1851: Meaning of Cripple/Pauper

[De Tails]

Hello from New Zealand!  8-)

May I draw on your experience and local knowledge please?

A possible ancestor from Yaxley is listed in the 1851 Census as a 20 year old Cripple and Pauper. He appears to be living with his parents and younger siblings. I'd appreciate your thoughts on two issues.

1. Given the status associated with those two categories, is it possible that he is a charge on the parish but not living in a workhouse?

2. Given as per #1, presumably no-one would claim this unless their case was serious. If this is so, does it seem credible that this person would then emigrate to Canada, establish a homestead (farm), marry, raise nine children, and live to a ripe old age?

All comments - including noting any flaws in my logic - welcome. Thanks in advance.

chrs
Sue

[fastfusion]

A cripple is a fairly loose term ,  in that one maybe injured by accident or as a natural defect at birth or by the crippling disease Polio or celbral palys (*sic spelling)so an immunerator is not one to pry but if something is outstanding at time of census then it must have been a noticable injury.     A pauper which is not an uncommon term in genealogy is for those who cant afford to support themselves and thus the "Poor Union" of the parish gives rise to accomodation , food and quite often employment .......    that employment may be working in the scrubery, the gardens,  the kitchen or hospice or general light duties around the Workhouse..      A workhouse is for want of better words like a nursing home of todays standards however in those days were often run by  folk trying to make ends meet on a very minimal allowance from the Parish wardens.


It is not uncommon to see whole families in the poor union and yes sometimes they do "run" the place.....  but consider eviction from their abode or fire or other tradegy before making an assumption.....   I would find local newspapers of the area you seek or read British History ONline before drawing any conclusions as to why the whole family is mentioned.


And finally in response to immigration to Canada.........     there was a period in English history where the Parish Wardens and trustees accross UK did in fact elect and sponsor some families to immigrate ........      which meant they would receive passage, and a sponsor would resettle them at other end.....    the sponsors may have engaged them for employment on farms as a bond.....  others on rootschat can give more detailed opinion than I but  I have seen lists in Canada where pauper families were given opportunity.

[De Tails]

Hi fastfusion - thank you for your prompt and informative reply.

May I take this a step further as I separated my posts (the other being http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=666392.0 regarding finding an address from the Census reference).

The person labelled as Cripple and Pauper is living with his folks at home - by the looks of the enumerator's comments - hence my question as to "a charge on the parish but not living in a workhouse". However, the Census sheet doesn't actually give an address, so I am lacking confirmation of that theory. 

Thanks also for your comments on supported assistance to Canada. I have been wondering about this but until I can clarify where they lived (and if they are actually related!) I haven't pursued this angle.

chrs
Sue

[Skoosh]

A pauper in Scotland, anybody applying for relief, not necessarily living in the Poors House.
 Any sum which the inspector paid out would be liable to be reclaimed from the paupers home parish or his near relatives.

Skoosh.

[De Tails]

Thanks Skoosh - makes sense.

chrs
Sue

[avm228]

Hi Sue

These things are always easier to answer with a bit of detail about the person concerned.

From the other thread it looks as though he was Joshua Leeder/Leader, son of William & Jane.

William & Jane and several of their children appear in the 1861 Canada census, in Guelph - so it looks likely they emigrated as a family. In those circumstances it wouldn't be surprising if Joshua went with them, perhaps especially if had some disability and had not established a separate household in England. Depending on the type and severity of his disability it's not impossible he's the later homesteader, though it might seem a bit surprising he could manage such a physically demanding lifestyle in Canada but not earn a living in Suffolk.

Have you been able to find Canadian immigration or marriage details to assist on whether he's the same man? I see that Joshua the homesteader in Amaranth gave his birthdate as Oct 1831 and immigration date as 1852 (per 1901 Canada census).

In case he didn't travel, it may also be worth investigating the Joshua Leader marriage in Hartismere, Mar qtr 1860 and the Joshua Leader death in Hartismere, Jun qtr 1861 (Hartismere of course being the registration district covering Yaxley).

[De Tails]

Hi avm228

Thanks for all this! If I can start at the end: no, I haven't found any Canadian records (so far) that satisfies me that they are the same person. I will follow-up on the Hartismere marriage - thanks muchly.

Re: Joshua at Amaranth - this is what I have so far:

1861 Census of Canada: Joshua (31) and Mary (22) - Hallowell, Prince Edward Island. C of E; Joshua from Ireland

1861 Census of Canada: Joshua (31) and Mary (27) - Amaranth, ON; English Church; Mary from Ireland

Farther down the same page: Joshua (30) and Mary (28); English Church; Mary from Ireland.

I really wonder about the duplication, but on the Agricultural Census of same year there are two Joshuas with different land references (lines 17 and 23).

1871 Census: Age 41; born ENGLAND; Church of England,Anglican; ENGLISH
WELLINGTON NORTH/35/Amaranth/G/pg 36/C-9950/Reference: RG31 - Statistics Canada/Item Number: 149889 (that'll be copyright to Statistics Canada!)

So - he's probably one of the previous two.

However: our family records list Joshua as born in Guelph, Ontario not  England, and born later than William - the first one born in Canada (1855).

I'm in the midst of trying to sort out the various Leader clans which settled in Canada. At the moment I have the clusters of:

at 1851 Census:
- Hallowell/Prince Edward Island
- Blenheim/Oxford/Canada West (Ontario)
- Southwold/Elgin/Canada West
- Escott/Leeds/Canada West
- Pittsburg/Frontenac/Canada West
- York/York/Canada West
- Norwich/Oxford/Canada West
- Lacorne/Terrebonne/Canada East (Quebec)

Our lot appears for the first time in the 1861 Census:
- Guelph/Wellington/Canada West 
which fits with first Canadian-born child being in 1855.

I'd further note that some of those clans claim Irish, some German, and some are Roman Catholic, and one claims occupation as "Gentleman" (I'm guessing he's of the Anglo-Irish gentry from Cork!)

Lots more work to do, when all I was trying to  sort out was whether Joshua actually came to Canada (or died before then) leaving the later boy to be named in his honor??

Aiyyee! LOL

Sue

[avm228]

Well, it looks as though you've got your work cut out

For what it's worth, the 1852 immigration date claimed by Joshua in 1901 is consistent with the window when William & Jane must have immigrated, going by their children's birthdates.  I don't think there's any sign of them (according to the censuses) having a subsequent Joshua, is there? Jane would have been about 44 when William was born so it wouldn't be surprising if he was her last.

If you haven't already done so, it may be worth your while asking Suffolk Record Office at Ipswich whether they have relevant Yaxley/Hartismere records relating to the support of Joshua - if so they may be informative as to any death or emigration.

[De Tails]

I reckon! 

Actually, our line's records show four Canadian-born kids: William (1855), Jane, Marjorie, and Joshua. The others are listed as "Suffolk" with no place-name: Isabelle 1841, Thomas 1844, Robert 1845, Ellen and Frederick 1849 (twins), Ephriam [sic] (no date) and Henry 1850.

That is the root of my dilemma - it is similar to, but not the same as, the Yaxley folks. Other trees add a Suzannah chr 1836 Yaxley, Henry chr 1838 Thornham Parva,  and give a Jane as an early Yaxley birth (sorry, spreadsheet not open!) I've found these records but still working through. I don't want to "claim" an ancestor for my sibs and nieces/nephews unless it's clearer than this!

Finally, I've gone round and round in ever decreasing circles trying to figure out the national archives search engine for Poor Union records, so your suggestion of going straight to the records office is most timely!

With thanks for your effort and interest -

Sue