Socialism in the East End

[Joshua Rogan]

The City of Norwich pub was at 61 Wentworth Street in 1888. It moved to 111 Wentworth Street around 1899, it's not clear (to me) if the Gehringer family still owned the pub at the time of the move.

Curious...I wonder if Gehringer (or the name at least) is any relation to Walter Ringer (or Wringer), one-time landlord of the Britannia? Walter, strangely enough, was apparently born in Norwich.
All of which puts me in mind of a thread (that I cannot currently locate) about a letter sent from a Dorset Street address claiming that Jack would soon kill two "Norwich women"...was this perhaps a warning from McCarthy to a rival?

[seanr]

The City of Norwich pub was at 61 Wentworth Street in 1888. It moved to 111 Wentworth Street around 1899, it's not clear (to me) if the Gehringer family still owned the pub at the time of the move.

The site looks like it was later an M Bloom and Son deli going by this print of the location: http://spitalfieldslife.com/2012/04/...st/img_0014-9/ (and the comment from Mike Harris there, who is most likely the grandson of Arthur Harris recorded as landlord of the pub from 1909).

If John Nafziger was living at the City of Norwich in 1888, he would certainly have been questioned at least a little, the pub was within the area where the police made door to door enquiries.

For those interested in geographic profiling, research was done in the past on a potential suspect named John Simmonds, who gave his address as 60 Wentworth Street, the common lodging house next to The City of Norwich. 60 Wentworth Street was judged to be in the 95th percentile of possible Ripper base locations. This research is available on a previous Casebook thread: https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...-illness/page2
The City of Norwish pub was very close to both George Yard buildings and Castle Alley.

[jerryd]

The Nafzgher and the Gehringer families were related, it seems. In relation to the City of Norwich pub, there are two family names recorded. Frederick Gehringer (and there were at least two people with the name Frederick Gehringer, a father and a son) and John Nafzger. https://pubshistory.com/LondonPubs/S...orthSt61.shtml

John Nafzgher is mentioned from the post office directory for the years 1884 and 1891. So, John seems like to be living at the pub during the time of the Autumn of Terror, so maybe it was John who was questioned by the police as part of their inquiries into the murders.

Hi Sean,

See 2nd post here. https://www.ancestry.com/boards/thre...ames.naffziger

[seanr]

The Nafzgher and the Gehringer families were related, it seems. In relation to the City of Norwich pub, there are two family names recorded. Frederick Gehringer (and there were at least two people with the name Frederick Gehringer, a father and a son) and John Nafzger. https://pubshistory.com/LondonPubs/S...orthSt61.shtml

John Nafzgher is mentioned from the post office directory for the years 1884 and 1891. So, John seems like to be living at the pub during the time of the Autumn of Terror, so maybe it was John who was questioned by the police as part of their inquiries into the murders.

[DJA]

George Herbert Duckworth,his brother and James Kenneth Stephen purportedly abused Virginia Woolf when she was very young.
Woolf's mental health issues may have been a result.
George Savage,Henry Gawen Sutton's son in law treated her in 1904.
Virginia's "close friend",Vita Sackville-West's family had owned Knole House. HG Sutton resided on the property from 1876 with his wife,one of three daughters and a maid.

JK Stephen was PAV's tutor and cough,cough, companion.
Treated by Sir William Gull for mental health issues.

Small world.

[seanr]

A modern relative of Frederick Gehringer thinks that a relative of Gehringer was questioned in relation to the Ripper murders. https://www.ancestry.com/boards/surn...r/10.1/mb.ashx and https://www.ancestry.com/boards/surn...41.1.2/mb.ashx

I don't know if this Gehringer was questioned as a suspect or if this family story is true... anyone know who the Gehringer of City Of Norwich public house would have been?

Was rival gang violence considered as possibility by the investigating police at the time? Was Gehringer a rival of McCarthy?

[seanr]

https://booth.lse.ac.uk/notebooks/b351#?cv=72&c=0&m=0&s=0&z=1301.5638%2C531.6888%2C1246.679%2C741.5

Last mention of McCarthy in the notes from the walk of the district comes in Duckworth's closing remarks:

The Great Pearl Street district remains as black as it was 10 years ago. As the Dorset Street district belongs to a dweller in it 'MacCarthy' [SIC] so this bit belongs to Geringer an inhabitant of Little Pearl Street. The features of both these streets are common lodging houses for men, women & doubles which are little better than brothels. Thieve, bullies and prostitutes are their inhabitants.

Duckworth also notes that the northern part of Flower and Dean Street, which was black in Booth's first map ten years before was no longer black, owing to the Rothchild's building development.

The misspelling of McCarthy seems to indicate Duckworth had little idea who McCarthy was and was likely going on the opinion of Sergeant French. So, we probably have a local policeman who felt McCarthy's rents were brothels in 1898? - I think that's interesting.

Geringer seems to be Frederick Gehringer.

[seanr]

McCarthy also owned a house on Thrawl Street, which Duckworth has notes in these pages of the notebook https://booth.lse.ac.uk/notebooks/b3...4.6016%2C737.5 and https://booth.lse.ac.uk/notebooks/b3...74.1963%2C1469

Down Brick Lane, west along Thrawl Street [...] Brick Lane end on the South side is one of McCarthy's lodging houses - 'filled with thieves'

I take the speech marks in Duckworth's notes to be indicating the 'filled with thieves' remark was the words of Duckworth's escort for the walk, Sergeant French. The pattern holds mostly, that John McCarthy's establishments all seem to hold criminal elements and in this note we have an indication that the local police would acknowledge this. Perhaps notably, there is no mention of prostitutes and bullies in relation to Thrawl Street, so maybe not every McCarthy owned establishment could be described as a brothel?

Incidentally, Duckworth who is making the notes seems to be this gentleman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Herbert_Duckworth. A man who on the face of it wouldn't seem to have any particular grudge against McCarthy. So, he seems to be expressing a received wisdom about the 'notorious' McCarthy or potentially, these were the views of Sergeant French.

[seanr]

And some more thoughts on the notebooks from https://booth.lse.ac.uk/notebooks

The note found here https://booth.lse.ac.uk/notebooks/b3...82%2C1476.2445 isn't by Booth. It's by one of his researchers, the local publican George H. Duckworth on a walk with Sergeant French of H Division in 1898.
The notes do say the houses are brothels and that their are prostitutes, thieves and bullies - but as it is not Booth writing, it can't be as clear as I thought that professional brothels is meant. Duckworth may be less discriminating in his use of terminology.
It's not clear to me whether it is Duckworth's or Sergeant French's opinion that the houses are really brothels. It's clear though that most of these immoral houses belong to Jack McCarthy.

The next page of the same notebook is illuminating too: https://booth.lse.ac.uk/notebooks/b3...3.3164%2C739.5. In a section on Little Paternoster Row, Duckworth notes the street is black on both sides but only on one side in the last edition of Booth's map. 2 - 3 common lodging houses with thieves, prostitutes and ponces (if I read the writing correctly). Again, Duckworth notes 'Buildings owned by the notorious Jack McCarthy of Dorset Street'.
So, at least one contemporary thought that Jack McCarthy was 'notorious' and doubts about his character are clearly not only modern inventions of Ripperologists.

Incidentally, in notes on Great Pearl Street https://booth.lse.ac.uk/notebooks/b3...239.1132%2C737 Duckworth again notes thieves, prostitutes and bullies at the common lodging houses. McCarthy also owned houses here.
Does anyone know any other streets where McCarthy owned property? - I think I see a bit of a pattern forming...

[seanr]

The chapter contained in this volume within 'Notes on Administration' on 'Prostitution' is illuminating. I've not read it all yet, but Booth draws a distinction between brothels and 'houses of disorder'. A house of disorder being an establishment which turns a blind eye and a brothel being an establishment run for the purpose.

Booth clearly identifies that his use of the term 'bullies' aligns with the modern term 'pimp'. Therefore the use of the term 'bullies' when describing Dorset Street leaves little doubt about what he means.

In his notes on 'Dorset Street', both the word 'brothel' and the word 'bullies' in conjunction with the houses; 'houses owned by Jack McCarthy'. This leaves little doubt that Booth thought Jack McCarthy was a brothel-keeper. Also, directly seems to suggest that were pimps operating around the Ripper victims which should have been able to offer them protection.

Booth also draws a distinction between prostitutes who take men back to their own private residences relying on their own judgment of the men they take back and prostitutes who work in brothels, who can expect protection in the form of a madam and a bully. It's obviously interesting to speculate on which of these Miller's Court was in 1888.

Should Mary Kelly have been able to expect the protection from a bully? If she could, who might this have been? - Thomas Bowyer, Henry Buckley or perhaps even George Hutchinson?
If she could expect protection at Miller's Court, why didn't she receive it? - Did the police follow this line of enquiry at the time?

Or... Mary Kelly was simply taking men back to her own private residence and the bullies are simply a red herring...

I've completed a reading of the chapter contained under 'Notes on Administration' on 'Prostitution'. I think I need to clarify a few points from above but also highlight some other interesting tid-bits.

Booth uses the terms 'brothels', 'house of disorder' and 'house of accommodation' and distinguishes between these. Both a 'house of accommodation' and a 'brothel' are examples of 'disorderly houses', however a brothel is for run for the express purpose of prostitution and a house of accommodation is run for some other purpose but turns a blind eye to prostitution. Booth gives the example of pubs and coffee houses as examples of places used as 'houses of accommodation'. I've often wondered (not really, I obviously had an inkling) why William Grant Grainger and Alice Graham were heading to a coffee house on White's Row in the early hours of the morning, the night Grainger stabbed Graham. It's plausible there was a coffee house/ 'house of accommodation' on White's Row. Grainger decided to stab her before they reached the place.

Booth describes the various types of brothels from the high end West End establishments to lower end of the scale (which also tend to be West End establishments). He describes a form of brothel, where the women are free to do as they please, they keep their earnings but seem to be (deliberately) in constant debt to the owner of the establishment and the debt is used as a form of coercive control. This perhaps could be behind the heavy debt Mary Kelly was owing to John McCarthy.
These types of brothels tend to serve local clubs or pubs, with women from the establishment mixing in the pub trying to pick up men whilst others of the women would stay back for any customers who came direct to the establishment. Miller's Court really could have been just such a place, serving the pubs on Dorset Street and around Commercial Street.

On the subject of protection, I slipped up on my first reading with women who operate alone relying on their judgment. Booth is very clear that in almost all cases the women manage to find protection in the form of a man, who takes advantage of their earnings. In the case of women working alone, the man would usually pose as a partner or husband and frequently be abusive.
So, it's at least possible Joseph Barnett had been Mary's protection which she had only recently lost due to their falling out.
As I mentioned before, Booth states the brothels usually had a madam and a professional bully.

The one case of prostitutes that Booth mentions do not have protection of the extremely poor women of the East End, which he states played a part in those terrible tragedies of a few years before his time of writing - an obvious reference to Ripper/ Whitechapel murders.
This hints at Mary Kelly (and the other victims) not having any protection, but still I really do wonder on this point if their partners were as innocent as they seem and their lodging house keepers as uninvolved in the business as they affect.

Booth complains that prostitutes are often hard to save, because the life offers some sense of being a professional. Booth complains about vigilance committees often insisting on brothels being shut down and bringing prosecutions (he singles out vigilance committees, in a way that suggests this was not a police policy), Booth feels prosecuting and closing down brothels is counter-productive as the problem simply springs up elsewhere.
He note many brothel keepers have more than one establishment or form relationships with other brothel keepers, and so have arrangements to simply move their staff to another establishment should they have any issues at the current location.

Booth suggests that prostitution cannot be completely stamped out and favours a zero-tolerance policy towards brothels but light touch regulation and observation of 'houses of accommodation'. Booth favours regulation over criminalisation. The whole thing is strikes me as similar to modern debates on approaches to this issue. The more things change, the more they seem to stay the same.

[DJA]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPwrodxghrw

[seanr]

I think I've found it. OK, I have some reading to do.

https://archive.org/details/lifeandlabourpe26bootgoog/page/n268

[seanr]

https://archive.org/details/lifeandl...goog/page/n272

Thanks Dave. However, this appears to be an abstract describing the chapter on 'Women's Work' and not the chapter itself. The actual chapter in a previous volume runs to 70 pages, this only runs for about 4 pages.

[Robert]

Hi Sean

I don't know, but I suspect that if there WAS any protection being offered to Kelly, it was agreed that it didn't operate in the middle of the night. If one of McCarthy's own prostitutes was slaughtered next door to where he lived, one might expect him to have lost face over it. But as far as I recall, he didn't show any signs of it.

[DJA]

https://archive.org/details/lifeandl...goog/page/n272

There were three editions. The last being in 17 volumes.