poorhouse terminology

[miltonbank]

Hi guys

I'm puzzled with a workhouse entry on a historical figure I'm currently researching and wonder if anyone could help.
He spent some time(s) in the Lincoln workhouse at the turn of the 20th century, along with his wife, and for the most part they admitted themselves ('Name of Informant: self' according to creed register entries).
However, on one occasion the 'Name of informant' was given as 'prison warder'. Am I correct to assume that he had spent some time 'inside' and, on his due release date from jail, was pointed in the direction of the workhouse? I've tried to research prison records but unfortunately few have survived from that time and, of those that are still available, Lincoln Archives say they are still subject to the 100-year rule and so I can't get a look at them.
Any help gratefully received!

[bearkat]

You could try looking at court records (which may also have a closure) or local newspapers (which will be open) for a trial report.

[miltonbank]

Thanks Bearkat

I had a look through the local paper court reports for a few months before he went into poorhouse, but without much joy. My guess is that it was probably a minor misdemeanour which may not even have made the press . . . I'll try court records but just interested to see if anyone had experience of this terminology in their own research and what conclusions they had drawn from it.

[northern_rose]

Could you not challenge the 100 yr closure under the Freedom of Information Act?

[miltonbank]

Interesting one Northern Rose . . . . the info I require dates from 1910 so I'm still three years short. If the info was absolutely, utterly essential it would be an interesting route to go down but this was more of a general query why a prison warder should point someone in the direction of the poorhouse as 'informant'.
Going off on a slight tangent, I noticed on recent visit to Lincoln Archives that some of the data was still closed, even though 100 year rule no longer applied (for example info from 1902,03 etc). However, because that info was contained in a ledger that also had sensitive data up to the 1920s, it remained closed, presumably until the 2020s. Interesting logistic . . . could you still get access to 1902/03 info because the data is no longer subject to the 100-year rule, even though the same document would include info that is still closed? Would the archivist give you access but sit on your shoulder to ensure you only looked at info up to and including 1906/07? 

[northern_rose]

I suggest using the FOI act as I had huge success using it with the NA @ Kew. I gained access to records of a murder in 1935 which also included some prison records.

With the NA it was very simple - they had a link to make such challenges via the website.

The act states that the person making the request has to do so from a traceable address - this DOES include email. You should make a challenge - after all nothing lost!

Good luck