I think this may be Joseph Barnett in 1901 (spelling with one 't'):
In support of the identification, the following:
There are several points in favour of the identification - right name, location - close proximity to other known addresses for Barnett - and right profession. I also note that this Barnett is living with a woman to whom he is 'married', Emily Barnett, but that they appear to be without children. As we know that Barnett had no children, perhaps another point to consider. Against the identification is that the age is out by 5 years. That said, I've seen worse. Errors as to age, etc, and the dreaded 'variant spellings' are common enough in the Census returns generally for this to be a simple mistake.
I have failed so far to track these Barnet(t)s down elsewhere in the record. Perhaps the right question would be - what are the chances of two Joseph Barnetts living in close proximity to one another and working in the same trade?
Interesting find Sally, can you say where he was born on that census record? It could be the missing census entry for Joe.
Th only problem is that Joseph appears to be a few years older than 'our joseph' who was born in 1858. Census Joseph seems to be born in 1852/53 and there were 4 Joseph Barnetts born in Whitechapel in 1852, another one in 1854, 1857
and our man in 1858.
Yes, this one was born in St George in the East, apparently. I don't know how accurate that is - I've seen a lot of Census entries and I've learned to be sceptical! Yes, the age is an issue - but as I said, I've seen worse. I don't know if this is the right Barnett or not - but it's one hell of coincidence if it isn't. The location strikes me, in particular.
St George in the East is under the registration of Stepney, which is still technically Whitechapel,
I have found a Joseph Edward Barnett born in Stepney in 1852, parents Joseph Edward and Mary Ann. This is not our Joe, but fits in with age and date for your census Joe. If this Joe is on the 1891 census that would give more clues.
Unfortunately the population of London was extremely small compared to now with very few foriegners, [mainly concentrated in the east end] and the indigenous population of Britain and Ireland had fewer surnames, so coincidence is commoner than one thinks, with the same names cropping up, particularly as sons were named after their fathers and daughters after their mothers,
Still it is a very interesting find and further research is needed on other census records, if he is to be eliminated or included.
Cheers Miss Marple
Although I don't think Sally's Joe is right, Joe Barnett did not get his Porter's license back until 1906, so it is conceivable that he worked as a Labourer and a casual dock labourer, they would have been his options. His father was a docker and he may have known the ropes.
But I still think Joe is missing till 1906.
We know that Joseph Barnett worked as a Fish Porter for many years of his life, as evidenced by accounts from 1888, and his census entry from 1911, on which he himself states his profession as ‘Market Porter’ at Billingsgate (annotated ‘Fish’ by the enumerator). As far as we currently know, he lost his licence at Billingsgate in 1888 and only regained it in 1906. Presumably he worked between 1888 and 1906. I see no reason at all why this could not have been as a dock labourer – a catch-all term which encompassed general labouring in the docks, as the term suggests. A market porter carried goods from the ships in the Docks to the markets, so the Docks would have been a familiar environment to him, and an obvious place to look for work.
We should perhaps remember that Joseph Barnett is listed under the 1881 census as a ‘General Labourer’ – like most men of his social standing, he turned his hand to whatever he could to survive when the need arose.
This is in fact evidenced by his inquest statement, reported in the Times of 13th November:
Joseph Barnett was then called, and said he was a labourer working by the riverside
A Dock Labourer, perhaps?
I am aware of the age discrepancy – Kelly’s Barnett was born in 1858 - but there are nonetheless points in favour of this Joseph Barnett being the same man associated with Mary Kelly. His name is correct – the spelling with one ‘t’ is not unprecedented; he has no evident family in terms of children, but is living with a woman; as is Kelly’s Barnett in 1911, when he states that he has no children, living or dead; the woman recorded as his ‘wife’ is the same age as that of his later recorded ‘wife’ Louisa – possibly, although of course not certainly, the same woman under a different name; and he is living in close proximity to all other known addresses for Joseph Barnett from 1906 – Tench Street, Red Lion Street, and New Gravel Lane. In fact, Old Gravel Lane is even closer to Tench Street and Red Lion Street than New Gravel Lane . Here is a small plan to show just how close together the known addresses of Joseph Barnett were post-1888:
Apologies for the image quality - I hope it is at least legible! Raine Street is the blue street - I'll try to get a better plan at some stage.
From West to East:
Tench Street - 1908
Red Lion Street - 1907, 1911 - 1926 Old Gravel Lane - 1901?
New Gravel Lane - 1906
It is quite evident that Barnett remained in a small area within the same locality from 1906 until his death 20 years later. Into this locale, an address at Old Gravel Lane fits perfectly well . Raine Street , where ‘wife’ Louisa was staying in the infirmary at the time of the 1911 Census, is also highlighted.
On the one hand, yes, it could be argued that the age is against an identification. On the other hand, were it not for the age, I should think this individual would have been identified with ‘our’ Joseph Barnett long ago due particularly to his location. If the age is an error (48 for 43 isn’t actually that difficult to accept, I don’t think) it explains why it hasn’t been spotted before. The Census is notorious for error; variant spelling, etc. It is of course also possible that Barnett was not entirely honest in his return to the Census – note that he, and Louisa, both independently state that they have been married for 23 years in 1911, which puts their ‘marriage’ in 1887- 1888. Unless (and I am not necessarily suggesting that this was the case) Kelly was also Louisa – and perhaps Emily as well – that seems unlikely to be true.
I have not located any individual likely to be this particular Joseph Barnett either before, or after the 1901 Census. I cannot find an ‘Emily’ Barnett matching the person on the 1901 Census entry either. This couple appear only once – they are not in evidence elsewhere in the record so far as I can tell. According to the 1901 entry, they are local – so where are they in the record? It looks a bit suspicious to me. I think, age aside, it is quite possible that this is the same Barnett later living at Tench Street, Red Lion Street, and New Gravel Lane, and who at one time lived with Mary Kelly. I have considered it quite carefully – I think all considered it is unlikely to be simple co-incidence.
You have put up a very good case. I know how hard it is making anything coherent from census records,with regard to inaccuracy, different ages, places of birth,names etc
Your Barnett does seem to be the same one as in the 1911 census, the difference in wife's names could be a mistake.Also the locale and work pattern fits from what we know of Barnett's life.
If it is Joe Barnett then he could not have legally been married. He could not have been living with Louisa. Emily before 1888 and there is no record of a London marriage after that name.
The earliest Joe could marry would be around 1876 when he would be around 18. there is a Joseph Barnett who married Louisa Chambers in dec 1876 in the city of London but that is probably the Joseph and Louisa living in Islington in 1881 census, he was a dyer and they had three small children, eldest 3.
There is an 1887 marriage in Hackney to either a Louisa Rowe or an Emily Alexandra Johnson.
Of course these are eliminated, there is nothing post 1888.
As Louisa appears in 1911 and in electoral rolls in 1919 as his wife and at his final address. Emily must be a mistake in the name.
Maybe his experience with Mary Kelly put him off marriage, or maybe they were just too poor to make it legal, also with no children or inheritence why bother?
It was very common not to marry, I was surprized when doing my own genealogy to discover that my great grandparents who lived together for fifty odd years, only got married after living together for twenty years and just before the birth of their tenth child.
Also maybe he wanted to forget about the Mary Kelly trauma and extended the time he had been with Louisa to hide association with that painful period.
Thanks! I made sure I checked as much as I possibly could before putting this Joseph Barnett forward as 'our' Joe - but I think the proximity of Old Gravel Lane to other known addresses for Barnett, particularly, is compelling.
If accepted as likely, this identification of Barnett in 1901 places him in the same locale 5 years earlier than 1906. I am now of the opinion that he probably remained in that area from the time of Kelly's death - I have pursued other avenues, but failed to find anybody who could even remotely be him. I think it is quite clear that he is not listed in the 1891 Census under the name Barnett, or any variation thereof. Clearly, he must be there somewhere - I wouldn't rule out his using another name at that time. As I expect you know if you've researched your own genealogy, it was pretty common.
The Barnet of 31 Old Gravel Lane was living in the same house as a Henry Turner, which is probably a coincidence, but would merit further checking at some point - when I next have time!
Thanks for takng an interest, Miss Marple - you're the only one so far!
The Henry Turner connection is a weird co incidence, I doubt that is is the same Henry Turner who lived with Tabram, if it was it would blow ideas about the relationships of the victims circle apart, the did they or did they not know each other argument.
I found a Henry Turner, carpenter age 29 in 1881 census living in the Common lodging house in Dorset st number 16,17,16,19. 29 makes him a couple of years younger than Martha, and he was born in Manchester.
The Henry Turner of the 1901 census was born in Stratford East is 52 and described as a widower and a labourer. Two different Turners then.
Henry Turner, partner of Martha Tabrum, at her inquest was described as a younger man with a fair moustache, and light skin, a short slovenly man who dressed in a dirty manner.He was a carpenter turned hawker by 1888.
Unless we know more about Henry Turner, which was a very common name, it will be impossible to pinpoint him. Part of me would love him to know Joe Barnett, but we will never know.
Last edited by miss marple : 01-18-2011 at 04:37 PM.