Number of Boarding Houses

[Barrister]

I am looking for the number of boarding houses (not brothels) in the Whitechapel area in 1888. I believe I saw the number in a newspaper account of Queen Victoria's opening of the Queen's Hall in the People's Palace at Mile End in 1887. If anyone can point me to the right number, I will be appreciative.
Thank you all.

[Wickerman]

Boarding houses?
I know I have read (Oct. 1888) that the H Division Inspector of Lodging-Houses stated there exists 127 lodging-houses in the district.
I'm assuming he meant in H Division, which includes Whitechapel.

I also think I saw a different number for just Spitalfields, but not Whitechapel.

[Wickerman]

This might be what you are looking for.

"The Medical Officer of Health's report for Whitechapel in 1888 listed 36 streets containing 141 lodging houses in that district alone."
East End 1888, W J Fishman, p.26, note 4.

[Barrister]

Commissioner,
Thanks for your help.
Barrister

[GUT]

May I add to what Wickerman said, the number he quotes seems to reflect registered lodging houses only, it appears that there were 100's more operating on an ad hoc basis.

[Lechmere]

There were 98 in 1893

[Wickerman]

Hi Gut.

You might be right, even though the numbers differ (in the two quotes I provided), they may not be in contention.

This is a snippet from the press article I first referred to:


Reynolds News, p.5, 14 Oct. 1888.

What I forgot to mention was that the Sergeant said, "127 Registered lodging-houses", whereas the Medical Officer for Whitechapel makes no distinction between Registered and Unregistered.
Perhaps 141 was the total, of which 127 were Registered?

Alternately, the press article appears to center on Spitalfields, mentioning Gun-street, Thrawl-street, and Flower and Dean-street.
Perhaps the 127 "in the district", concerns Registered Lodging-houses in the district of Spitalfields, so then we have 141 for Whitechapel?

[Wickerman]

There were 98 in 1893
[ATTACH]16051[/ATTACH]

Thanks Ed.
Is there a district named for that page?

[Lechmere]

Sorry - its the 1893 Whitechapel Metropolitan Board of Works health report

[Debra A]

Sorry - its the 1893 Whitechapel Metropolitan Board of Works health report

As an aside-the second column of that page looks interesting, Ed. Is this recorded for every lodging house in every disctrict?

[Lechmere]

I assume they recorded the deaths per lodging house in every district, but they reported these deaths in a composite way - i.e. there were seven lodging houses in Brick Lane and ten inmates from these lodging houses died.
To be able to report that they must have known the individual lodging houses but did not report in that detail.

This is obviously just the report for Whitechapel Board of Works but my guess is that all he Boards of Works would have compiled similar reports.

If you liked that report you will like this one too.
Here are where the 215 deaths occurred. Only 19 died in the actual lodging house - the rest in hospital (like Emma Smith).
None were murdered or the victims of manslaughter and only one was an 'accidental death'.


The drop in number of lodging houses from 1888 can be mainly explained by the demolitions around Lolesworth Street.

Also the report is a snap shot. The number of functioning lodging houses would logically have fluctuated a bit within any given year. That - or simple error - is the logical explanation for different figures being quoted by different sources within one calendar year.

[Debra A]

Thanks Edward.
Would these figures have been provided to the board of works by the individual hospitals/institutions mentioned from their own records?

[Lechmere]

Thinking about it my guess is that the relevant local body upon whom the person was a charge would be informed by the hospital upon their death.