Jack's housing arrangements

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Sam,

From Docklands Museum, which the Peabody Trust lent some items to for the recent show:

"By 1888 the Trust owned 5,000 dwellings housing 20,000 people.

The Trust's oldest estate was built in Spitalfields in 1864, and this was close to where some of Jack the Ripper's victims were murdered. The estate no longer belongs to the Trust but the buildings are still standing. Two other large Peabody estates were also built in east London in the 19th century."

I believe that refers to the one up Commercial St at White Lion St. Then there is the Glasshouse Street one. What is the location of the third Peabody estate in EE at that time?

Roy

Its a more interesting question with the information youve added Sam, thats for sure.

If Ben follows me as I followed the link, what I was differentiating was a room with multiple tenants and beds from a room with one tenant and bed. Despite what youve suggested, I do not believe that if this serial killer killed multiple times, and took organs multiple times, that his living in a ward style existence would be either practical, sensible or "viable" risk taking, if he had options. It would appear now that its likely he did, even as a working poor man.

The man killed in public, so theres no argument that he is a risk taker in his murderous iteration, but there is another iteration...there must be, because he manages to stay hidden in plain sight and not be suspicious between the killings if hes local.

I cant really see how we can escape the logic that he had at least the symptoms of a split personality. Which could mean that the local working man, who he may well be when not killing, might be anything but a risk taker. Theres no indication, to me anyway, that the killer of the women risked capture. He is gone before any of the first arrival witnesses pass by. Nor does the man who he is between kills seem to be the type to draw unneeded attention, by actions or hours kept.

And with the evidence that Sam submitted, we can see that there is no reason to suspect he lived among others in the same room, not when the private digs were that accessible.

The cost of a private room within the affected area was within reach for a poor working man. Thats all we need to know really to have a workable premise for his off hours locale.

I think what youve been suggesting Ben is that he takes a location with witnesses purposefully, as part of a false identity. Well with this new information, he could easily have had a room in his actual name to himself...or an alias. I dont know why, other than forced by necessity or as a deliberate creation of a false identity, that he would choose a ward over a room alone.

All the best Ben, Sam.

[Sam Flynn]

Jack could have had a place to call "home" after all...

"One room in the Peabody buildings is never let to two persons." (J. Ewing Ritchie, Days and Nights in London, 1880).

Single rooms were let out at 2s 6d per week in the 1880s. Families paid 5s per week for three rooms. Communal washing facilities and lavatories were located on the landings outside the rooms on each floor.

Peabody Buildings' house rules:

1. No applicants for rooms will be entertained unless every member of the applicant's family has been vaccinated or agrees to comply with the Vaccination Act;

2. The rents will be paid weekly in advance at the superintendent's office, on Monday, from 9 a.m. till 6 p.m.;

3. No arrears of rent will be allowed;

4. The passages, steps, closets, and lavatory windows must be washed every Saturday and swept every morning before 10 o'clock. This must be done by tenants in turn;

5. Washing must be done only in the laundry. Tenants will not be permitted to use the laundries for the washing of any clothes but their own. No clothes shall be hung out;

6. No carpets, mats, etc., can be permitted to be beaten or shaken after 10 o'clock in the morning. Refuse must not be thrown out of the doors or windows;

7. Tenants must pay all costs for the repairs, etc., of all windows, keys, grates and boilers broken or damaged in their rooms;

8. Children will not be allowed to play on the stairs, in the passages, or in the laundries;

9. Dogs must not be kept on the premises;

10. Tenants cannot be allowed to paper, paint or drive nails into the walls;

11. No tenant will be permitted to under-let or take in lodgers or to keep a shop of any kind;

12. The acceptance of any gratuity by the superintendent or porters from tenants or applicants for rooms will lead to their immediate dismissal;

13. Disordlerly or intemperate tenants will receive immediate notice to quit;

14. The gas will be turned off at 11 p.m. and the outer doors closed for the night, but each tenant will be provided with a key to admit him in at all hours [my emphasis];

15. Tenants are required to report to the superintendent any births, deaths, or infectious diseases occurring in their rooms. Any tenant not complying with this rule will receive notice to quit.

(Info from The Eternal Slum: Housing & Social Policy in Victorian London, Anthony S. Wohl, 2006.)


I posted this info on another thread relating to a specific suspect, but perhaps it needs to be lifted up a level to a more generic discussion about the sort of home in which Jack could have lived.

Some say he couldn't have afforded a room of his own - well, at 2 shillings and sixpence per week, for a single room (with key!) the Peabody Trust shows that he could. Some think he might have lived in a doss-house, others don't - or, that if he did, he'd have needed a "bolt-hole". Would he have had a family, or would they have got in the way...? And so on.

Ideas and comments on this general theme are quite welcome.