Image Enhancements

[ChrisGeorge]

That [1918] photo [of Hanbury Street] also gives an idea of how dirty the streets were, though I'm sure they were much worse 30 years earlier.

Why precisely, Archaic? Rather I should think the muck in the street in 1918 given the number of horses would have been about the same as in 1888, and possibly muckier even, given that it was wartime and there may have been less street cleaners available.

I have seen the mother and child many times before and wondered if the baby was dead. The expression on the motherīs face seems to tell a story.

Well I think the look of desperation on the woman's face tells a story of poverty and hard conditions not necessarily that the child was dead.

[Stephen Thomas]

I have seen the mother and child many times before and wondered if the baby was dead. The expression on the mother's face seems to tell a story.

Hi c4

This amazing photograph was taken was taken in the 1870s in the St Giles rookery area in central London. It does not show a mother and child but rather a very old lady 'babysitting' a child for its mother.

[Garry Wroe]

Here's a slightly better view of the child, Archaic ...



Appalling though it may be to latter-day sensibilities, it was far from unusual for a small child to be wandering the streets alone. Even by 1918 many East End women were compelled to augment the household income by resorting to 'outwork'. Essentially, they worked from home and produced cheap jewellery, toys or cigars, mended clothes, sewed buttons or took in laundry. Such work was intensive but very poorly paid and often involved the whole family. Hence youngsters such as the child pictured were entrusted with delivering goods to the customer or collecting new stock. It was simply the way things were, I'm afraid.

As for the Lavender Place image, I'm sorry but I can find no reference regarding the date it was photographed. This might be one for the tour guides!

[Garry Wroe]

I have seen the mother and child many times before and wondered if the baby was dead. The expression on the motherīs face seems to tell a story.

I'd assumed that both were sleeping, Curious. If so, I very much doubt that they were dreaming of a better life in the nearby workhouse.

[Archaic]

Dirty Streets, London Horses in 1918, etc

Originally Posted by Archaic:
That [1918] photo [of Hanbury Street] also gives an idea of how dirty the streets were, though I'm sure they were much worse 30 years earlier.

Why precisely, Archaic? Rather I should think the muck in the street in 1918 given the number of horses would have been about the same as in 1888, and possibly muckier even, given that it was wartime and there may have been less street cleaners available.

Hi Chris. Because by 1918 people had a much better understanding of how filth & germs spread disease, so I would hope there was a greater effort to clean the streets of garbage, muck, and animal droppings. Regarding street-cleaners, older men, women and boys were generally given jobs vacated by men who had gone to war. Also because by 1918 automobiles- in this case, delivery trucks- would have started displacing huge horse-drawn wagons.

Another reason is that horses capable of pulling carts and wagons were pressed into service for the war effort on a massive scale starting in 1914, 4 years before the Hanbury Street photo was taken. During the war sturdy wagon-horses were routinely "drafted" by the British Army for military service in France, where they pulled supply wagons, ambulance wagons, artillery and munitions. Horses were better at getting through the ruined countryside and muddy roads than early automobiles. Unfortunately their life span on active duty was very short, so they had to be constantly replaced by fresh horses.

Here are some statistics I found: At the start of the war in 1914 the entire British Army owned only 25,000 horses. By 1917 they were using over 530,000 horses and 230,000 mules. The British Army bought them wherever they could find them, from farms, from wagon-drivers, and eventually even from America and Canada. Private owners were not given a choice to decline to sell. Equine casualty rates were so high that the British Army needed to buy 15,000 horses a month just to replace the ones that were killed. Over half a million horses owned by the British Army were killed during WWI.

All in all I have to doubt there were as many working horses on London's streets in 1918 as there had been 30 years earlier in 1888.


Hi Stephen. I realize the horses are standing at the curb, but they are always ready to move again as soon as their driver is ready to go on to his next stop- and the huge wagons were not fitted with rear-view mirrors. If a driver took a quick glance round he might not even see so small a child.
And being a horse-owner I know that horses don't have brakes or "off" switches; no matter how well-trained they are, they are live animals with minds of their own. Any horse that's standing still gets bored and wants to occasionally shift position. A horse that pulled big wagons on the city's hard cobbled streets would definitely have aching joints, muscles & bones, which would require it to shift position occasionally. Even a well-trained horse can suddenly take a step or two forward or backward just to get more comfortable, which would cause those big wagon wheels to roll- a possibility which might end in disaster for a little child attempting to pass. Young children aren't know for their good judgment and safety-mindedness. I certainly hope that our intrepid "little friend" was alright.

Thanks for the close-up view, Garry, and for checking on the Lavender Place photo.

Best regards,
Archaic

[curious4]

Hello Stephen,

I`m not so sure - at first glance she looks old but if you look closely I think she is younger than you might think at first, just looking much older because of starvation.

Is it documented that she is an older woman?

Best wishes,
C4

"The worldīs my oyster - now all I need is an oyster knife!"

[curious4]

Why precisely, Archaic? Rather I should think the muck in the street in 1918 given the number of horses would have been about the same as in 1888, and possibly muckier even, given that it was wartime and there may have been less street cleaners available.



Well I think the look of desperation on the woman's face tells a story of poverty and hard conditions not necessarily that the child was dead.

Hello Gary and Christopher,

Her face is turned away from the baby, not towards it, which would be more natural, and I donīt think she is asleep, just downcast eyes. Also there is something about the way the baby is laying (lying?).

But perhaps it is my over-active imagination at work again.

Best wishes,
C4

[Archaic]

I agree that the photo of the woman holding the baby (in post #161) is one of the saddest I have ever seen. It breaks my heart to look at it. I feel such compassion for that woman, she looks so beaten down and miserable.

I think it may well be her own baby. People who lived hard lives in the 19th C. often look much older than they are- those with tanned, weather-beaten faces especially.
She may be only about 40-45 years of age, and the baby may be one many she has given birth to- 6, 8, even 10. The look on her face makes me think she knows that the baby has very little chance of survival, and that she herself may not survive much longer.

Conversely, it's possible that it's her daughter's baby. If so, we'll never know if the daughter even survived childbirth. Maybe that's why the woman looks so sad and hopeless.

People who lived in common lodging houses were turned out in the daytime (I'm not sure why). That's why there are so many photos of groups of women and children sitting on the pavement, practically in the street. It must have been cold, uncomfortable, and terribly difficult to care for an infant under those conditions.

I think that's one of the most poignant photos of all time. It speaks to everyone.

Best regards,
Archaic

[curious4]

Woman and child,

Hello Archaic,

I think she might be even younger - look at the eyes. The sunken cheeks and worn look are, I think, making her look old before her time due to starvation,
she may only be in her twenties.

I remember waking up to the sound of hooves on cobbled streets when I was very young in the 1950`s. Milk was always delivered by horse and cart and the HUGE Shire horses drew the wagons with beer barrels to be delivered to the pubs in the town.

My grandfather was a policeman, joining the force after world war one and my mother remembered reading a page of his notebook concerning the arrest of a man drunk in charge of a horse. Hopefully he hadnīt fallen off the wagon with the beer barrels!

Best wishes,
C4

[Rob Clack]

Hi Bun,

I can't remember the date of the Lavender Place photograph. I came across it a few years back at the LMA. The child in the Hanbury Street photograph is pushing what looks like a baby's pram.



Rob

[Garry Wroe]

Many thanks for the higher resolution image, Rob, and indeed for any other of your images that I may have used on this thread. Much appreciated.

[Garry Wroe]

Here's the little girl again ...



The steps at the rear of 29 Hanbury Street ...



And Mitre Square circa 1925 ...

[The Grave Maurice]

It certainly does look like a pram, but it's far too small for an adult to push. Could the child have her doll in it?

Anyway, fascinating stuff on this thread as always. Whenever I see that shot of Mitre Square, it makes me want to move to London.

[Garry Wroe]

Agreed, Ken, it certainly looks like a toy pram, possibly one of whicker construction. There again, the more I look at it, the more it resembles a hat box on a trolley. It's a puzzle, to be sure.

Further to the discussion on the Endell Street photograph, here's a highly filtered version of the lady's face ...



I don't know about anyone else, but I'm fairly sure that she is sleeping with her head resting against the wall.

[curious4]

Sleeping?

Hello Garry,

Difficult to decide, as you say. She could have closed her eyes or just have downcast eyes. As for age, she seems to have all her teeth (the mouth tends to fall in on itself and shrivel up when teeth are missing) and her hair is dark. Most of JTRs victims had lost teeth and they were in their forties, so presumably older women would have lost most, if not all, of their teeth. I still maintain that she is much younger than she looks.

In any case, this is one of the saddest pictures I have ever seen and however much one reads about the poverty of the East End, in this case a picture really tells more than a thousand words.

Regards,
C4