Life and Death in the Workhouse

Through Ruby surname individuals, Nikki Brown presents the challenge of researching those who were forced to the workhouses in Victorian England. So many of these people lived their life in the shadows, often leaving little lasting imprint in the core records family historians access.

People queuing at St. Marylebone workhouse circa 1900 (Wellcome Images, Wellcome Trust)

When researching their family tree, many hope for a connection to royalty, a notable or famous person. However, finding individuals from the other end of the social scale, can    sometimes give insight into a different aspect of life. For example, for times around the       Victorian era, examining records relating to those who were in a workhouse can be useful.

While researching Edwin George Ruby, I found a staggering 1,100 records relating to his admission to and discharge from two of London’s workhouses between 26 Nov 1895 and 5th January 1907. . During these 12 years, he had more than a dozen spells in the workhouse, often only spending a few days out of the workhouse before he was readmitted. It is clear from many of the records that he was unwell and was probably using the workhouse infirmary as his primary source of medical care. No record of his death was found and one cannot help thinking that he may have died on the street and been buried in a public grave without a name.

Looking at other London workhouse records, I found another 119 records relating to 58 Rubys. The amount of information varies but even for those with a significant amount of detail (including approximate year of birth, occupation and even address from where admitted) it can be difficult to identify the person. In the records examined there were also mothers with their children, but it was still not possible to place any of these 5 families. Not even the identity of the mother with 4 children, whose record gave the name and occupation of the husband who had deserted her, could be confirmed. Perhaps the name was incorrectly recorded, but for this family, who had multiple admissions, another suggestion might be use of an alias due to the stigma of the workhouse?

One situation where at least one other record does tie up with the workhouse record, was when the person died in the workhouse. Possibly because the workhouse personnel were the ones registering the death, so the name is consistent.

I found 6 Rubys who had died in the workhouse and one who although not recorded as having died, was recorded as having been buried! She was Maria Ruby, and was admitted to Southwark workhouse aged 9 months old on 4^th February 1847.Her address is given but it is illegible due to corrections. She was buried on the 10^th of February the same year.

In 1849, 47 year old, Jane Amelia Ruby was seen by a doctor, who diagnosed Cholera and recommended that she was admitted to the workhouse in Westminster. She arrived on the 16^th of September 1849 but died there only two days later. The only possible other record found for her is with 13 year old Francis Ruby in New Compton Street, St Giles in the Fields on the 1841 census.

On the 27^th of March 1864 Thomas Ruby died in the workhouse in Uxbridge. No age was recorded, but it is recorded in the GRO index as 42 years. The only possible record relating to him, may be the 1851 census.

In the same year on the 10^th of April 1864, destitute Margaret Ruby aged 88 was admitted to Southwark workhouse. She remained there and lived to the age of 94 and died on the 16^th of February 1870. I found no other information about her.

In another entry in the column labelled “Name of lunatic” is Joseph Ruby. He was admitted to Bethnal Green workhouse on January 3^rd 1896, and died on the 12^th of December the following year. He was 39 and born in Shoreditch, and despite there being no more information than the others, more is known about him from his baptism and two censuses. Five years before his admission he appears to have been well, living with his wife and 3 children and working as a cabinet maker.

There is a lot of information in the two records for Robert Ruby who was 44 when he was admitted from 11 Goding Street in Vauxhall to Lambeth workhouse, on 23^rd September 1902. He died on 3^rd October 1902 and was buried by his sister Mrs Caroline Gregory, of 16 Canterbury Road.

The other death in the workhouse recorded is for a baby, Ann Ruby, who was born in the workhouse on the 8^th of March 1863 and died aged 9 days. The GRO index does not have her mother’s maiden name. It may of course have been Ruby, as single pregnant girls often found themselves in the workhouse. Deeper digging may reveal additional information, but if nothing is found, it will not be possible to link her with the rest of her family.

There is another birth recorded in the workhouse records, on the 31^st of January 1873, however she is only recorded a female Ruby. Her mother’s name, although recorded, is less clear and may or may not be Ruby. I have not been able to identify this girl’s birth at all.

One workhouse record not found was for the birth of William Henry Grant Ruby, whose baptism record shows that he was born in a workhouse.

There were 3 other individuals who could be identified (and another 2 possibly).

In about August 1898, Sarah Ruby neé Poule died aged 27. She left behind 4 children, aged between 3 and 8 years. The two boys, Henry Charles Ruby (8) and Herbert Ruby (6) were admitted to Greenwich workhouse by order of a magistrate on the 16^th of September 1898. They were discharged on 8^th October 1898 by order of the police to Woolwich. On the 1901 census they are in The Boys' Home in Regents Park Road, London.

The final Ruby who can be identified, apart from Edwin George Ruby has the most recorded admissions. He is John Ruby, born in about 1838 in Maidstone, Kent. He became a bricklayer and moved to Woolwich. His first admission to Woolwich workhouse was when he was aged 68. He had at least 7 admissions between 1907 and 1911. The length of stay varied from as little as 4 days to several months. He was always discharged at his own request, except for the last admission, for which there is no record of the admission, but on 2^nd April 1911 he was discharged to the infirmary with a cough. It is not recorded that he died there but his death is registered that year in the same quarter. He was 72.

People were admitted to the workhouse for many reasons. In the records, I have found that many were destitute, some through age, infirmity or desertion. There were also a couple of unmarried pregnant women, for whom the workhouse would have been their only option for delivery of their baby, if their family had disowned them. At least one appears to have had a mental illness and several were physically ill. On most occasions, admission would have been voluntary, but it would have been a difficult decision due to the legal implications and the stigma attached to it.

Sources:

London Workhouse Admission and Discharge Records (London Metropolitan Archives)

Further Reading

www.workhouses.org.uk.