Poverty in Whitechapel

[Septic Blue]

THANK YOU!

... thank you.

... at uni, these would have been very helpful.

You are all most welcome!

I think I am correct in saying that the area of Shoreditch, Haggerston and Hoxton, even Bethnal Green, also had these smaller, confined pockets of poor. Hoxton and Haggerston especially I believe. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

I'll address this in the next day or two.

---------

But, who are we to believe?

A contemporary novelist, whose socialist inclinations might have compelled her to exaggerate the horrors of workhouse life?

Or a modern-day novelist, who would set 'Ripperology' back a couple of decades, by proposing a nearly lifelong ward of the Whitechapel Poor Law Union as a supposed 'suspect'; and then insult the ideals of honest research, by suggesting that this person could have come-and-gone from the Whitechapel Union Infirmary, whenever he wished to do so, in 1888, on the basis that Jack London 'done a bunk' from the Whitechapel Union Casual Ward, in 1902?

Fishman was the modern day person, his lectures from 1978. He quoted Harness, a (I believe) Victorian Novelist. As regards Mann?... No, I do not believe Mr.Mann was JTR. Not at all.

"Fishman was the modern day person, ..."

I think you missed my point, Phil.

The workhouses were awful but it should be noted that by 1888 the workhouses had changed a lot from the 1834 guidelines. Scandals such as the Andover Scandal made people very aware of the issues of the workhouses and riots in the north of England in places like Bradford were enough to scare the governement in to making chnages to the Poor Laws so as to avoid revolution. The idea of the Principle of Less Eligibility was the corner stone of the Poor Law but was also the thing which people were quickest to protest about.
The Workhouse often adapted to suit the economic climate of the local area. It is interesting to note that they list outdoor reliefe poor. This was supposed to have ended, after the 1834 Poor Law act no one was eligable for outdoor relief, and yet here it is. The Casual Wards of many of the city workshouses which had been intended for vagrants were now used in a very different kind of way. It is also important to note that the London Unions were unlike any other Poor Law Unions due to their immense size.

"… it should be noted that by 1888 the workhouses had changed a lot from the 1834 guidelines."

That Poor Law Parishes/Unions were functioning with a certain degree of autonomy, in the latter portion of the nineteenth century; and that in most instances, adherence to the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834, was not as strict as was the case, in earlier decades; … would seem to be widely accepted.

But here, …

And further, Harkness says...

...

The Whitechapel Union is a model workhouse; that is to say it is the Poor Law Incarnate in stone and brickwork. ... The young people never go out, never see a visitor, and the old only get one holiday in the month. Then the aged paupers may be seen skipping like lambkins outside the doors of the Bastille, while they jabber to their friends and relatives.

… we have a very specific reference, to what would appear to be a particularly rigid adherence to the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834, - as well as the Poor Law Commission Consolidated General Order 1847, and its applicable guidelines for the administration of 'Poor Relief' facilities (i.e. workhouses, infirmaries, and casual wards).

Even in light of the fact that this reference comes from a novelist, whose socialist inclinations might have compelled her to exaggerate the horrors of workhouse life; it would appear that the Board of Guardians of the Whitechapel Poor Law Union ran a 'tight ship', in 1888.

Again; …

… it would appear that the Board of Guardians of the Whitechapel Poor Law Union ran a 'tight ship', in 1888.

I have already conceded that Robert Mann, as a nearly 'womb-to-tomb' ward - and perhaps long-term faithful servant - of the Whitechapel Poor Law Union, might have been granted some sort of 'passage', with which he was able to occasionally come-and-go from the Whitechapel Union Infirmary. But the notion that he would have been granted such 'passage' between the hours of midnight and 6:00AM is utterly preposterous. That is as far as I am willing to bend.

Until Mr. Trow can sufficiently address this issue, with specific references to the manner, in which confinement was administered in the Whitechapel Union Infirmary, in 1888; Robert Mann's supposed 'candidacy' will remain an outright impossibility!

[Phil Carter]

Hello Colin,

Indeed, a re-read has emlightened me...point now taken. :-)

It is revealing that in the light of of this article (from Harkness), that although some truth may well have been in there, the reformist conciousness
of the woman bent the article in great detail.

Like you, I have absolutely no doubt that Mr.Mann had absolutely nothing to do with the Ripper Crimes at all.

best wishes

Phil