Toffs in Spitalfields

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
The crux of the matter is if Hutchinson was telling the truth, then such a man was loitering around Commercial street that morning, if he was lying, would he not surely have invented a description of Kellys client that was at least acceptable to the police as plausible?.
The way this thread interprets, is it would be virtual a non starter that such a character would be in the district at that hour, and yet clearly the odds are stacked in favour of that not being the case.
Regards Richard.

[claire]

Hi Claire,
Sir Christopher Frayling had researched this in depth and the year he was talking about was 1888 and was quite specific to the murders of Jack the Ripper.He also pointed out that this was why numbers of people at the time thought the Ripper was a toff, and the next step was ofcourse that certain toffs started to get named like the Duke of Clarence----who in fact made several "recorded" visits at least to Toynbee Hall from 1885 through to 1889/90.Not that I think Clarence was the ripper or anything-just that he did know the East End-he had actually visited it etc.

Well, with respect, Sir Christopher was wrong. By 1888, Wilton's was the Old Mahogany Mission, run by Wesleyans, and had been so since 1884. So I'd be very dubious that they were running a knocking shop for anyone at all, to be honest. And, for the record, my dates are quite correct: I've been doing a fair bit of research on Wilton's myself.

I think that the research on Whitechapel myths, and on London myths in general, suggests that the images we have of the area(s) are derived largely from our knowledge of contemporary fiction. And, as well researched (or not) as some of these pieces are, it's well to remember that they are, of course, fiction. Slumming it, by being dropped outside a music hall, isn't really the same as wandering round the filthy back streets of Whitechapel (as Sam points out), alone, after midnight, done up to the nines.

[Sam Flynn]

I think that the research on Whitechapel myths, and on London myths in general, suggests that the images we have of the area(s) are derived largely from our knowledge of contemporary fiction...

Indeed, Claire, and from the often unwitting repetition of old fictions in otherwise factual modern accounts: typically "suspect-driven" books and films. These are particularly dangerous, because both author and audience may be unaware that they're ostensibly conspiring to keep hoary (whorey?) old myths alive.

[FrankO]

Hi,
The crux of the matter is if Hutchinson was telling the truth, then such a man was loitering around Commercial street that morning, if he was lying, would he not surely have invented a description of Kellys client that was at least acceptable to the police as plausible?.
The way this thread interprets, is it would be virtual a non starter that such a character would be in the district at that hour, and yet clearly the odds are stacked in favour of that not being the case.
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard,

I believe that, among other things, because it wasn't uncommon to see rather well-off men in the East End during the daytime, the police accepted the description of such a man. So, I don't know if what you say here is true, Richard.

If Hutchinson wasn't telling the whole truth, he needed to have Kelly's companion stick out, so that his interested was piqued, but not actually suspiocious, because then he would have needed to more than follow, watch and wait. He then would have needed to knock on the door, warn people, the police, etc. , which is something we know he didn't do.

If Kelly's companion would have just been your average East Ender, that surely wouldn't have piqued Hutchinson's interest. He probably saw that every day. So, if he'd chosen to make Kelly's punter your average East Ender, he had to make him stick out in another way: have him act conspiciously. But what would have been conspicious? Wouldn't that be equal to 'suspicious'? I think there's a very good chance that it would. And I can very well imagine that if Kelly's punter acted suspiciously, the police would have asked something like: "Then why didn't you do something more than just follow, watch and wait?" And I don't think that that's what Hutchinson wanted.

If, on the other hand, Hutchinson would have made Kelly's companion just look conspicious, there would be much less chance of him being asked why he did nothing more than just follow, watch and wait. Certainly if he threw some bits and pieces from other witness descriptions into his description it would have been more readily accepted. Also, stories of doctor-like men as the Ripper circulated. Another thing is that this 'toff suspect' would not have looked like I imagine Hutchinson himself to have looked: like your everyday East Ender.

All the best,
Frank

[Natalie Severn]

Well, with respect, Sir Christopher was wrong. By 1888, Wilton's was the Old Mahogany Mission, run by Wesleyans, and had been so since 1884. So I'd be very dubious that they were running a knocking shop for anyone at all, to be honest. And, for the record, my dates are quite correct: I've been doing a fair bit of research on Wilton's myself.

I think that the research on Whitechapel myths, and on London myths in general, suggests that the images we have of the area(s) are derived largely from our knowledge of contemporary fiction. And, as well researched (or not) as some of these pieces are, it's well to remember that they are, of course, fiction. Slumming it, by being dropped outside a music hall, isn't really the same as wandering round the filthy back streets of Whitechapel (as Sam points out), alone, after midnight, done up to the nines.

Claire,
Sir Christopher was making a specific point about the general ignorance about the East End,that continues to be spread about,viz,that toffs didnt even go there to look for prostitutes.He insisted they not only went to Whitechapel in large numbers but went,on a regular basis,and that was a fact-and they went to find prostitutes-another fact.He was discussing the 1888 murders and since that was his specific subject that day,together with the film he made about the murders,he took time to EXPLAIN why the ideas grew about the Ripper being a toff.
So ok ,he may have made a mistake to include 1888 as the exact year that Wiltons was a glorified brothel and that that practise had already ceased but he was covering the wider subject matter of who,EXACTLY went to Whitechapel and Spitalfields to buy women and he spoke specifically about Mary Kelly and Commercial Street.
Now for Sam"s,Ben"s and you own information,I have personally seen with my own eyes endless minuted references to such toffs visiting Toynbee Hall at the lower end of Commercial Street in 1885/1886/1887/1888/1889 /1890 when the archivist at Toynbee Hall allowed me to see the annual records , visitors list and to view who comprised the Oxbridge graduates over the years who came to tutor poor working men as part of the Rev"d Barnett"s famous project.Among those names listed was a Dyke- Acland [Dr Gull"s son in law was a Dyke Acland],the Editor of Pall Mall Gazette, from Blackheath who went to Druitt"s school Winchester, and also his Oxford College and was from Blackheath----exactly same academic year as Druitt too.To top it all the Duke of Clarence was recorded there too as having made several visits to Toynbee and given several speeches there.
Moreover,Ben, Fournier Street/Commercial Street,alongside Christchurch and less than twenty yards from what was Dorset Street,had then and still does have, some thirty or forty elegant town houses which were inhabited by affluent Londoners.It is a mistake to think of the East End as simply a filthy slum.That is wrongheaded stereotyping.The reality is that large sections of it were slums but often these slums were situated side by side with enormous wealth such as where Houndsditch and Beavis Marks touch the City of London,where Middlesex Street meets the City etc.
Ever thought that Mr Astrakhan may simply have been a chap making his way home to Fournier Street up the Commercial Road where he had been to see Dan Lemo in a show there .If he lived in Fournier Street-?I think it was called Church Road then, such a man could have just been her neighbour who she saw from time to time in the Ten Bells -on the corner of Fournier Street.They could have lived just a couple of minutes apart,door to door but in terms of annual income, a million miles away.

[Ben]

He insisted they not only went to Whitechapel in large numbers but went,on a regular basis,and that was a fact-and they went to find prostitutes-another fact.

It's no use just accepting someone's "insistence" though, Norma. An insistence is only as good as the primary sources needed to back up such assertions as "toffs went there in droves", and if he didn't provide any, you're simply taking him at his word. That isn't to impugn his research, but Frayling's background is primarily in art as Gareth has pointed out, a factor that may account for the error highlighted by Claire with regard to Wilton's. If he was capable of gettng that wrong, it's reasonable to speculate that he may have got other details wrong too, and the proliferation of "toffs" in the district drastically exaggerated as a consequence.

You can't just accept something as a fact simply because you heard someone "insisting" that it must be so. It has already been explained how and why the myth of Rippertoff came about, and it almost certainly boiled down to popular fiction at the time, enlarged over time and later misappropriated by suspect theorists searching for a glamorous solution to a series of barbarous crimes.

Local nonentities make very boring rippers.

I have personally seen with my own eyes endless minuted references to such toffs visiting Toynbee Hall

That's visiting a specific building for a specific purpose. Nobody's saying that never happened. That's not the same as developing a close familiarity with the area. That's not using it as a red light district. That's not skulking around in what were known to be the very worst locales in the district in the most conspicuous and opulent apparel imaginable.

It is a mistake to think of the East End as simply a filthy slum.That is wrongheaded stereotyping.

I know, but we're talking about a specific locality here, and in 1888, the vast majority population comprised the working class poor of the East End; the proletariat. Toffs, whether visiting or living there, were in the conspicuous minority.

Best regards,
Ben

[claire]

I think you're quite right here, Ben. The fact of a documented occurrence does not make it a usual occurrence, and it is a common error to assume it so (and not at all uncommon amongst art historians, actually--perhaps not surprisingly: art tends to highlight the unusual in the commonplace, rather than the other way round).

Norma, it is quite central to your (and Sir Christopher's) argument that Wilton's be open--it was probably the key location in the area frequented by toffs from up West that was very tolerant (and indeed encouraging) of prostitution...but they were more for the sailors than the toffs, actually. In any case, it wasn't open. Missionary work was in a boom phase come 1888, and the educated young men who were part of the education programmes were as much part of that as the nurses were to health improvement initiatives. I doubt, though, that any of these folk were dressed up and slumming it procuring women for anything other than the service of the Lord.

Sorry, but talking about the Whitechapel Murders and Wilton's as contemporary is a basic, basic error that anyone who hopes to be taken seriously really could avoid very, very easily. And, moreover, I suspect that the confusion is deliberately made to perpetuate the myths that Sam and Ben are trying to unpack here.

[Natalie Severn]

Dr Clive Bloom was the chair person and organiser on this occasion.Dr Bloom is actually one of the preeminent historians and scholars of Criminal and Historical London.
I would like to see the evidence for what you dispute Claire and I will personally email Dr Bloom to ask for verification.
Thanks
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

Ben,
I have studied Whitechapel"s history from political ,sociological and topographical angles.
The place was a patchwork with only certain concentrations of Spitalfields which could be termed slums ,such as Dorset street,Flower and Dean street,Fashion Street.Other parts such as Wentworth Street were occupied largely by Immigrant Eastern European Jews who were mostly respectable though poor.Wentworth dwellings ,Goulston Street ,where the graffiti was found , was one of a number of Rothschild buildings built specifically to aid these incoming immigrants and was a brand new complex in 1888-not at all a slum.
As I said Fournier Street where the Ten Bells is,is one of the most elegant 18th century streets in London and toffs would certainly have resided there.Commercial Street ,Spitalfields Market,Christchurch were not slums,neither was Brushfield Street.All these streets just yards away from where Mary Kelly was murdered and only 5 minutes from where Annie Chapman was murdered.
If you want a contemporary parallel it would be Soho where drug dealers ,gangsters,prostitutes,rub shoulders with the affluent,the famous,film stars, the literati, strip clubs -[in broad day light].
Nigella Lawson was photographed coming out of one of the restaurants in Soho with Charles Saatchi there not long ago.Just one of many such celebs.Not only that but there is actual squalor in the Soho alleys that run alongside up market organic food shops such as Fresh and Wild.
London is like that.Day and night.Its a 24 hour city.

[claire]

Hi Norma,
Of course. There are the Wilton's archives held at the V&A, with the change of use papers listed to the Wesleyans in 1884. I was studying them just the other day, and I believe they have also been digitised for the East London Theatre Archive. I think Wilton's own website notes the Mahogany Mission from early 1885. Peter Honri's 'The Handsomest Room in Town' also notes this use. Also, you could call Frances Mayhew, the Director at Wilton's: she has the historical facts at her fingertips.

Also, Clive Bloom is a professor of English and American studies, not a music hall historian. Feel free to put him straight...It's not as though I'm going to make it up just to make a false point: it's easily verifiable, for anyone who really cares about the truth.

[Sam Flynn]

It's not as though I'm going to make it up just to make a false point: it's easily verifiable...

...and here's a good place to start:

http://www.wiltons.org.uk/history/in-a-nutshell

[claire]

If you want a contemporary parallel it would be Soho where drug dealers ,gangsters,prostitutes,rub shoulders with the affluent,the famous,film stars, the literati, strip clubs -[in broad day light].
Nigella Lawson was photographed coming out of one of the restaurants in Soho with Charles Saatchi there not long ago.Just one of many such celebs.Not only that but there is actual squalor in the Soho alleys that run alongside up market organic food shops such as Fresh and Wild.
London is like that.Day and night.Its a 24 hour city.

But that's just it: there isn't a contemporary parallel: that's a myth perpetuated by glitz-historians persuaded by their editors to sexy-up reality. Soho is a bit of a city that is highly policed, highly regulated (CCTV, patrols, licensing laws), and to suggest that Soho 2008 is the same as Whitechapel 1888 is, with all due respect, mistaken.

[Natalie Severn]

But that's just it: there isn't a contemporary parallel: that's a myth perpetuated by glitz-historians persuaded by their editors to sexy-up reality. Soho is a bit of a city that is highly policed, highly regulated (CCTV, patrols, licensing laws), and to suggest that Soho 2008 is the same as Whitechapel 1888 is, with all due respect, mistaken.

Commercial Street too was regularly policed -in fact Commercial Street police station was almost opposite Hanbury street.
I have lived in London most of my life.I live in Notting Hill now-it borders Shepherds Bush where there was a gangster killing yesterday,one of a growing number.Harold Pinter,who sadly died only two days ago lived about a half mile from that spot.His street is in one of the richest areas of London .CCTV or not, The Pinters were burgled only a few months ago-for the second time in a few years.Virgin mega rich Branson lives up the road too-So Westwards -Shepherds Bush/Northwards,-Ladbroke Grove -crime,drugs- you name it.Police or not ----crime prospers-unfortunately.All too similar to Whitechapel 1888.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,
Of course. There are the Wilton's archives held at the V&A, with the change of use papers listed to the Wesleyans in 1884. I was studying them just the other day, and I believe they have also been digitised for the East London Theatre Archive. I think Wilton's own website notes the Mahogany Mission from early 1885. Peter Honri's 'The Handsomest Room in Town' also notes this use. Also, you could call Frances Mayhew, the Director at Wilton's: she has the historical facts at her fingertips.

Also, Clive Bloom is a professor of English and American studies, not a music hall historian. Feel free to put him straight...It's not as though I'm going to make it up just to make a false point: it's easily verifiable, for anyone who really cares about the truth.

Dr Clive Bloom ,as I said, was one of the main speakers at the Jack the Ripper and the East End talks at the Museum of London.I did not at any point suggest he was a "Music Hall historian" nor did I say Sir Christopher Frayling was.What I said had to do with an assertion by Frayling.I am surprised Frayling was wrong ,if he was wrong.But Ok perhaps he was wrong.So where does that leave us? Lets stick to Whitechapel and lack of truth in the statement that a man such as George Hutchinson saw,dressed to the nines,could not have been seen in Commercial Street at 2 am in November 1888.Lets demolish that myth shall we .

[claire]

Of course: it was possible that he saw someone like that. But surely it must be said that, if he did, the reason he could describe him in such detail was because he was an anomaly...otherwise, it is strange for someone to remember the minute detail of the sort of man who probably lived in the area (which, you've argued, would be the basis for such a person walking around that locale). And if he did live there, someone would have known him, have recognised him. Hutchinson himself would probably have recognised him, had he been a local.

I, too, am a Londoner, although I lived in Covent Garden and went to school in Soho and Westminster. I know the contradictions of the city as well as anyone. But my main point, and it remains a valid one, however surprised you may be about Sir Christopher being wrong, was that it is false to claim that, in 1888 Whitechapel, floods of toffs thronged Wilton's (actually, it had been Frederick's Palace for almost 10 years by the time it became a mission). Therefore, I don't think it would be sensible to base any arguments or beliefs about 1888 Whitechapel, Spitalfields, Bluegate Fields, what have you, on his statements.

And that's all: khallas. Finished.