Toffs in Spitalfields

[perrymason]

And I appreciate that you took a few extra minutes to post that Nats....youve always been one of my favs here.

I think that the distance you described is well within walking distance for any able man, and I believe that strength and vitality played a role in the "subdue without struggle", something that perhaps a well fed man under forty might accomplish easier that one weak from hunger.

Thanks for that Nats, nite.

[Natalie Severn]

Thankyou Mike---thats such music to my ears...and thanks again!
Norma

[perrymason]

Hi Mike,

Give me the bad part of modern Toronto over the bad part of the Victorian East End any day.

I hope you don't think me presumptious when I hazard a guess that you were neither a "toff", nor someone whose appearance would contrast very markedly with your surroundings on that occasion? A Victorian gent had ample opportunities for seeking out "good, honest folk" that wouldn't have entailed a footslog into hell. All he had to do was visit a decent pub on Tottenham Court Road and chat with some nice flower girl, if inclined. As Miss Marple pointed out, there was much more social intergration up West.

The Rose analagy is an interesting one, but she was a fictional character, and it's almost impossible to imagine Astor or Guggenheim surrendering their seats in the mahogany-panelled smoking room on Titanic to go party in steerage!

Cheers,
Ben

Hi Ben,

To answer your assumption, not presumptuous at all, I suppose I should clarify how I see a "toff". In the UK in that period, we are probably talking generally about titled people, or various levels of aristocracy...the old money...but there were brand new rich folks in London, ones that could go to the best tailors, and best restaurants, and live in the better neighborhoods. But they had roots that were much more down to earth, they may have started working in the factory that they eventually could buy.

Myself and my friends might be at the most chic nightspot in town before going to the "biker" rock bars, or after finishing a costly meal. We were dressed much differently from the crowd almost always, and were only warmed up to when they realized we were just like them only in nice suits. Ill give you an example of one episode I recall vividly....I had been at a black tie dinner in Yorkville, $1000 a plate...TO's chic spot, and retired after dinner to the bar. After listening to the pompous CEO's and CFO's and COO's patting themselves on the back for their greatness, I couldnt take it anymore. Called a buddy, and met him at a bowling alley in the most depressed area of Toronto, one that served draft beer, and we bowled until 8am, keeping the bartender by bribes. I ended up spending $500 bucks there somehow...

But I was there with bottomless credit cards, a tux, and the cash I mentioned above in my wallet, and I wanted to be in a place that I could swear and laugh out loud and fool around.

I stood out like an ugly inch on Angeline Jolie.

Cheers Ben.

[Ben]

Mike,I will come back to the rest of this tomorrow----its a bit difficult to have any kind of discussion with the gruesome twosome since they refuse to believe anything that goes against their myth about a mad butcher or "Hutch the butch " theory

And an example of something that "goes against" the "Hutch the Butch" theory to have emerged from this thread would be...? What? The prerilous prospect that the killer might have been some fiendish West End toff of popular nonsensical ripper-lore? Yep, uhuh, Gentleman Jack is a real thorn in our side.

The distance from Commercial Street ,Aldgate end to Queen Mary"s College that was " The People"s Palace",is six and a half inches,therefore the distance is just under a mile and a half.

And from this we can conclude...?

Clearly poor Emma Smith had got wised up to the arrival of over the 500 toffs,dressed to the nines, who arrived Saturday nights in 1888 to do the "Can Can" in the Queens Hall,Mile End

I don't know if you're engaging in a little light-hearted parody, or what, but we've learned by now that the individuals in question weren't "toffs", were not "dressed up to the nines", and there's no evidence that any of them belonged to the upper classes, and as for the effect these people had on Emma Smith, where are you getting that from?

and this is for sure ,she would have hoped to do a spot of business with these "well heeled" folk

Norma, simply adding "this is for sure" fails to do the trick of making your arguments more persuasive or any less wrong. There's is absolutely no evidence, hint, or suggestion that Emma Smith ever ventured into Mile End to do a spot of business with "well-heeled" folk (you know, the sort of folk who rarely, if ever, visited the People's Palace).

Now, about this man Margaret Hayes claimed to have seen with the deceased. Here's what we learn from the Emma Smith inquest: "The man was dressed in a dark suit and wore a white silk handkerchief round his neck. He was of medium height, but witness did not think she could identify him."

No mention of him being well-dressed, and he wore a handkerchief round his neck. I can't think of any form of wearing apparell that could be considered anymore antithetical to the image of a toff than a man wearing a neckerchief. That's not well dressed. That's not a toff. That's Joe Local, dressing in a manner befitting the district.

[Sam Flynn]

To answer your assumption, not presumptuous at all, I suppose I should clarify how I see a "toff". In the UK in that period, we are probably talking generally about titled people, or various levels of aristocracy...the old money...but there were brand new rich folks in London, ones that could go to the best tailors, and best restaurants, and live in the better neighborhoods. But they had roots that were much more down to earth...

...you'd have needed roots at the Earth's core to have found much to attract you to the cesspits of Spitalfields and Whitechapel, Mike - it was more a question of "getting out", than "going back". It was a place of transience, violence, poverty and oppression, as it had been since Dickens' time and earlier. People were sucked down into its muddy streets, and remained there for generations.

It would take quite a few decades after 1888 before the area could have been said to have visibly improved, and almost a century before well-heeled "trendies" (by which I mean overpaid youngsters, rather than middle-aged, minted toffs) bothered to go there. I see little that would have enticed even the upper working-classes into Spitalfields in 1888, other than those who visited its markets in the day, and who weren't already stuck in the middle of it all.

[Ben]

But they had roots that were much more down to earth, they may have started working in the factory that they eventually could buy.

Ah, I see what you mean, Mike. Unfortunately, the rags-to-riches scenario wasn't especially commonplace in 1888 England. Old money and rigid class divides prevailed, and there was little question of m(any) impoverished tailors ascending through the ranks and gaining great wealth as a consequence. Factory workers ending up as factory owners simply couldn't have occured back then. Just consider how the seniority of the Met and City police forces attained their lofty ranks - not by ascending some neat hierarchal ladder, but by gaining admittance through the old-boy network. Just think of Macnaghten, not a professional policeman by any means, but he quickly became large and in charge of the CID from the tea plantations of India.

I couldnt take it anymore. Called a buddy, and met him at a bowling alley in the most depressed area of Toronto, one that served draft beer, and we bowled until 8am, keeping the bartender by bribes

And the equivalent for London of 1888 would have the wealthy businessman taking refreshment in a decent pub like the Antelope in Belgravia, rubbing shoulders with fellow wealthy businessman (and toffs) in addition to the humble men and women who shined their shoes, sold them flowers and cleaned their streets...in Belgravia.

and I believe that strength and vitality played a role in the "subdue without struggle", something that perhaps a well fed man under forty might accomplish easier that one weak from hunger

Mmmmm, I'd urge very strong caution with this one too. The people best suited to arduous tasks are the people most accustomed to endurance and survival, and the people most accustomed to endurance and survival would have been the poor, not the complacent toffs.

Cheers,
Ben

[perrymason]

Many valid points gents, the truth be known, I personally dont see a "toff" fit here myself, but I think Nats does make some good points, and perhaps a working man with a decent wage and a steady job well dressed might pass for one in such a dank place. Myself, I can see the labour class as housing the killer, but not so much the unemployed. I cannot ignore the "schedule"...whether its actually something or not, only on weekends or holidays, and only within the same 10 day period each 30-31 days, at the very end of the month and/or before the 10th of the next, ....thats so unusual, so fixed a routine for his Fall run, I think its important. If he killed the C5 that "schedule" is consistent.

If he was a Toff, maybe hes abroad or travelling around the UK during those times...but I am not convinced his means were at that level. Those kind of people are noticed when missing for periods of time at night...if even by the servants. And servants would claim rewards.

Cheers Sam, Ben.


edited to add for Ben: We know that McCarthy becomes quite the slum landlord, owning a few properties about the area. If he started with very little and capitalized on the opportunities to house the immigrants and semi-poor, that might be the type of situation I alluded to with the "new money", "local boy makes good" kind of comments. Not titled, or aristocracy, but by taking advantage of the poor he became rich. If that was his story.

A toff on the outside maybe, but a East Ender inside. That kind of man.

[Natalie Severn]

...you'd have needed roots at the Earth's core to have found much to attract you to the cesspits of Spitalfields and Whitechapel, Mike - it was more a question of "getting out", than "going back". It was a place of transience, violence, poverty and oppression, as it had been since Dickens' time and earlier. People were sucked down into its muddy streets, and remained there for generations.

It would take quite a few decades after 1888 before the area could have been said to have visibly improved, and almost a century before well-heeled "trendies" (by which I mean overpaid youngsters, rather than middle-aged, minted toffs) bothered to go there. I see little that would have enticed even the upper working-classes into Spitalfields in 1888, other than those who visited its markets in the day, and who weren't already stuck in the middle of it all.

I would say you know nothing about the Spitalfields of 1888 Sam.
Spitalfields Market is directly opposite Christchurch in Brushfield Street and The Ten Bells .There were weekly concerts at that already famous church that were "very well attended" in this "slum" according to you, the local papers have reports on these concerts so you can look them up - they featured Handel"s Messiah, also the music of Purcell etc,the market was a vast brand new complex,one of the finest in London and that 1887 building,just a stone"s throw from Thrawl Street was one of the very best appointed markets in the whole of London in 1888.Indeed ,over the past five years or so,there have been a series of extraordinary campaigns to save the Spitalfields beautiful market,culminating in huge success and an extension the actual market into one of the best of the London shopping malls-completed only last year.

Yes,indeed there were streets that were slums off the Commercial street- Dorset St was reputed to be one of them ,although some two hundred local people attended a meeting where John McCarthy spoke, agreeing with him that it was NOT a slum and that the middle class reporter was a liar,although to be fair he was probably only speaking from a middle class, perspective.Anyway they,some two hundred of them in all,accused him of being thoroughly biased in his reporting and soon after he was "removed" from his features writing post at the newspaper---its all on casebook somewhere still if it didnt get lost in the crash.Clearly the truth of the matter lies somewhere in between all this.But ofcourse when you have a theory to plug about a police witness such as Inspector Abberline"s witness, George Hutchinson,as THE one and only "Jack the Ripper" then its difficult to see the wood for thew trees.Heavens above-the RIPPER started off attacking towards the MILE END area,slaughtering poor Polly Nichols, A MILE FROM SPITALFIELDS and WENTWORTH STREET and a few days later took himself up the other end of town to slaughter Annie Chapman round the corner from the Cambridge Music Hall in Hanbury Street---a good way from Wentworth Street.
Hanbury Street itself WAS NOT a slum.Its Church Hall was used for strike headquarters for the Match Girls Strike of 1888---and who met day and night in 1888.Earlier in the 60"s and early 70"s Charles Dickens had given talks there to packed audiences .In 1888 during the build up to the strike,it was frequented by upper class political figures who helped organise the strike daily.Annie Bessant and Eleanor Marx-Aveling[Karl Marx"s daughter] were two of the leading lights ,Frederick Charrington -a very wealthy man and the brewery heir, made regular visits to Hanbury Street, as did Stead of The Pall Mall Gazette, Charrington liaised to turn other facilities over to the Match Girls of Briant and May"s in 1888 -and they all worked day and night to organise the event.
Hanbury Street,Spitalfields was also only two or three minutes from the Cambridge Music Hall,which was around the corner in Commercial Street proper.In November 1888 Dan Leno was performing there.
Lets get some facts straight .

Ben,the "fashionably dressed ladies and throngs of "sportsmen like men" --- think Montague Druitt,the cricketer,who was dressed in just such type of dress as "Mr Astrakhan"-ie when Druitt was hauled drowned out of the Thames-remember too, Druitt had been a "named contributer" to the "People"s Palace " building fund and may even have been one of the "sportsman like men" amongst these 500 merry folk doing the "Can Can" on the 29th September Advertiser"s "exposure" ] the next "exposure" referred to in the "October 6th" East London Advertiser,would have NOT been ordinary folk EITHER-NOT AT ALL since the reporter was making an EXPOSURE of them NOT being from the POORER classes,for which the People"s Palace was intended.He told them in his article ." GO ELSEWHERE AND SUPPORT SUCH INSTITUTIONS AS THE TOYNBEE HALL"-Toynbee Hall is at the bottom of Commercial Street-next door to where Martha Tabram was murdered. It was considered very la di dah ---packed out as it was with aristocratic names fro Osford and CAmbridge Universities ,giving service to the poor.BTW--The Kennel Club which often used "the People"s Palace for its big functions was quite an exclusive club-still is.

Best Wishes

Norma

[Ben]

Ben,the "fashionably dressed ladies and throngs of "sportsmen like men" --- Montague Druitt,the cricketer,was dressed in just such type of dress as "Mr Astrakhan"

According to what evidence, Norma?

Fashionable dress does not make a lady Queen Victoria by any stretch, nor was she likely to have arrived on the arm of a "toff". It's quite possible to keep reasonably appraised of the latest "fashions" without being excessively wealthy or belonging to the upper classes. As for the men, let's not dress them in Astrakhan with absolutely no evidence. They were described as sportsman like, and that means neither toff nor "attired in Astrakhan and gold chains".

Druitt had been a "named contributer" to the "People"s Palace "

Presumably because he was concerned about the plight of the poor and donated from a distance, like most donators to charities, and wasn't some silly hedonist who ponced in there just for a pit of crumpet, using the East End as a playground as popular discredited lore would try to have us believe. The chances of Druitt can-canning into the small hours in Mile End strikes me as an equally implausible notion.

the reporter was making an EXPOSURE of them NOT being from the poorer classes

No, he wasn't.

The fact that the building attracted men and women who weren't from the poorest classes on that occasion, should tell us immediately why the newspapers commented on it. It was an unusual occurance. Local theatres invariably cater for local people, and from my reading of the situation, the reporters obviously considered it distasteful that the poorest locals in the district couldn't access that entertainment on their doorstep...on that rare occasion.

Annie Bessant and Eleanor Marx-Aveling,Frederick Charrington -a very wealthy man indeed who made regular visits to Hanbury Street,Stead of The Pall Mall Gazette

Who would have been utterly dwarfed, numbers-wise, by the masses of impoverished local men and women. I'll bet hefty sums that none of these individuals were making solo-visits at night time, dressed in their finery. If members of the press and "political figures" were visiting the district for reasons you allege, what should that tell you about the nature of the district? That "toffs" loved coming into Spitalfields and using it as their playground, or that well-intentioned public figures had become acutely aware of the plight of that district and sought to make improvements. We don't try to claim that parts of Africa really aren't that poor because we know that "wealthy" Billy Connolly went there once for Comic Relief. Think about why they were there.

You cannot possibly argue that outsiders went there to look after the poor so that means the district wasn't poor because outsiders went there!

John McCarthy spoke, agreeing with him that it was NOT a slum and that the middle class reporter was a liar,although to be fair he was probably only speaking from a middle class,well heeled and well employed perspective.

McCarthy wasn't "middle class" or "well-heeled", but the reason he reacted defensively to that press article should be pretty obvious. Somebody had disparaged the place where he lived and made money. Of course McCarthy was bound to claim the opposite; it's his livelihood. No pub landlord is likely to deter customers by admitting that it's a sht-hole, is he?

the RIPPER started off attacking towards the MILE END area

That depends on which victim you consider his first, obviously. If Millwood or Tabram, then no, he didn't start off attacking towards the Mile End area. If Tabram was his first murder victim, that was obviously very close to Wentworth Street. If you think Hanbury Street is a "good way" from Wentworth Street you're just plain wrong.

Best regards,
Ben

[miss marple]

Norma,
Because the church hall in Hanbury St was visited by the philanthropists and socialists who were engaged in the process of improving conditions in the East End and drawing the country's attention to the terrible conditions, how can you extrapulate from that, that Hanbury St was a good place to live? It makes no sense. We know from census returns that the properties in Hanbury St were overcrowded slum property by the 1880s, in spite of their grand beginnings in the 18th century
The philanthropists were there because it was a cesspit that needed attention, not because of the pure air and the views.
Much of the Spitalfields housing was demolished, the surviving houses have only looked wonderful for thirty years or so, since they were saved in the sixties and now have become homes to millionaires.
Dorset St was described by many commentators as the worst street in London. Just look at the conditions Mary Kelly lived in, old coat stuffed into a broken window, and that was good compared to some.
Miss Marple

[Natalie Severn]

Ben,
Marie Lloyd REGULARLY DRANK in the Sugar Loaf pub in Hanbury Street-possibly because it was "round the corner" from The Cambridge Music Hall.Marie Lloyd became very rich indeed eventually---so did Dan Leno---they could command any price they chose later in their careers-but even in 1888 Marie Lloyd was already becoming a star,and would not have been sitting drinking in the Sugar Loaf pub in Hanbury Street ,Spitalfields, with John McCarthy ,if it has been nothing but a slum pub.
You need to look up these sources for yourself,Ben,---you can"t expect me to keep posting them- I have given you the dates and the newspapers they are in.And for crying out loud,the campaign the press ran WAS PRECISELY about "toffs" taking over The People"s Palace!The "sportsman" like attire was worn on 6th October 1888 by a vast crowd of "well dressed" women and sportsman type dressed men for their Kennel Culb shows.But silk bustles were worn by the ladies [and "evening dress" would have been worn by the men most likely],on the night when upwards of 500 of them took over the "People"s Palace" and did the Can Can in the week leading up to 29th September with their very own "Scotts Guard" Band with them.On another occasion the papers drew attention to they were busy having tea and cakes while judging a huge "FLOWER SHOW" which Queen Victoria visited---apparently the place was full to overflowing yet not a poor person could be seen anywhere.That was the scandal!

Druitt? Well yes,I do believe he may have gone to such events-and performed the Can Can,-that is if all the other hurrah Henrys were at it! He was a splendid sportsman after all and loved all sorts of other physical activity by all accounts!Dont forget he was invited to a Grand Ball in Wimborne that members of the the Royal Family were attending that December----the only reason he didnt get there that December was that he was already bopping vigorously up and down in the Thames"s cross-currented river bed at Chiswick.


Druitt"s attire,given in full in inquest accounts,by the way,matches Mr Astrakhan"s attire in almost every single detail---right down to his kid gloves.Druitt"s collar was missing on his over coat which makes me think he must have had a detachable fur collar -possibly astrakhan,-on his coat ,such detachable collars were apparently very popular at the time amongst those who could afford them-imitation ones replacing real fur probably among those not flush enough to buy the real thing.

Norma

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Natalie,

One bit of clarification is in order. It was in Limehouse where Margaret Hayes saw her lodging mate Emma Smith talking to a man the night of her muder. Farrance St and Burdett Road. That's not out Mile End way.

Carry on,

Roy

[John Bennett]

Ben,
Marie Lloyd REGULARLY DRANK in the Sugar Loaf pub in Hanbury Street-possibly because it was "round the corner" from The Cambridge Music Hall.

Geography alert: The Sugar Loaf was at 187 Hanbury Street which was almost at the junction with Baker's Row/Vallance Rd. Quite a walk from the Cambridge Music Hall.

It may well be that she drank there because her cousin Johnny Cooney ran it.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Natalie,

One bit of clarification is in order. It was in Limehouse where Margaret Hayes saw her lodging mate Emma Smith talking to a man the night of her muder. Farrance St and Burdett Road. That's not out Mile End way.

Carry on,

Roy

Thanks Roy,I have rechecked and you are quite right, that part of Burdett Road is indeed in Limehouse.It is not far from the Mile End bit where Burdett Road actually begins but I think I will have to agree that its not near enough to where The People"s Palace was to warrant the idea Emma was trying for men leaving The People"s Palace.
Best
Norma

[Ben]

Hi Norma,

Marie Lloyd REGULARLY DRANK in the Sugar Loaf pub in Hanbury Street-possibly because it was "round the corner"

And?

She was born in Hoxton in an obviously working class background to a father who worked part-time in a local pub. What here is the observation? She was an East End girl, popular with Eastenders to whom she related, being one of them. The people watching her and listening to her music would, certainly in her earlier days, have been ordinary folk. She simply didn't deny her roots. Of what relevance is Marie Lloyd for assessing the prevalance of "toffs" in the district?

You need to look up these sources for yourself,Ben,---you can"t expect me to keep posting them- I have given you the dates and the newspapers they are in.

It really doesn't matter who looks them up, since none of them remotely lend weight to the premise you're arguing. That isn't to negate your research, it's merely to caution against the errant conclusions you're clearly drawing from them.

And for crying out loud,the campaign the press ran WAS PRECISELY about "toffs" taking over The People"s Palace!

No, it wasn't. It was about one particular event which attacted some outsiders, which was obviously an unsual occurance, or else it wouldn't have made headlines. It's completely misleading for you to wrap the word "toffs" in quotation marks as though the initial article used that description. As far as can be seen, it didn't, and the men and women it attendance were not toffs.

The "sportsman" like attire was worn on 6th October 1888 by a vast crowd of "well dressed" women and sportsman type

And none of these descriptions are remotely deserving of "toff-dom". What's the major issue regarding these "sportsman-like" men? Since when did sport become the reserve of the upper classes, and since when was it written in stone that only ladies from the very upper echelons of society could possible follow fashions? Here is what Queen Mary's College had to say about the People's Place:

"The People's Palace was the original name of the institution established on this site in 1887. It was built to provide an educational and cultural centre for the local community."

It was never intended as a mecca for "toffs", which is why a large representation of any group even remotely above the povery line was likely to make headlines. It was an unusual occurance, because the buildings was more commonly used by the local community, which may explain why "all these entertainments were provided free of charge". Queen Victoria opened the building. She didn't go there for personal entertainment. It's like the Duke of Edinburgh opening a new leisure centre in Maidstone - doesn't mean he'll go there in the future for a few lengths in the pool.

Druitt? Well yes,I do believe he may have gone to such events-and performed the Can Can,-that is if all the other hurrah Henrys were at it!

They weren't "Hurrah Henrys", and there's no evidence that Druitt ever went anywhere near the People's Palace.

Druitt"s attire,given in full in inquest accounts,by the way,matches Mr Astrakhan"s attire in almost every single detail---right down to his kid gloves.Druitt"s collar was missing on his over coat which makes me think he must have had a detachable fur collar -possibly astrakhan

No, there's no evidence that Druitt ever wore any Astrakhan material, and speculating that he might have done doesn't quite cut it. I may be missing some subtle nuance here, but why would the absence of his shirt collar mean that his coat must have had fur or Astrakhan appendages?

Best regards,
Ben