The workhouse as a place of remand-Elizabeth Stride at Bromley

[Debra A]

In 1880 her name [Elizabeth Stride] appears in workhouse records, once at Stepney Union in February and a second time at Hackney Union in April where the word 'destitute' was written beside her entry (1) 1 LMA: Stepney Union; Bromley and Hackney Union Workhouse records: Admissions and Discharge Registers: SH BG/139/003, STBG/L/133/01.Rubenhold, Hallie. The Five (p. 366). Transworld. Kindle Edition.

In this reference, Hallie Rubenhold fails to include two other pieces of information that were recorded when Elizabeth Stride was admitted to the Bromley workhouse, Stepney in February 1880, Here is the full admission entry:

Stepney union Bromley
Admitted Friday 13 Feb. 1880 Elizabeth Stride born 1834, needle[woman] wife of John, carpenter discharged 13 Feb. 1880 Brought by P.C. 351K taken out by P.C. 145K
Bromley House admission and discharge
Admitted Friday 13th Feb 1880, Elizabeth Stride born 1834, occupation-needle, religion C of E, parish admitted from Ratcliff, brought by P.C. 148K from King David P.S. discharged 13th Feb 1880, charged to Ratcliff parish, taken out by P.C. 148K
STBG/L/132/23 and STBG/L/133/01

Unless I have totally missed it, Hallie Rubelnhold makes no mention of the fact that on this occasion, Elizabeth Stride was brought in and taken out of the workhouse, on the same day, by the police. But she makes a point of telling us that when admitted to Hackney workhouse, Elizabeth was classed as being 'destitute'

I have asked before if women picked up by police on any criminal charge were sometimes sent to the workhouse as a place of remand until a magistrates court appearance. I know homeless women were sometimes sent by police to workhouses, like those picked up in Trafalgar square, and given workhouse tickets in a scheme to keep them from sleeping rough, but I specifically mean those where it is noted they were taken back out of the workhouse by police. Did they then go on to court on a charge of some sort?

In one of three workhouse records I found in 2015 for Alice McKenzie, twice admitted for alcoholism, and once found on Dorset Street, Alice was also admitted for being drunk and discharged in what looks like a note saying 'for court' by PC 256L

Aug 1st 1877 Saint George´s Workhouse, Mint Street Register, 1877-1878 SOBG/106/8
Alice Mackenzie, hawker, church of England, birth year 1846, admitted from St George parish brought in by PC 110L,
charged with being drunk discharged wed Aug 1st -how discharged- (for court?) by PC256L

Presumably there would have been some sort of court record to correspond to this and perhaps there is in the case of Elizabeth Stride too but why was the involvement of police not mentioned about the Bromley workhouse entry for Elizabeth Stride? There may also be a corresponding surviving court record.
Maybe this has been mentioned before already somewhere and I've missed it or just forgotten?

[Debra A]

from King David P.S.

P.S. is short for police station I believe and would be Shadwell police station, King David Lane?

[PaulB]

In this reference, Hallie Rubenhold fails to include two other pieces of information that were recorded when Elizabeth Stride was admitted to the Bromley workhouse, Stepney in February 1880, Here is the full admission entry:

Stepney union Bromley
Admitted Friday 13 Feb. 1880 Elizabeth Stride born 1834, needle[woman] wife of John, carpenter discharged 13 Feb. 1880 Brought by P.C. 351K taken out by P.C. 145K
Bromley House admission and discharge
Admitted Friday 13th Feb 1880, Elizabeth Stride born 1834, occupation-needle, religion C of E, parish admitted from Ratcliff, brought by P.C. 148K from King David P.S. discharged 13th Feb 1880, charged to Ratcliff parish, taken out by P.C. 148K
STBG/L/132/23 and STBG/L/133/01

Unless I have totally missed it, Hallie Rubelnhold makes no mention of the fact that on this occasion, Elizabeth Stride was brought in and taken out of the workhouse, on the same day, by the police. But she makes a point of telling us that when admitted to Hackney workhouse, Elizabeth was classed as being 'destitute'

I have asked before if women picked up by police on any criminal charge were sometimes sent to the workhouse as a place of remand until a magistrates court appearance. I know homeless women were sometimes sent by police to workhouses, like those picked up in Trafalgar square, and given workhouse tickets in a scheme to keep them from sleeping rough, but I specifically mean those where it is noted they were taken back out of the workhouse by police. Did they then go on to court on a charge of some sort?

In one of three workhouse records I found in 2015 for Alice McKenzie, twice admitted for alcoholism, and once found on Dorset Street, Alice was also admitted for being drunk and discharged in what looks like a note saying 'for court' by PC 256L

Aug 1st 1877 Saint George´s Workhouse, Mint Street Register, 1877-1878 SOBG/106/8
Alice Mackenzie, hawker, church of England, birth year 1846, admitted from St George parish brought in by PC 110L,
charged with being drunk discharged wed Aug 1st -how discharged- (for court?) by PC256L

Presumably there would have been some sort of court record to correspond to this and perhaps there is in the case of Elizabeth Stride too but why was the involvement of police not mentioned about the Bromley workhouse entry for Elizabeth Stride? There may also be a corresponding surviving court record.
Maybe this has been mentioned before already somewhere and I've missed it or just forgotten?

Ditto. I may have forgotten, but I can't bring anything to mind. It's interesting that Rubenhold didn't include these details; an effort to whiten Stride's character?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Debra,

Shadwell police station, on the corner of King David Lane and Juniper Street, was the smallest in H Division.

Have a safe, warm Christmas.

Simon, Susan and Bert

[Debra A]

Ditto. I may have forgotten, but I can't bring anything to mind. It's interesting that Rubenhold didn't include these details; an effort to whiten Stride's character?

I can't think of any other explanation other than it being deliberately left out. It's certainly an interesting note and relates to Stride and what she may have been facing in 1880 and so I included it a while back (way back when I was red pen ) under the line in our Stride entry on the A to Z database. I only thought to check the Five today to see if it was included and was surprised to find it wasn't. Hallie Rubenhold presumably read this note for herself as she references the same admission and discharge book as I found it in.

I found in the past that Joseph Fleming aka Edward Joseph Fleming, in the Bethnal Green workhouse records was brought to the workhouse to and from prison on more than one occasion when he was a juvenile and I recall it has been mentioned before that the children of Martha Tabram passed through the workhouse after being picked up by police? Alice McKenzie is another example of an adult being brought in and out, as I mentioned above. It's obviously more than just receiving a ticket after being picked up homeless if the police are also removing the person from the workhouse?

How can it not be relevant when trying to ascertain Elizabeth Stride was working as a prostitute at any time after she came to England?

[Debra A]

Hi Debra,

Shadwell police station, on the corner of King David Lane and Juniper Street, was the smallest in H Division.

Have a safe, warm Christmas.

Simon, Susan and Bert

Thanks, Simon.
That's interesting. The police who brought her in were K Division. I don't know how these things work.,

Hope you and yours have a very happy Christmas

[Herlock Sholmes]

In this reference, Hallie Rubenhold fails to include two other pieces of information that were recorded when Elizabeth Stride was admitted to the Bromley workhouse, Stepney in February 1880, Here is the full admission entry:

Stepney union Bromley
Admitted Friday 13 Feb. 1880 Elizabeth Stride born 1834, needle[woman] wife of John, carpenter discharged 13 Feb. 1880 Brought by P.C. 351K taken out by P.C. 145K
Bromley House admission and discharge
Admitted Friday 13th Feb 1880, Elizabeth Stride born 1834, occupation-needle, religion C of E, parish admitted from Ratcliff, brought by P.C. 148K from King David P.S. discharged 13th Feb 1880, charged to Ratcliff parish, taken out by P.C. 148K
STBG/L/132/23 and STBG/L/133/01

Unless I have totally missed it, Hallie Rubelnhold makes no mention of the fact that on this occasion, Elizabeth Stride was brought in and taken out of the workhouse, on the same day, by the police. But she makes a point of telling us that when admitted to Hackney workhouse, Elizabeth was classed as being 'destitute'

I have asked before if women picked up by police on any criminal charge were sometimes sent to the workhouse as a place of remand until a magistrates court appearance. I know homeless women were sometimes sent by police to workhouses, like those picked up in Trafalgar square, and given workhouse tickets in a scheme to keep them from sleeping rough, but I specifically mean those where it is noted they were taken back out of the workhouse by police. Did they then go on to court on a charge of some sort?

In one of three workhouse records I found in 2015 for Alice McKenzie, twice admitted for alcoholism, and once found on Dorset Street, Alice was also admitted for being drunk and discharged in what looks like a note saying 'for court' by PC 256L

Aug 1st 1877 Saint George´s Workhouse, Mint Street Register, 1877-1878 SOBG/106/8
Alice Mackenzie, hawker, church of England, birth year 1846, admitted from St George parish brought in by PC 110L,
charged with being drunk discharged wed Aug 1st -how discharged- (for court?) by PC256L

Presumably there would have been some sort of court record to correspond to this and perhaps there is in the case of Elizabeth Stride too but why was the involvement of police not mentioned about the Bromley workhouse entry for Elizabeth Stride? There may also be a corresponding surviving court record.
Maybe this has been mentioned before already somewhere and I've missed it or just forgotten?

Debra, my apologies for what are probably 3 stupid questions but why are there two headings; Stepney Union Bromley followed by info, then Bromley House admission and discharge followed by info for the same event?

Also why does one say that she was brought in and then removed by 2 different PC’s when the other says that the same PC did both jobs?

If they are the same event then I’m assuming that PC 145K and PC 148K are the same man and that it was just a clerical error?

I certainly don’t know how these things worked but it seems strange that she was held for less than 24 hours? We’re Workhouses used to hold prisoners that the police suspected might have done a runner before a court appearance? Was it rather than take up a police station cell?

[Debra A]

Debra, my apologies for what are probably 3 stupid questions but why are there two headings; Stepney Union Bromley followed by info, then Bromley House admission and discharge followed by info for the same event?

Also why does one say that she was brought in and then removed by 2 different PC’s when the other says that the same PC did both jobs?

If they are the same event then I’m assuming that PC 145K and PC 148K are the same man and that it was just a clerical error?

I certainly don’t know how these things worked but it seems strange that she was held for less than 24 hours? We’re Workhouses used to hold prisoners that the police suspected might have done a runner before a court appearance? Was it rather than take up a police station cell?

There were two different books , Herlock. Both were admission and discharge books for Bromely House, but one was the standard daily admission and discharge book and the other was in alphabetical order--perhaps so that a creed register could be compiled easier. I gave the ref numbers for both books but Hallie Rubenhold only references one register, the alphabetical one. I assumed the alphabetical book brought in by 531 K was a clerical error by the workhouse and that both admissions and discharges are the same event.
There are two different PC numbers in the two records, (145 K is my typo for 148 K) both were for a date of admission and discharge 13 Feb 1880.

This is from ref STBG/L/133/01 The one referenced in 'The Five' This register is in alphabetical order

This is from ref STBG/L/132/23 The daily admission and discharge register in chronologic order of entry to workhouse


.

I didn't include the Hackney workhouse Hallie Rubenhold also referenced, where Stride is described as 'destitute' but here is my transcription:
Kingsland Road workhouse, Hackney
Admitted 4 April 1880 discharged 5 April 1880 Elizabeth Stride born 1833, wife of ? carpenter, destitute, discharged at own request.
.

Your third question is also my opening question. I gave the example of Alice McKenzie also being taken in and out by police and asked the same thing. Was the workhouse used by police to keep people on remand before a court appearance instead of a cell?

[Debra A]

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks for clearing that up Debra.

[Trevor Marriott]

.

Was the workhouse used by police to keep people on remand before a court appearance instead of a cell?

I doubt that, if a prisoner is charged and kept for court the following morning a cell would be used there is nothing to stop a number of prisoners occupying the same cell. and a cell is a secure place unlike a workhouse where I guess there would not be facilities for keeping a prisoner secure .Notwithstanding the logistical problems in taking a prisoner to a workhouse, and then having to go and convey them back to a court the following morning.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

I doubt that, if a prisoner is charged and kept for court the following morning a cell would be used there is nothing to stop a number of prisoners occupying the same cell. and a cell is a secure place unlike a workhouse where I guess there would not be facilities for keeping a prisoner secure .Notwithstanding the logistical problems in taking a prisoner to a workhouse, and then having to go and convey them back to a court the following morning.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So, for what reason would the police take a person for admission to the workhouse (and his number be recorded in the admission register) and officially discharge then to a police officer whose number was also recorded in the discharge register?

[Trevor Marriott]

So, for what reason would the police take a person for admission to the workhouse (and his number be recorded in the admission register) and officially discharge then to a police officer whose number was also recorded in the discharge register?

I have no idea to be honest, I have checked the police codes and there is nothing in them. Perhaps they were sent to the workhouse as a form of punishment by the court

Have you checked the time and date of admissions and discharge, if the police charge a person and seek a remand they have to take that person before the first available court.

For a minor offence I doubt the court police or court would seek a remand in custody, the person would appear at court and be dealt with there and then.

I did see that a person comiting a serious offence in a workhouse could be taken by the police to appear at court

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

I have no idea to be honest, I have checked the police codes and there is nothing in them. Perhaps they were sent to the workhouse as a form of punishment by the court

Have you checked the time and date of admissions and discharge, if the police charge a person and seek a remand they have to take that person before the first available court.

For a minor offence I doubt the court police or court would seek a remand in custody, the person would appear at court and be dealt with there and then.

I did see that a person comiting a serious offence in a workhouse could be taken by the police to appear at court

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, I mentioned in my posts, Elizabeth Stride was admitted and discharged on the same day on 13 Feb 1880 and the PC's name and number was given on admission when she is recorded as brought in by an officer of K Division (expanded in one register to say she was brought in from King David P[olice] S[tation] and she was discharged and 'taken out' by PC 148 K the same day. Withe the Alice McKenzie entry, Alice was brought in by named police officers and discharged 'to court' with a named police officer the next day. Is it in place of holding them in a cell until court, if not remand.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Could the reason be something along the lines of the police placing a person in the Workhouse because they had committed a minor offence and were destitute and then, other information was received by the Police that they had actually done something more serious and so they were arrested and removed?

I realise of course that this kind of speculation is pointless without any further evidence.