-grandson (my granddad) had angina in his later years.

Blue70, if you want to look him up his name was Terence Callaghan.

Many thanks for your help.

Rob

[itsrobert]

Just been searching another volume of admissions to the Workhouse and found a few more entries for Terence:

1. Admitted 23 Oct 1906 from 129 Islington. Discharged 27 Oct 1906. Wife at 2 Hawke Street
2. Admitted 3 Nov 1906 from 129 Islington. Discharged 7 Nov 1906. Wife at 2 Blake Street
3. Admitted 30 Aug 1907 from 43 Blake Street. Discharged 2 Sept 1907. Wife at same address

So once again Terence was admitted from the common lodging house and then from his home. Really strange this one! It does sound like something was going on - maybe poor marital relations is the explanation as to why he is constantly living between home and the lodging house.

[Blue70]

Looking at the first few it just gives ward numbers for his location within the workhouse. If we could work out what each numbered ward was used for it might help to establish what problems he had.


Blue

[itsrobert]

The Terence Callaghan saga has taken another twist. In addition to the ones stated above, I have also found these admissions:

1. 30th Jan 1902 from 4 Pomona Street, wife at same address
2. 8th Dec 1902 from 4 Pomona Street, wife at same address
3. 14th July 1903 from 10 Chapel Lane, wife at same address
4. 17th Mar 1904 from the "streets", wife at 2 Hawke Street
5. 15th Apr 1904 from 22 Mulberry Street, wife at same address
6. 4th May 1905 from 2 Jones Street, son at same address, wife at 2 Hawke Street
7. 15th July 1905 from 3 Jones Street, wife at same address

Perhaps the most interesting, though, is the earliest one I have found so far (and I've gone back to 1893 so far):

Admitted 4th June 1897 from 4 Pomona Street, wife at same address. However, next to the discharge date of 18th June 1897, in the "remarks" column it says he was transferred to Rainhill. This was a very large lunatic asylum near Liverpool. I've cross referenced with the admissions register for the workhouse and it says that on entry there he was admitted to a medical ward and it states that he had a "temporary disability".

This is a most interesting lead! I have contacted the Liverpool Record Office to see if they can help me with tracking down any papers relating to Terence's admission to the asylum.

I will be sure to post anything I found out - I'm hoping this may help to explain his large number of admissions to the workhouse between 1902 and his death in 1908 and his erratic living arrangements! Interestingly, it seems that only the 1897 admission resulted in him being transferred to Rainhill asylum. All the other entries just have a discharge date without any remarks.

Will keep you posted!