In a message dated 19/05/2007 19:46:21 GMT Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: Looking at an admission to Morpeth Lunatic Asylum, in 1871, Elizabeth Lavery was listed as 'lunatic'. In 1881 she was one of the few people listed as an 'idiot'. ___________________________________________________________________________ Hi Ann, >From the Report on the 1871 Census. "Of the 69,019 lunatics and imbeciles returned in the Census more than two-thirds were chargeable to the poor rates under the denomination of insane paupers. With respect to this return it is stated that it "includes a large proportion of persons imbecile from old age and of harmless idiots"; the distinction between the idiotic and the insane is not observed in the statistics of poor law relief." >From the Report on the 1881 Census. "Persons of unsound mind are variously returned in the schedules as lunatic, idiot, and imbecile. No accurate line of demarcation can be drawn between the several conditions indicated by these terms. Speaking generally, however, the term idiot is applied in popular usage simply to those who suffer from congenital mental deficiency, and the term imbecile to persons who have fallen in later life into a state of chronic dementia. But it is certain that neither this nor any other definite distinction between the terms was rigorously observed in the schedules, and consequently no attempt has been made by us to separate imbeciles from idiots. The term lunatic also is used with some vagueness, and probably some persons suffering from congenital idiocy, and many more suffering from dementia, were returned under this name. Still, as a rule, the term lunatic is not used to include persons suffering from such affectations, but is limited to those afflicted by more acute forms of mental disease. We have therefore, separated the lunatics from the idiots and imbeciles; the division being desirable for practical purposes hereafter mentioned. Some term, however, was required by us which should stand for all kinds of mental unsoundness, and for convenience we have taken the term insanity to include them all." Regards Stan Mapstone

Thank you all for your responses to my queries. Mike is correct - in that in 1871 at Morpeth most inmates were described as lunatic. So, I assume that Eliz. Lavery had a very low IQ, and may not have been brought to lunacy by some life changing trauma. I also found a web site about Aycliffe Minitions facory - it was a huge operation, and a dangerous one at that. I just remember the smell of the shortbread biscuits my mother brought for me from the canteen! Many thanks for your thoughts and ideas - Stan, as usual is a fount of all knowledge! Ann Lavery

In a message dated 20/05/2007 03:07:51 GMT Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: So, this Act did not refer to any mental illnesses at all. ______________________________________________________________________________ ____ Moral Defectives ~ criminal or vicious personalities. Unmarried Mothers also became absorbed into this category. See http://www.institutions.org.uk/poor_law_unions/imbeciles.htm Regards Stan Mapstone

Hi all As the history of the mental health services is my "specialist subject" I feel I need to clarify the errors here: 1. The 1913 Mental Deficiency Act refers to deficiency, so ONLY considers people who would nowadays be considered as people with learning difficulties. 2. The Act makes no reference to "criminal or vicious personalities" but to "criminal or vicious propensities... where punishment had no effect" (i.e. they couldn't learn to change their behaviour) - a different thing altogether 3. In order to be in any of these categories, it had to be from birth or begin at a very early age. So, this Act did not refer to any mental illnesses at all. Women with illegitimate children COULD be classified as moral defectives from this period up until 1959, when the Mental Deficiency Act was repealed. But it wasn't the only criterion, because certification was still required to hospitalize someone. It was not uncommon for the illegitimate child to be born in the asylum/mental hospital. The category depended, to a large extent, on societal values. Indeed, illegitimacy was considered (esp. of first child) as fairly "normal" until the mid-19th century. The negative values placed on illegitimacy reached their peak in the early 20th century with the rise of Social Darwinism and the eugenics movement (and, to a lesser extent the Mental Hygiene Movement). This declined with the advent of Nazism in Germany in the late 20's/30's when people could see where it was leading. I certainly remember nursing a number of women who were placed in mental hospitals and had been there for decades, as a result of having illegitimate children. As regards "lunatic" and "idiot" in earlier censuses, it is probably right to say it's difficult to accurately assume what the enumerator/householder meant, but differences between "lunatics" and "fools" had been established as early as 1215. So, it's a fair assumption that when the term "idiot/imbecile" is used in a census, it means "learning disability"; and "lunatic" most definitely means "mentally ill". Interestingly, the 1871/1881/1901 censuses asked to differentiate between imbecile/idiot or lunatic, while the 1891 census had "imbecile, idiot or lunatic" as the same category. So, it's easy to see why there could be errors. As an educated guess, I would say that Elizabeth Lavery had a learning disability. I suspect, though haven't checked, that in 1871 every inmate at the asylum was classified as "lunatic". Hope this helps Mike > __________________________________________________________________ > Under the Mental Deficiency Act 1913 four "classes" of Mental Deficiency > were defined: > Idiot ~ unable to protect themselves from common dangers. > Imbecile ~ could protect themselves from common dangers, but unable to > take > care of themselves. > Feeble-Minded ~ required care to protect themselves. > Moral Defectives ~ criminal or vicious personalities. Unmarried Mothers > also > became absorbed into this category. > > Regards Stan Mapstone

I used to work at Cherry Knowle Hospital in the 1980's and we certainly had patients who had been sent there because they got pregnant. Most had been there for 40 or more years and were completely institutionalised and incapable of coping outside the hospital. Susan ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2007 7:45 PM Subject: Re: [ENG-DURHAM] Emigration / lunatic asylum definitions / AycliffeMunitions >A thank you and a couple more queries for the people on this really helpful > list! > > Thank you for the info on ports for emigration. It would make sense to > go > almost anywhere from Liverpool - rather than from the Tyne, and of course > I > had overlooked the advent of the railways! > > Looking at an admission to Morpeth Lunatic Asylum, in 1871, Elizabeth > Lavery was listed as 'lunatic'. In 1881 she was one of the few people > listed as > an 'idiot'. Can anyone enlighten me as to the difference? > > And - were young women confined to asylums if they had a child out of > wedlock - which I know to have been the case sometimes pre war? > > Staying with the war - my mother used to go every day by bus to > Aycliffe - > where I think there must have been a munitions factory. Does anyone > know > anything about this? Was she required to work there - leaving me at home > with grandpatrents? (my father was with the 8th Army ) > > Many thanks Ann Lavery

I have a copy of a certificate issued to my Stuart SNOWDON dated May 23, 1919 showing him a member of the Comrades of the Great War. I believe that is one of the associations that made up the British Legion. Is there a web site listing him as a member with, perhaps, some personal military information? Thank you. Dave.

In a message dated 19/05/2007 21:18:48 GMT Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: who had been sent there because they got pregnant. __________________________________________________________________ Under the Mental Deficiency Act 1913 four "classes" of Mental Deficiency were defined: Idiot ~ unable to protect themselves from common dangers. Imbecile ~ could protect themselves from common dangers, but unable to take care of themselves. Feeble-Minded ~ required care to protect themselves. Moral Defectives ~ criminal or vicious personalities. Unmarried Mothers also became absorbed into this category. Regards Stan Mapstone

In a message dated 19/05/2007 19:46:21 GMT Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: Was she required to work there - leaving me at home with grandparents? ___________________________________________________ In 1941 women between the age of 19-30 had to register for war work. Regards Stan Mapstone

In a message dated 19/05/2007 19:46:21 GMT Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: Looking at an admission to Morpeth Lunatic Asylum, in 1871, Elizabeth Lavery was listed as 'lunatic'. In 1881 she was one of the few people listed as an 'idiot'. Can anyone enlighten me as to the difference? __________________________________________________________________ Hi Ann The exact definitions of terms such as 'lunatic', 'imbecile', 'idiot' and 'feeble-minded' are extremely problematic. According to the 1881 Census Report; No accurate line of demarcation can be drawn between the several conditions indicated by these terms. Speaking generally, however, the term idiot is applied in popular usage simply to those who suffer from congenital mental deficiency, and the term imbecile to persons who have fallen in later life into a state of chronic dementia. But it is certain that neither this nor any other definite distinction between the terms was rigorously observed in the schedules, and consequently no attempt has been made by us to separate imbeciles from idiots. The term lunatic also is used with some vagueness, and probably some persons suffering from congenital idiocy, and many more suffering from dementia, were returned under this name. Considering that householders, who could be illiterate, were being asked to give information about medical disabilities without any definition of the terms being used the answers should be treated with caution. Also they would be unwilling to admit that anyone in the family had medical disabilities. When ‘feeble-minded’ was substituted for ‘idiot’ in the 1901 census the number of persons recorded with mental disability rose markedly, because, apparently the former term was considered much less derogatory than the latter. Some terms do have a formal definition in the UK although they are no longer used Term Idiot IQ 0 to 25 Modern term Severe learning disability Imbecile 25 to 50 Moderate learning disability Feeble minded (moron) 50 to 70 Mild learning disability Those with an IQ of less than 50 usually need care throughout life and are unlikely to educable in the formal sense Regards Stan Mapstone

A thank you and a couple more queries for the people on this really helpful list! Thank you for the info on ports for emigration. It would make sense to go almost anywhere from Liverpool - rather than from the Tyne, and of course I had overlooked the advent of the railways! Looking at an admission to Morpeth Lunatic Asylum, in 1871, Elizabeth Lavery was listed as 'lunatic'. In 1881 she was one of the few people listed as an 'idiot'. Can anyone enlighten me as to the difference? And - were young women confined to asylums if they had a child out of wedlock - which I know to have been the case sometimes pre war? Staying with the war - my mother used to go every day by bus to Aycliffe - where I think there must have been a munitions factory. Does anyone know anything about this? Was she required to work there - leaving me at home with grandpatrents? (my father was with the 8th Army ) Many thanks Ann Lavery

Ann Leighton married Walter Smith on the 6th March 1808 at Bishopwearmouth. Walter was a widow in the 1841 census and was born at Chatton, Northumberland in 1780. IGI have a possible match for an Ann Leighton born 27th July 1788 at Bishopwearmouth, parents Robert Leighton and Catherine Baxter. Would it be possible for someone to please confirm that these were Ann's parents and also trace her date of death in Bishopswearmouth between 1831 and 1841 ( last child aged 10 in 1841 census). Thanks Ann

In a message dated 16/05/2007 16:24:32 GMT Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: Ann Leighton married Walter Smith on the 6th March 1808 at Bishopwearmouth. Walter was a widow in the 1841 census and was born at Chatton, Northumberland in 1780. IGI have a possible match for an Ann Leighton born 27th July 1788 at Bishopwearmouth, parents Robert Leighton and Catherine Baxter. Would it be possible for someone to please confirm that these were Ann's parents and also trace her date of death in Bishopswearmouth between 1831 and 1841 ( last child aged 10 in 1841 census). Ann: The obvious way to trace the origins of anyone who married during the "Barrington Period" (1798-1812) is to seek the baptisms of any of their children, baptised before the end of 1812. The entry should give the names of the parishes of which each parent was a native (ie in which they had been born). If you have baptism dates for any children in or before 1812, then let us know, and their entry can then easily be read via the H M Wood transcripts. This illustrates the importance of using original records (or facsimiles of them), rather than the incomplete summary entries found in many transcripts and indexes. The "Original Indexes" index to all burials in Co Durham 1813-39 (now published by the NDFHS in their "Ancestral Indexes" series) mentions several Ann Smiths in Sunderland/Bishopwearmouth/Monkwearmouth 1831-1839. All can be eliminated because their ages do not "fit", wiht the exception of one where the age is not given. That one referes to an Ann Smith of Charles Street, Bishopwearmouth, buried at Sunderland on 2 July 1835. Of course, that index does not cover 1840/41. Geoff Nicholson

Hello Janet If you put " TYNEMOUTH UNION WORKHOUSE" into Google you will get over 300 hits - some of which I am sure would be well worth following up eg www.genuki.bpears.org.uk/NBL/Tynemouth and www.institutions.org.uk/workhouses/england/nhmbd/tynemouth_workhouse Ian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Janet Hasler" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 8:34 PM Subject: [ENG-DURHAM] UNION WORKHOUSE > Hi > Could someone please give me any information on the > TYNEMOUTH UNION WORKHOUSE. > Thank you > Jan > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > -- > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.5/793 - Release Date: 07/05/2007 > 14:55 > >

Hi Could someone please give me any information on the TYNEMOUTH UNION WORKHOUSE. Thank you Jan

Hi Thank you to every one who replied to me Jan

In a message dated 15/05/2007 20:35:22 GMT Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: Hi Could someone please give me any information on the TYNEMOUTH UNION WORKHOUSE. Thank you Jan Jan: I expect you would receive more meaningful answers if you were more precise about what sort of information you are asking for. "Any information" is very vague. Are you interested in where it was? During what years did it operate? What has happened to the buildings? Who were its Masters - and what about their own family histories? How it was organised? What district did it cover? When did it operate - and were there any major changes to its buildings, organisation and/or district covered during its lifetime? What has survived of its records and where are they now? To what extent is it mentioned in local publications (local histories etc)? Was it a typical Workhouse or was it in some way "different"? Or is it all of these things? I cannot offer answers to all these myself, but perhaps there are those who can answer some of them but are wondering whether what they know is what you seek. Geoff Nicholson

In a message dated 15/05/2007 20:35:25 GMT Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: Could someone please give me any information on the TYNEMOUTH UNION WORKHOUSE. Hi Jan, See _http://www.workhouses.org.uk/_ (http://www.workhouses.org.uk/) Workhouse Locations - Northumberland - Tynemouth Regards Stan Mapstone

I wonder what the fare would have been in 1903 and 1904 when my Grandparents emigrated to Canada. They left Liverpool and landed in Halifax and then on by train to Manitoba. They travelled Second Cabin on Allan Lines ships which probably is what intermediate refers to. Carol Lylyk Calgary Alberta Canada ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 1:54 AM Subject: Re: [ENG-DURHAM] Ports for emigration | In a message dated 15/05/2007 08:30:54 GMT Daylight Time, | [email protected] writes: | My Cumbrian ancestral relatives sailed from Liverpool to AUS and USA - | from | which ports would my North Eastern relatives have sailed - say - 1870? I | very rarely read anything about migrants from | the NE and I know there were many! | _________________________________________________________________ _____ | | Between 1815 and 1929, 11.4 million people left Britain for overseas | destinations, part of a European wide phenomenon. Liverpool was the primary | port | for emigration, some 60% of emigrants set out from there. |

Haven't really been following this thread so don't know if anybody has suggested this already (apologies if so...) On the 1881 census where John Westgarth was described as Trimmer (Art), there is also a John Crow aged 48 with the same occupation in the Union Workhouse. What about looking for this John Crow in 1871 and/or 1891 to see what he was doing then - might throw more light on the occupation? Just a thought. Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 9:04 AM Subject: Re: [ENG-DURHAM] HELP WANTED > Hi Nivard, > I don't know why 'art' has been added by the census clerk extracting > occupational details, he would be aware of 'coal trimmers' in the NE. > However in the > 'Dictionary of Occupational Terms' there are fifty different categories of > 'trimmer', including six various 'coal trimmers'! > > Regards Stan Mapstone > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

In a message dated 15/05/2007 01:08:43 GMT Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: HELP WANTED is not a description of anything. You may get more response if what your looking for is in the Subject line. I may miss out on something, but I don't look at them. Frustrated I agree utterly. Surely all messages request help and so could come under that general category. It should not be beyond the wit of any of us to produce a meaningful, specific, title for our requests. Geoff Nicholson