Toffs in Spitalfields

[Ben]

Thanks for that, Gareth.

It was mentioned recently that Fournier Street must have been home to the wealthy on account of its fine architecture, and yet according to the Poverty Map, the street's occupany comprised the "fairly comfortable" and those with "good, ordinary earnings" - a description that would apply to butchers and plasterers. A cautionary note, methinks, against assigning to much significance to 18th Century architecture.

Best regards,
Ben

[Scott Nelson]

Let us all hope that the criminal Victorian element stuck to those colour schemes. But they probably didn't, being law breakers and all.

[Sam Flynn]

Lambeth, which had areas equally as deprived as Whitechapel and Spitalfields, was the home of the music hall in the early 1890's and places like Gatti's and the Canterbury Music Hall were well known rendezvous points for Toffs and prostitutes.

The part of Lambeth in which the Canterbury was located was significantly free of "vicious, semi-criminal" areas according to Booth's Poverty Map of 1889, Jez. The following is a sample of the Booth maps, showing the Canterbury in green on the left, and "Astrakhan Territory" in the excerpt on the right. Both segments cover approximately the same area of land:



Whilst the Canterbury was an island in a sea of bright red, that part of Commercial Street where Astrakhan Man was seen prowling is flanked closely on both sides by wodges of black and dark blue. Note that, although not included in Booth's survey, the streets to the immediate West of "Astrakhan Territory" were rather insalubrious - more blue/dark blue than black, in all probability, but poor nonetheless.

[Sam Flynn]

the sort of laid-on-with-a-trowel affluent Jewish outsider

Don't mention trowels, Ben!

[Ben]

Hi Observer,

I agree with you, there is always an exception to the rule in most things in this life.

You're quite right in principle, but here we have to assess the likelihood of that "exception to the rule" happening when it did; in conjunction with the most brutal murder in the series and at a time when press and public were clamouring for the arrest of just such a person; the sort of laid-on-with-a-trowel affluent Jewish outsider with a tightly grasped parcel (oo, err!). There may well have been men who had the mentality to saunter, cocksure, into such a district dressed like the Astrakhan man, but the chances of him lasting that long (let alone his watch and thick gold chain) were very slim.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Sara,

I can easily imagine a lot of young bloods slumming it in the East End, and positively courting the danger - all the more so during the Ripper scare.

With respect, it's very difficult to be persuaded by what you can "easily imagine". Imagination can be influenced by any number of factors, including the iconic image of Gentleman Jack in a top hat and cape and the various lousy suspect books that have ran with that myth in pursuit of a glamorous solution to a series of ghastly crimes. I'm not for a moment suggesting that yours is, but what I don't see is any compelling evidence to think that toffs visited the district "in droves", let alone advertising their attire and wealth. We've discovered what happened what they were silly enough to parade their bling around, and that was on a busy road in mid-afternoon!

I'm afraid one's activities in the 60s and 70s are of extremely questionable relevance here. By that stage, the East End wasn't remotely comparable to the same area in 1888 in terms of poverty and crime, nor was there a known serial killer active in the district. Prostitution ran rife throughout London, and if they wealthy gents in question fancied a "bit of rough", they certainly needn't need to travel far. Certainly not to a specific small pocket of the East End well known for being one of the worst areas in the district, and certainly not during the Autumn of Terror with its attendant risk that over-zealous members of the public could do serious mischief to anyone noticably out-of-place.

Best regards,
Ben

[Observer]

Hi Jez

Why was it impossible for Hutchinson to have seen a toff wandering about in that area at 2 in the morning? A rare sight, no doubt, but of course from time to time it must have happened. Several doctors and other professionals lived and worked in that area for instance. Lambeth, which had areas equally as deprived as Whitechapel and Spitalfields, was the home of the music hall in the early 1890's and places like Gatti's and the Canterbury Music Hall were well known rendezvous points for Toffs and prostitutes. Furthermore, if Hutch was making the whole thing up, isn't it more likely that he would toned down the "Toff" bit to make his story more believable?

I agree with you, there is always an exception to the rule in most things in this life. There are men who have scant regard for anything, who wouldn't blink an eye at walking into Spitalfields at night dressed to the nines, even at the height of the Ripper scare, few and far between I'll grant you, lets call them an exception to the rule. What does kick Hutchinson's Mr Astrakhan into touch is his very detailed description (considering the lighting conditions,) of the man he claims he saw with Mary Kelly. Also the very very unlikely dialogue that he reported as having taken place between Mary Kelly and her client.

all the best

Observer

[anna]

Hi Claire,
My post to you earlier was not meant to be taken as "clippy"...probably should have added some smilies!!!...

You've raised,and answered,some interesting points on the thread.

ANNA.x

[claire]

Suggesting that he was inaccurate on one or two points of detail is one thing, but that's certainly not tantamount to insinuating that Frayling "invented a pack of lies"... Christopher Frayling's area of specialism doesn't require him to know the ins and outs of a cat's arse about Music Halls or the people who frequented them.

Thanks, Sam...Nats, I never, ever suggested that he made up a pack of lies. I only really started to contributed to this thread because I noted the mention of Wilton's in 1888, and I knew that had to be impossible. He was wrong on this score: Wilton's may have been in the news a bit lately, but that doesn't make his comments any more correct, nor my correction disrespectful.

[Sara]

Sam, and Ben, you seem to have lived very sheltered lives

I can easily imagine a lot of young bloods slumming it in the East End, and positively courting the danger - all the more so during the Ripper scare. When I was living a very rackety life in the late 60s and 70s, first in Bristol and then in London, I did quite bit of that myself - we used to frequent the black clubs down in St Pauls in Bristol, very dangerous territory - and in my London years I knew lots of 'toffs' who would go slumming it out East - both men and women - and the more dangerous and edgy the experience, the more they sought it (some still do of course). One very toff lady friend got raped like that, another (the wife of a famous actor) got beaten up badly and suffered a series of strokes thereafter. Lots of the men I knew - some from 'good family' like Dan Farson but not all gay - were positively addicted to seeking out rough areas: Dan even owned the pub in Narrow Street for a few years, when that was the haunt of criminal types and carousing sailors - quite beyond the pale! Two women I knew well - both of good family - only liked going with Jamaicans, who could be very violent - they repeatedly got themselves into situations down the Harrow Road and that area, which made me shudder.

Many of the men (AND women) I knew in my hard drinking days around Soho loved a bit of rough trade, and 'crossing the tracks' to find it was part of the thrill.

It was very usual in the mid- and LVP, esp among 'bohemian' or artistic types, many of whom had veneral diseases as a result (even the great Manet died of syphils-related disease). It was often - eg in the case of DG Rossetti - a response to a religion-ridden family background. A lot of the women they used as models were prostitutes, or little better than.


A few years ago I gathered illustrations for two companion volumes by Michael Mason, published by Oxford University Press.
"The Making of Victorian Sexual Attitudes" and "The Making of Victorian Sexuality"
See http://tinyurl.com/axwu6z for listings on these books

Sadly I can't find them on my shelves and I think I must have sold them on when l left London; I'd love to refer to them now.
They were very well researched and have quite a bit of interest in them regarding the actuality of prostitution in the LVP, as I remember, although most authorities seem to agree that the general attitude to and practice of all matters sexual shifted around 1880 (I'm not entirely sure why, can someone more expert in the period explain?) and the topics covered by Mason spanned the whole of the Victorian period.

[Ben]

Why was it impossible for Hutchinson to have seen a toff wandering about in that area at 2 in the morning? A rare sight, no doubt, but of course from time to time it must have happened.

Bit odd though, Jez, that such an incredibly rare happenstance coincided not only with the most brutal murder of the Whitechapel series, but with the various myths and legends that had already built up around the killer and his likely appearance; Jewish, black bag/parcel, surly, conspicious, possibly an affluent doctor? It was great news for the not-so-toffy man seen loitering opposite the crime scene an hour before the murder, whose actions would otherwise have seemed deeply suspicious were it not for the timely arrival of Mr. Fancy Pants, unless the loitering man needed something "interesting" to deflect suspicon away from his own behaviour after he realized he'd been seen.

Of course there would have been doctors etc in the district, but doctors dressed up to the testes in the most conspicuous manner imaginable in the worst possible area at the worst possible time? Incredibly doubtful.

Furthermore, if Hutch was making the whole thing up, isn't it more likely that he would toned down the "Toff" bit to make his story more believable?

Not if he needed the individual to be conspicious enough to justify his professed interest in the court, and not if he needed to deflect suspicion in an antithetical direction to his own appearance. Besides, from a strictly theoretical perspective, it's might justfiy to justify a leap from "Hutchinson gave an implausible description of someone unlikely to have been there" to "...so that means he told the truth".

Best regards,
Ben

[Jez]

Why was it impossible for Hutchinson to have seen a toff wandering about in that area at 2 in the morning? A rare sight, no doubt, but of course from time to time it must have happened. Several doctors and other professionals lived and worked in that area for instance. Lambeth, which had areas equally as deprived as Whitechapel and Spitalfields, was the home of the music hall in the early 1890's and places like Gatti's and the Canterbury Music Hall were well known rendezvous points for Toffs and prostitutes. Furthermore, if Hutch was making the whole thing up, isn't it more likely that he would toned down the "Toff" bit to make his story more believable?

[Sam Flynn]

Mary as you well know was described by several witnesses as a good looking, ,clean and tidy looking 25 year old [Inspector Walter Dew,Mrs Phoenix to name but two].

Absolutely - but it's all rather relative, Nats.

With regards to her soliciting at 2am.The licensing laws for drinking at these places and at pubs were very lax.

Were they, though? Charrington, in particular, had been rather active in enforcing temperance at Music Halls, and licensing laws weren't as lax as one might believe. That's not to say that they weren't subverted, especially in allegedly "lawless" places like Spitalfields, but I'd imagine that the police (reinforced as they were) would have been extra vigilant towards the end of 1888, and landlords a little more ready to toe the line.

Added to which, I must say that if I struggle with the notion of Tarquin Farquharson-Smyth frequenting the Royal Cambridge Music Hall, I really can't see how the prospect of propping up the bar in the Britannia would've been any more enticing for him and his ilk.

[Sam Flynn]

Thats a great shot Sam,thanks for it.Don"t forget the well off sat in the first front rows and what we see in your link is the Gallery where the much cheaper seats were.

Quite possibly so, Nats, although I really struggle to imagine yer average Tarquin Farquharson-Smyth patronising a place like that, to be honest. There'd have to have been a really steep social gradient between the Gallery and the Stalls if that were the case. If not, then perhaps "toffs" in this context should be defined as those who could afford trousers that didn't come pre-soaked in somebody else's urine.

[Natalie Severn]

Thats a great shot Sam,thanks for it.Don"t forget the well off sat in the first front rows and what we see most of in your link is the Gallery where the much cheaper seats were.
Second, we are here, in Commercial Street, talking about Mary Kelly. Mary as you well know was described by several witnesses as a good looking, ,clean and tidy looking 25 year old [Inspector Walter Dew,Mrs Phoenix to name but two].With regards to her soliciting at 2am.The licensing laws for drinking at these places and at pubs were very lax.So why not at 2am?
Cheers Sam,
Norma