John Burns

What I think is his entry in the Register of Lunatics Examined by Justices at Islington isn't exactly helpful though (its the one above the wiggly line):
Code:
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CS1B-C3JX-G?i=42&cat=1224679

Am I reading too much into this but it looks like it might say 'mum says' although that is not language I would expect from that time.
 
Last edited:
I'm just looking at the 1901 census for 87 Essex Road, Islington (aka the Albert Home for Working Men) and its got several pages of "not known" for the names, PoB etc. Not exactly helpful!

RG13/193/36 pages 13-16
What a lot of people in that home. It doesn't bear thinking about. I wonder how they paid rent if they weren't working?
 
This gives you an idea of life in the home - from the Eastern Argus and Borough of Hackney Times of the 21st August 1909
One of the most popular men with the male workers of London who are far from home or who are not in a position to own one, is Mr James Shuttleworth, the noted provider of homes and Restaurants for the sleeping and feeding of working men, and who owns the following establishments: — The Grand Hotel, 19, 21 and 23, Pentonville Road, Islington; the Home (annexe), 17, Medway Place, Pentonville Road; the White Lion Hotel, 57, White Lion Street, Islington; the Restaurant, 56, White Lion Street. Islington; the Albert Home, 87 & 89, Essex Road, Islington: the Wilmer House, Wilmer Gardens, Kingsland Road: the Restaurant, Wilmer gardens. Kingsland Road, and the Chambers, 6, Boot Street, Pitfield Street, Hoxton. Mr Shuttleworth has recently taken the fine premises 23 and 25, Well Street, Hackney, near Mare Street, and has, at considerable expense, had them fitted in the most up to date and approved style. We were shown round the beautifully clean, nicely finished and splendidly ventilated rooms by the proprietor the other evening, and we strongly advise working men who do not possess a home of their own to take up their residence here. A comfortable and nicely fitted dining room is provided for residents, where superior quality food, properly cooked, is served with civility, the prices being extremely low. A refreshment bar is also fitted up for the convenience of the local public who are non-residents, but who require a good breakfast, dinner, tea, or supper at a reasonable charge. The prices are: —Per Night 5d., 6d, 9d., and 1s. per bed; or per Week 2s. 6d., 3s., 4s., and 5s. Single Bedrooms, completely furnished, at ‘The Home,' 23 and 25, Well Street, Hackney, at 9d. and 1s. per night; or 4s. and 5s. per week. A Porter and Call Man is in attendance Day and Night at each home. Mr Shuttleworth, who is of commanding presence and genial disposition, is a great favourite with his patrons, for he has studied the needs of the working man for years, his motto always being comfort, cleanliness and cheapness combined. He is a Freemason, a 'Buff,' and a Druid. He has owned several taverns in London and the country and is well known in the sporting world. Mr Shuttleworth is also the owner of two capital preparations: —' Claritas,' for cleaning beer engine pipes, and a noted disinfectant.
 
This gives you an idea of life in the home - from the Eastern Argus and Borough of Hackney Times of the 21st August 1909
One of the most popular men with the male workers of London who are far from home or who are not in a position to own one, is Mr James Shuttleworth, the noted provider of homes and Restaurants for the sleeping and feeding of working men, and who owns the following establishments: — The Grand Hotel, 19, 21 and 23, Pentonville Road, Islington; the Home (annexe), 17, Medway Place, Pentonville Road; the White Lion Hotel, 57, White Lion Street, Islington; the Restaurant, 56, White Lion Street. Islington; the Albert Home, 87 & 89, Essex Road, Islington: the Wilmer House, Wilmer Gardens, Kingsland Road: the Restaurant, Wilmer gardens. Kingsland Road, and the Chambers, 6, Boot Street, Pitfield Street, Hoxton. Mr Shuttleworth has recently taken the fine premises 23 and 25, Well Street, Hackney, near Mare Street, and has, at considerable expense, had them fitted in the most up to date and approved style. We were shown round the beautifully clean, nicely finished and splendidly ventilated rooms by the proprietor the other evening, and we strongly advise working men who do not possess a home of their own to take up their residence here. A comfortable and nicely fitted dining room is provided for residents, where superior quality food, properly cooked, is served with civility, the prices being extremely low. A refreshment bar is also fitted up for the convenience of the local public who are non-residents, but who require a good breakfast, dinner, tea, or supper at a reasonable charge. The prices are: —Per Night 5d., 6d, 9d., and 1s. per bed; or per Week 2s. 6d., 3s., 4s., and 5s. Single Bedrooms, completely furnished, at ‘The Home,' 23 and 25, Well Street, Hackney, at 9d. and 1s. per night; or 4s. and 5s. per week. A Porter and Call Man is in attendance Day and Night at each home. Mr Shuttleworth, who is of commanding presence and genial disposition, is a great favourite with his patrons, for he has studied the needs of the working man for years, his motto always being comfort, cleanliness and cheapness combined. He is a Freemason, a 'Buff,' and a Druid. He has owned several taverns in London and the country and is well known in the sporting world. Mr Shuttleworth is also the owner of two capital preparations: —' Claritas,' for cleaning beer engine pipes, and a noted disinfectant.

That is fascinating, if a little too good to be true but I guess there was some camaraderie at these places and some freedom. The men must have been all working then, to afford their stay.
 
My ears pricked up, as I am researching Burns at the moment (direct line). Not one of mine, though. It's a name frequently mistranscribed because of the 'r-n-s' which many are unable to fathom out.
 
The Essex Home was a Common Lodging House, where people generally stayed 'by the night' rather than long-term, so the residents might have alternated between sleeping rough and staying there, depending on whether they had any money.

I've found a few more records for John, and although on the admission registers the Essex Road address is given, on others (for the same admissions) it says 'homeless', eg:

Code:
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CS1R-3Q8Z-Q?i=289&cat=1224679
Code:
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CS1R-3QCW-W?i=104&cat=1224679

His admissions showed various jobs - Labourer, Organ Grinder etc, so I think he was just scraping a living however and whenever he could.
 
Worth reading:
Code:
https://www.workhouses.org.uk/lodging/

I would have imagined it was something like this.

I did look for information on James Shuttleworth as AnnB had posted (25). He did seem a bit of a pioneer in the field. He came from very humble beginnings, he was a costermonger and he did try to provide 'restaurants' and entertainment. I doubt he did it for charity though. It would be naive of me to think they were 'good' places. The demand must have been great. It is not surprising that women had to marry again, soon after their husbands death, as they weren't provided for in the same way.
I try not to be too condemning, as it provided something for the young men and it had to be better than the workhouse. In most social initiatives there can be improvement and we don't have to go back far to be shocked.
 
Help, why would the hyperlinks to Family Search now be saying Image Unavailable Online? Am I doing something wrong?
 
I've had that, Elma. I think they no longer have access to the collections and/or permissions have changed. Rather infuriating when something was viewable and now isn't, when you return to check something at a later date.
 
I've noticed that the online images for a lot of the London Poor Law records have disappeared from Familysearch, but I'm not aware of any specific explanation.

Most of them should still be available on Ancestry (mostly unindexed), but I don't find them as easy to access as Ancestry have made an absolute hash of the film descriptions and 'filing system'.
 
I've noticed that the online images for a lot of the London Poor Law records have disappeared from Familysearch, but I'm not aware of any specific explanation.

Most of them should still be available on Ancestry (mostly unindexed), but I don't find them as easy to access as Ancestry have made an absolute hash of the film descriptions and 'filing system'.
I'm sure I was able to access the records for Mile End in the past but I can't find them now. Am I dreaming, looking in the wrong place - or are they amongst the 'disappeared'?
 
Mile End would be under Stepney, and yes, they appear to be amongst the many 'disappeared' images (now only available on microfilm at a family history centre).

I have sent an email asking why.
Thank you, I'm glad I'm not imagining things. However, yesterday afternoon, I went into Tower Hamlets/Stepney on Ancestry and, lo and behold, there are certain Mile End records - whether they are all there, I don't know, but I can now access what they have.
 
Last edited:
yesterday afternoon, I went into Tower Hamlets/Stepney on Ancestry and, lo and behold, there are certain Mile End records - whether they are all there, I don't know, but I can now access what they have.

Ancestry will have the same records as familysearch (and more!) but a huge number of them are not transcribed. While that in theory makes them no different to Familysearch, unfortunately Ancestry frequently put them under the wrong borough/poor law union and are also notorious for wrongly describing the contents of the films. This is why I relied on Familysearch so much, I could find things in a fraction of the time!
 
Mile End would be under Stepney, and yes, they appear to be amongst the many 'disappeared' images (now only available on microfilm at a family history centre).

I have sent an email asking why.

I have had a reply from their friendly AI Bot, telling me nothing about these specific records but merely confirming what we already know, ie "Records become unavailable when the agreement between FamilySearch and the organization that owns or manages the record changes. FamilySearch could lose access to the record or place new restrictions on how a user can view the record"

So the moral of the story is to always download a copy straight away or risk losing access.
 
Ancestry will have the same records as familysearch (and more!) but a huge number of them are not transcribed. While that in theory makes them no different to Familysearch, unfortunately Ancestry frequently put them under the wrong borough/poor law union and are also notorious for wrongly describing the contents of the films. This is why I relied on Familysearch so much, I could find things in a fraction of the time!
I agree, the amount of time I've spent pulling up various poor law union records on Ancestry only to find that what appears bears little or no resemblance to the description, especially as far as the dates go.
 
Back
Top