Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Victoria Working Men's Home, Commercial St East

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Below is an image from the Booth Collection relating to Victoria Home No 2 (77 Whitechapel Road) in 1898. Mr Wilkie was the manger of both Victoria Homes and the rules for each establishment was the same.
    At the time of the Whitechapel Murders lodging houses were supervise by the police (Common Lodging House Act of 1851) but in 1894 supervision switched to the London County Council.

    The manager (actually a deputy) was interviewed on February 18th 1898. The interview was handwritten and difficult to decipher but here are a few interesting passages.

    Sally is quite right in saying that for the Victoria Home the free night was Sunday:
    ‘They are not so well equipped as the Rowton Houses or the L.C.C Common Lodging Houses. But both of these charge 6d a night, the Victoria Home 4d with a free bed on Sunday for those that have been at the house all the week.’

    On late night entry and sleeping in the day (questions which have arisen before):
    ‘The doors closed at 12 midnight and although men are not hurried, the kitchen is cleared and expected to be cleared by about 12.30. There have 2 night porters but do not profess to take men who want to sleep in the day. This makes management simpler and helps to keep them free from doubtful customers.’

    On regular users:
    ‘The vast majority of men live there and on any given night except perhaps for a little time in the summer they have only about 12 beds vacant for strangers. They have about 500 beds and last week for instance they gave more than 400 free room for the Sunday. Some of their men have been there for years.'

    Those who attended a recent Whitechapel Society meeting might be interested to know that there is an interview within this interview, with an inmate known as ‘Walter’, who seems to have been a rough character – ‘a good natured rather stout fellow about 45, with a good strong arm, a cast in his eye...’

    Included in the papers is an interview with Mr Pateman (thankfully typed) , the Superintendent of the Spitalfields Lodging House Band, and he says:

    ‘The best houses in the district are the Victoria Homes, and in these the management is strictest... The worst street is Dorset St., but of the houses in it Crossingham’s is the best. It is for men only. McCathy’s with “doubles” and “singles” is about as bad as any’.

    There is also a six page typed interview with Mr Wilkie.

    On the subject of long tern inmates he says that of the 1,120 beds in the two homes, he ‘does not think that there are 300 in the homes who were there 12 months ago.... But on any given night the no. Of beds free for the chance comer is very small indeed. All names are registered but nothing else.’

    This is another interesting passage:
    ‘The 4d beds were arranged in little compartments of 4, with corrugated iron partitions, and Mr. W. said they were often occupied by those who chummed together and that there was a great deal of partnering in work, by which the slack times are tided over.’
    Attached Files

    Comment


    • #62
      Lechmere

      You seem to have misread the interview at the Victoria Home 1 somewhat - but never mind, eh?

      By the way, I hope you have written permission to publish material from the archive, otherwise you are in breach of copyright.

      Comment


      • #63
        By the way...

        Duration of copyright
        The 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act states the duration of copyright as
        For literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works:
        70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the last remaining author of the work dies.
        If the author is unknown, copyright will last for 70 years from end of the calendar year in which the work was created, although if it is made available to the public during that time, (by publication, authorised performance, broadcast, exhibition, etc.), then the duration will be 70 years from the end of the year that the work was first made available.


        In any case...

        Acts that are allowed
        Fair dealing is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree without infringing the work, these acts are:
        • Private and research study purposes.
        • Performance, copies or lending for educational purposes.
        • Criticism and news reporting.


        The picture I reproduced, which is a handbill, is not copyrighted as it is a document issued 113 years ago -actually the same goes for the written stuff were I to reproduce it in full but as you can see I have only quoted excerpts – put of politeness to the LSE archive, not out of fear of infringement of some imaginary aspect of copyright law. Ownership of the documents does not grant copyright nor does it extend it.

        Booth died in 1912 by the way.

        The worst it would be would be a personal breach of their private library regulations – which they might take it to be were I to reproduce all the photographed pages I took of their documents, or were I to reproduce for sale a facsimile edition of the Booth papers.

        So what bit have I misread? I photographed all the pages so I can easily double check in case I have made a mistake.

        Comment


        • #64
          Ah. So you don't have permission then. No.

          Permission must be sought prior to any publication of material from the LSE Archives collections. Please apply in writing to the Archivist, stating the specific items that you wish to publish, and the nature of the publication. In many cases, we do not hold copyright in material in our archives, and whilst we will help with initial information and guidance, it is the responsibility of the applicant to obtain permission from copyright holders. Evidence of permission must be presented in writing.

          Publication includes the use of copies as book or journal illustrations, book or CD covers, and for use in film, television, video, CD-ROMs, websites, posters, exhibitions, public lectures etc.


          As you see. Maybe you should've read the small print, eh?

          Comment


          • #65
            No because it is not necessary as the material is not under copyright.
            I am aware of their private regulations.
            You seem to have a strange retentive attitude towards the Booth Archives.

            Comment


            • #66
              Booth died in 1912 by the way.
              General William Booth of the Salvation Army died that year, Lechmere.

              Not Charles, who died in 1916.

              Comment


              • #67
                Thank you for the correction Ben

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Lechmere View Post
                  No because it is not necessary as the material is not under copyright.
                  I am aware of their private regulations.
                  You seem to have a strange retentive attitude towards the Booth Archives.
                  No, because it is now an integral part of one of Booth's notebooks, and so part of the archive. Do you understand?

                  If you are aware of the library's regulations why have you chosen to disregard them? In order to gain access to the library you signed a declaration to the effect that you would not do what you have in fact done.

                  As for your other comment, it isn't worth responding to, so I won't. If you had permission, which you require, and do not have, my view would be different.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Sally you clearly don't understand what copyright is - unless that convoluted response was an attempt to move onto different territory.
                    I chose to reproduce just one page from the Booth archive as that was not a material breach of their private regulations. Nor is transcribing 314 words from the manuscript and reproducing it on a public discussion forum.
                    I made that decision as an adult - but am fully aware of the spirit of the regulations of establishments such as the LSE library and the reason for them.
                    Archive resources such as these are not exclusive documents kept for the private delight of an elite group of insiders. The reason they are kept is to enlighten future generations. I am totally confident that the LSE supports such an attitude rather than acting as anally retentive hoarders.
                    There are always some people in authority in any bureaucracy who rigidly stick to rules and lose sight of what they are there for. Just as there are always ‘members of the public’ who feel honoured and special to have access to archives and feel that this confers on them status as initiates.
                    I think a similar mentality is responsible for the refusal to release the 19th century Special Branch ledgers, although in that case there is a slight case to be made for retaining confidentiality.

                    You know what else Sally – there are some Ripper-related places in the East End with signs on the doors saying ‘Private Residents Only’ and such like. I have in the past managed to gain entry while not being a resident and have taken photographs or generally ‘snooped’ about. I suppose you would object to that as well.
                    Once I left my car on a yellow line as well.
                    Last edited by Lechmere; 07-11-2011, 10:23 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      A better map of the Victoria Home – from 1936 I think. Actually I believe the map was drawn in 1914 and revised in 1936. The Victoria Home is almost on the edge between two sheets!
                      Attached Files

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        And here’s a version I coloured in.
                        Pink for roads.
                        Green for the Victoria Home.
                        Yellow the possible access to the rear of the Victoria Home.
                        However there is clearly a fence separating Chess Court from this yard (actually two fences). This fence can also be discerned on the 1894 map. So I don’t think that inmates would have been able to access to the rear of the Victoria Home.
                        Attached Files

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          The Victoria Home was destroyed by bombing in the war - but none landed on it, or even that close, which is slightly strange. Many buildings are still up that had bombs land right next to them. Each dot is where a bomb landed.
                          Attached Files

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            And this is roughly the same area showing which houses were demolished.
                            Attached Files

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X