Shivaun's Family Tree Website
Brady family
* * *
Part 2: John Brady Jr (c1832 - 1919)
Early life
John Brady Jr was born c1832 in County Longford, Ireland. His father was John Brady Sr. It is not known who his mother was. Like other counties in Ireland, County Longford's population was decimated by the Irish Famine (1845 - 1850) through death and emigration. John and three siblings left Ireland before 1851, probably for the chance of a better life. Liverpool, England, was the destination for many Irish migrants and many had the dream to continue on to North America or Australia. However, many ended up staying in Liverpool and the surrounding area for various reasons. In the 1851 census, 22% of Liverpool's population had been born in Ireland (although not all would have been the impoverished working-class). At this time, John and his siblings were lodging together in Tee Street, Prescot, Lancashire, very close to Liverpool. John was working as a bricklayer labourer.
Marriage to Catherine Brewen
John married Catherine Brewen (c1832 - 1903) at Portico Roman Catholic Chapel, Prescot, 11 July 1852. Neither of them could sign their name. Catherine's father was Michael Brewen and she had been born in Ireland but it is not known where. She also came to England with her siblings sometime before 1851. She lived with her brother John and sister Margaret in Bond Street, Prescot, where a family of four others lodged with them, and she worked as a hawker. She was again listed as a hawker (of pots specifically) in the 1891 census so she probably sold things throughout her marriage to help earn money for the family.
John and Catherine had eight children: Margaret, Thomas, John, Rose Ann, Catherine, Elizabeth and two unknown children who died in infancy or early childhood. Two of the girls, Margaret and Catherine, were unable to sign their names when they married so it is likely neither of them had any schooling. It is not known if Rose Ann had had any schooling either but she was born at a time when the 1870 Education Act made education compulsory for those aged from five to thirteen. Elizabeth, the youngest, would certainly have benefited from this.
Work life and moving house
By 1861 the family was living in Albert Street, Sutton, an area of St Helens in what is now Merseyside (but was part of Lancashire until 1974). John worked as a labourer at a glassworks. Sutton had been well-known for glassmaking since the late 1700s and it is possible John was employed by the Sutton Glass Works, the largest maker of plate glass in the country. In 1855 there were 1500 employees, mostly unskilled labourers like John. Business had been booming since 1851 when the Window Tax had been repealed. Prior to this date, people had built houses with fewer windows, or bricked up existing ones, to avoid paying the tax. As it was, the Window Tax ended up being replaced by a House Tax! [1]
Within a decade, the family had moved to Bury and then Circus Street, Liverpool (long since demolished), in an area known as 'Little Italy'. There was an Irish community there, too, and the Catholic Brady family might have attended St Joseph's Church. It is not known why they moved as the glass industry was still going strong. However, the various birthplaces given for their children hints that the family probably moved frequently. John was now listed as a 'labourer' in the 1871 census and a decade later, when the family had moved to Charlotte Street, Preston, he was a 'bricklayer labourer'.
Their two daughters Margaret and Catherine faced court a few times as adults, with Catherine facing the most serious charge of the manslaughter of one of her daughters. Catherine seemed to have moved back with her parents at one point when they lived in Gillibrand's Court, Walton-le-Dale. However, the elder Bradys appear not to have caused any trouble. A report on p3 of the Lancashire Evening Post, 31 March 1903, mentioned John being injured one day:
During the height of the storm at Preston, on Monday afternoon, John Brady, aged 70, of 15, Queen-street, Preston, was blown over by the wind in Lancaster-road, Preston, and sustained a scalp wound. His injuries were attended to by P.C. Hankinson.
After fifty years of marriage, Catherine died 03 May 1903, aged about 70 (though her death certificate said '59'!). They had been living with their daughter Rose Ann and her family in Oak Street. Later John and Rose Ann went to live with her daughter Catherine Howarth's family. John was to benefit from the Old Age Pension Act 1908 which gave people over 70 a weekly pension of 5 shillings a week (about £14 in today’s money). Previously, the elderly and infirm had to rely on their family to support them or face the ignominy of going to the workhouse, where conditions were deliberately awful to discourage all but the most desperate. John died 04 April 1919 of senile decay at his grand-daughter Catherine's home, aged about 87 (though his age was recorded as 79).
Children of John and Catherine
More information about Margaret (1853 - 1925) appears in Part 3.
Thomas (c1856 - ?) was born c1856 in Prescot. There is no confirmed record of him after 1871 and he might have died before 1911.
John (1858 - ?) was born 12 November 1858 in West Derby, Liverpool. He was baptised 12 December of the same year at St Anne's RC Church, Edge Hill, Liverpool. His godparents were Thomas Lennon and Maria Anna Keogh. It is likely he died when he was a small child.
Rose Ann (c1864 - 1940) was born in Bury c1864. As a child she might have been known as 'Rosina'. She worked as a cotton cardroom hand for much of her life. In 1888 she married James McDermott. Almost nothing is known of him except that he was likely a labourer and probably died between 1901 and 1911. Rose Ann and James had five children: Catherine (1889 - ?), James (c1894 - ?) and three unknown children who died in infancy or early childhood. Catherine married in a Protestant ceremony to William Howarth in 1910. When a Catholic and a Protestant married (without a conversion to Catholicism) in the Brady or Winward families, this sometimes caused family rifts. However it is possible Rose Ann was more accepting of her daughter not marrying a Catholic as she and her son James were living with them by the following year. Rose Ann probably died in 1940.
Catherine (c1866 - ?) was born in Liverpool c1866. She was known as 'Kate' and as a teenager she worked as a cotton cardroom hand which she did for her known adult working life, except at her marriage when she gave her occupation as a 'cotton rover'. She married John Winward, the brother of her sister Margaret's husband, 24 December 1890 at St Augustine's Catholic Church, Preston. They had six children: Mary (1891 - 1911), Thomas (1893 - ?), Elizabeth (1894 - 1895), Ellen/Helena (1896 - 1896), Catherine (1901 - ?) and William (1903 - 1904). Unfortunately, John and Catherine's parenting skills were quite inadequate and came to the attention of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) and the courts. An article appeared p2 of the 'Lancashire Evening Post', 12 July 1895, about the alleged neglect of three of their children:
"NOT
FIT TO BRING TO COURT."
ALLEGED
SHOCKING NEGLECT OF CHILDREN AT PRESTON.
At the Preston Police court, this morning, John Winward and Catherine Winward, 1, Miller-street, Preston, were summoned by the N.S.P.C.C. for neglecting their three children - Mary, aged four years; Thomas, two years; and Elizabeth, eight months - Mr. P.H. Edelston prosecuted. He stated that the youngest child was in a dying condition. The two parties were man and wife, and the husband, he was informed, was a respectable man, a painter, receiving about 35s per week [approx £100 in today's money]. The wife was a woman who was drunk from the beginning of the week to the end, and the result was that the children had been shockingly neglected, and the youngest child was simply in a horrible state.
Dr. Finley stated that on the 5th inst. he was called in by Inspector Dawson to the house, 1, Miller street. He examined the three children, and found them to be suffering from neglect, the case of the youngest child especially being most serious. The children were taken to the workhouse, and the youngest child was now in a serious condition. It was not fit to bring to court, and he was rather afraid the child would not recover. It was suffering entirely from neglect. - Mr P.H. Edelston applied for an adjournment for a week, which was granted.
In the latter half of the nineteenth century, the workhouse allowed non-inmates who were too poor to afford private medical attention to be treated in its own (rudimentary) infirmaries. This was why the children would have been taken to the workhouse to be treated. However it was too late for Elizabeth and the terrible circumstances surrounding her death were reported p2 of the 'Lancashire Evening Post', 26 July 1895:
DEAD THROUGH
NEGLECT.
REVOLTING DISCLOSURES AT PRESTON.
"MANSLAUGHTER”
AGAINST A MOTHER
An exhaustive inquiry was held at the Preston Workhouse this morning by Mr. Coroner Parker, relative to the death of Elizabeth Winward, aged 8½ months, who was admitted to the childrens’ [sic] ward at the Fulwood Hospital on July 6th, and died on Wednesday last. The parents were summoned by Inspector Dawson, N.S.P.C.C. for neglect, and the cast was adjourned until this morning. Mr P.H. Edelston represented the society.
Margaret Lowe, wife of a labourer, spoke to Mrs. Winward leaving the child for hours together. The day before the Inspector went she was away five hours, and when witness went to look at the child it appeared to be unconscious. There was no food in the bottle, and the teat was so bad that every time the child put it into its mouth it vomited. Replying to questions, witness said the mother frequently left the children alone in the house, and whilst absent at some neighbour’s would send in a child to see if they were crying.
Ellen Holden, wife of Wm. Holden, 7, Willow-street, labourer, described Mrs. Winward as a “drunken woman.” On the afternoon of July 3rd Mrs. Winward left her home at three o’clock and returned six hours later the worse for liquor. During the whole of that time THE BABY WAS LEFT ALONE [sic] in the house. Witness gave corroborative evidence as to the condition of the child, adding, “It was so quiet that I thought it was dead.”
Mr Edelston: But why did you not interfere? – Witness: She would blackguard me so.
Has this child had proper care and attention from its mother? – I don’t think it has.
Sarah Ann Warden, wife of a carter living at 5, Church Hill-street, said she saw the deceased child twice. About three weeks ago her attention was attracted to Mrs Winward’s house, around which a crowd had gathered. Mrs. Winward was drunk, and singing, and near by was an overturned perambulator. One of the two children which it had contained was on the ground, wet and covered with sludge. About a quarter of an hour later witness passed the house again when hearing the screams of a baby she knocked at the door, but received no answer. It was late at night. Then she HEARD THE WOMAN CURSING THE CHILD [sic], following this up with three of four smacks. The baby screamed louder, and witness went and fetched a policeman, but even then they could not get in. On the following night, Mrs. Winward went round to witness, and, after cursing her, told her to mind her own business.
Eliza Green, wife of a gardener living in Miller-street, said for seven weeks previous to last Easter she looked after the children while the mother was at the mill. At the time deceased was in a dirty condition, and the skin was off its sides. It was thin and impoverished, and witness’s opinion was that the child had not received proper food and care. After it left its mother’s hands it was much improved, and there was no reason why it should not have lived. The husband “minded” the children many an hour, while the wife was away drinking.
Mrs. Winward: It was you who neglected the child.
Witness, continuing, said that prior to Easter the child was poorly, and a doctor told her it would not live.
Inspector Dawson, N.S.P.C.C., deposed to visiting the house of deceased’s parents, No. 1, Miller-street, on July 5th. He examined the three children, and the two elder, May [sic: Mary], aged four, and Thomas, aged two years, were in a filthy condition, their bodies being covered with vermin and vermin bites. Deceased was lying in the cradle ON A BED OF ROTTEN STRAW [sic], wet through. For covering it had a dirty coat, and the few clothes the baby had on were dirty and soaked with wet, portions of the body were raw, and a foul smell came from it. He found the contents of the bottle from which the child was sucking were sour and bad. The house was not fit for children to live in. When he told the mother, she said, “I have not a heart to do anything. I get a drop of drink, but other people pay for it. My husband does not give me any money.” The Inspector added that the child in its wet clothes weighed 7lb. The husband did not give his wife money, but discharged her debts.
Dr. Finley, medical officer at the Fulwood Workhouse, said his examination of deceased, on July 5th, led him to the belief that it was suffering from gross and prolonged neglect. The tube in the baby’s bottle was clotted, and the milk was foul and sour. He had made a post-mortem and found the body totally devoid of fat. Instead of weighing 15lbs, it only scaled 5lb. 5oz. He attributed death to marasmus, which originated in filth and ill-conditioned surroundings, and was of opinion that death was caused by neglect.
Dr. Byrne said every bone and sinew was visible through the skin. It was SO WEAK THAT IT COULD HARDLY CRY, [sic] and the hands and arms went deathly cold on a few minutes’ exposure. He agreed with Dr. Finley as to the post-mortem and the conclusions come to.
John Winward, the father of deceased, expressed a wish to give evidence, and said it never came to his knowledge that the child was neglected. In consequence of his wife’s drinking habits he refused to give her money, but allowed her to contract debts to a certain amount.
Mrs. Winward, asked if she would give evidence, replied in the negative.
The Coroner summed up, and after a brief deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of “manslaughter” against the mother. Mrs. Winward was given into the custody of Detective Parkinson, and formally committed to take her trial at the Liverpool Assizes.
Assizes were held twice a year and heard the most serious crimes (such as murder and treason). Catherine would almost certainly have been kept in gaol as she awaited trial as she would have been too poor to apply for bail. Trials were quick and it was just over a week later that Catherine appeared at the Assizes. Various newspapers carried reports of the trial and verdict, such as p8 of the 'Liverpool Mercury' 06 August 1895:
CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER AT PRESTON.
Catherine Winward (30) was indicted for the manslaughter of her child Elizabeth Winward at Preston, on the 24th of July. Mr. O. Evans prosecuted and Mr. Swift was for the defence. Prisoner and her husband live in Miller-street, Preston, the husband being a painter. At the time of its death the child was little over eight months old. It was alleged on behalf of the prosecution that the prisoner was a woman of intemperate habits, and that she had habitually neglected the deceased, whose death resulted as a consequence of such neglect. A post-mortem examination showed that death was due to a disease arising from the filth and ill-conditioned surroundings. Two doctors were called to speak to the condition of the child, and Dr. Byrne, of Preston, said that it was extremely thin and emaciated, and was like a skeleton. Death was due to neglect and starvation, every organ of the body being bloodless. - Mr Swift asked the jury to acquit the prisoner, contending that the prosecution had not made out a case of neglect such as to cause the death of the child. - The jury found the prisoner not guilty, and she was acquitted.
A longer and more detailed report appeared p2 of the 'Lancashire Evening Post' 06 August 1895
THE CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER AGAINST A PRESTON WOMAN.
At the Liverpool Assizes, yesterday, before Mr. Justice Cave, Catherine Winward, 30, cardroom hand, living at No. 1 Miller-street, Preston, was indicated for the manslaughter of her daughter, Elizabeth Winward, aged 8 ½ months. – Mr. Evans prosecuted, and Mr. Swift defended. – The prosecution, taken at the instance of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, was to the effect that the prisoner was of intemperate habits. On July 5th Inspector Dawson visited the house, and found deceased lying in the cradle on a bed of rotten straw wet through. For covering it had a dirty coat, and the few clothes the child was wearing were dirty, soaked with wet, portions of the body were raw, and a foul smell came from it. He found the contents of the bottle from which the child was sucking sour and bad. When Mrs. Winward was told the result of the examination she said, “I have not a heart to do anything. I get a drop of drink, but other people pay for it. My husband does not give me any money.” The child’s condition was such that Mr. Dawson had it removed to the Fulwood Workhouse.
Several neighbours of the prisoner spoke of her intemperance and of her systematic neglect of the child.
Dr. Finley, medical officer at the Fulwood Workhouse, repeated his evidence given at the inquest. His examination of deceased on July 5th led him to the belief that the child was suffering from neglect. Instead of weighing 15lb it only scaled 5lb. 5oz. He attributed death to marasmus, a disease which originated in filth and ill-conditioned surroundings. The cause of death was starvation and neglect. Every organ in the body was absolutely bloodless. It was not a case of improper feeding, but a case of giving the child nothing.
Dr. Byrne, who assisted at the inquest, gave corroborative testimony.
Mr. Swift, for the prisoner, told the jury that the prisoner’s husband was an invalid and that she herself was obliged to work in a mill all day for her husband’s and her own support, and that if the child had been to some extent neglected it was not her fault.
The jury found the prisoner not guilty.
It is not known if Catherine continued to drink and be a neglectful parent after the trial. She was heavily pregnant the night of the 1901 census and staying at her parents' home in Gillibrand's Court (this and surrounding streets in the Avenham Lane area have long since been demolished). John was a mile away boarding along with his father at 3 Appleby Street. It may have been a difficult pregnancy, hence Catherine's living arrangements. Their only two surviving children, Mary and Thomas, had been living with John's sister Emma in Walton-le-Dale since at least 1898. It is most likely that they had been removed from Catherine's care (either by official means or informally within the family) especially as in 1911 they were living with another aunt in Bolton, Emma having died in 1902.
After Catherine Jr's birth, John and Catherine Sr went on to have one more child together, William, who was born December 1903. Sadly he died 31 January 1904, aged seven weeks. The family were all together at 3 Appleby Street and William woke in the early hours "crying and twitching". Catherine took him to Dr Cookson's surgery in Moor Lane but he died en route. A coronor's inquiry reported p2 in the 'Lancashire Evening Post' concluded the infant had probably died "from natural causes, probably convulsions".
It is very possible John and Catherine became estranged after this third infant death. In 1906 when Catherine Jr was registered to start at St Wilfrid Roman Catholic School, her mother was listed as the sole parent. In the 1911 census, the two Catherines were living at 59 Brunswick Street and there was no sign of John (he has yet to be located but it is thought he was still alive then). Unusually Catherine claimed to have only ever had one child. It is not known when she or John died.
Elizabeth (1870 - ?) was born in Liverpool in 1870 and was known as 'Eliza'. In the 1881 census she was listed as a 'scholar' and she was able to sign her name as a witness to her sister Catherine's wedding so she had had some schooling, unlike her older sisters. She worked as a cotton weaver and by 1901 was lodging at 34-36 Main Sprit Weind. The address had a long history of being known as the 'Sun Inn' although there was no publican listed there on census night, just the lodging housekeeper and more than thirty lodgers (a mix of males, females, married and single). There is no confirmed record of Elizabeth after 1901. [2]
Next: Margaret Brady
Footnotes
[1] Glassmaking in Sutton website (www.suttonbeauty.org.uk/suttonhistory/industry.html#glass); www.historyhouse.co.uk/articles/window_tax.html
[2] England and Wales Census 1841, 1851, 1861, 1871, 1881, 1891, 1901, 1911, parish records (Ancestry.co.uk); England and Wales Census 1841, 1851, 1861, 1871, 1881, 1891, 1901, 1911, National School Admission Registers and Log-Books 1870-1914), British Newspapers 1710-1953 (findmypast.co.uk); www.familysearch.org; Lancashire OnLine Parish Clerks website (www.lan-opc.org.uk); Liverpool and Merseyside Remembered website (http://liverpoolremembrance.weebly.com); www.workhouses.org.uk; 'Irish Migration to Liverpool and Lancashire in the Nineteenth Century' by Laura Kelly (www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history/chm/outreach/migration/backgroundreading/migration/); trial procedures (www.oldbaileyonline.org/static/Crimes.jsp); www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/research-guides/assizes-criminal-1559-1971.htm; www.genguide.co.uk/source/assize-records-crime-criminals-amp-courts/76/; http://vcp.e2bn.org/justice/page11446-remand-or-bail.html; http://pubsinpreston.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/sun-inn-35-or-37-main-sprit-weind-mine.html; wikipedia
