No announcement yet.

Socialism in the East End

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Same son at the pub in 1861.

    Mother,Emma prolly interviewed.
    My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account


    • #47
      Originally posted by seanr View Post

      Yeah, I've seen that entry here and it confuses me as in the short email exchange I had with Dave Hill, he stated that Frederick Gehringer died childless and shared his estate amongst his nieces and nephews, when he passed away in 1909. So, I don't know what happened to Frederick W A Gehringer and Martha E M Gehringer.
      Duckworth's notes state 'F.Geringer 'Barrows to let' the owner of all these houses' lived on the west side of Little Pearl Street - I can't find a Gehringer on Little Pearl Street in the 1891 census.
      It's possible the Frederick Gehringer living at 31 Great Pearl Street is yet another relative of Frederick Gehringer the lodging house, again named Frederick. Frederick W A Gehringer and Martha E M Gehringer may be nieces and nephews of Frederick Gehringer, the lodging house owner.

      Originally posted by DJA View Post
      Same son at the pub in 1861.

      Mother,Emma prolly interviewed.
      Fair point, the same Frederick Gehringer is listed on pubshistory as the Licensed Victualler at the pub in 1861 and 1881. This Frederick Gehringer looks to be the father of the Frederick Gehringer found on Great Pearl Street in 1891. Emma Gehringer was 43 in 1881 census, so she may have been about 49/50 in 1888 and still running the pub.
      Although, she has performed an amazing feat by aging only 14 years in the 20 years since the 1861 census. So, I'm not confident how reliable the age given in the census is.
      On balance though, it most likely was Emma who was questioned in 1888.

      The landlord of the City of Norwich may have been the father of Gehringer the lodging house keeper, but he may also have been an uncle or some other relation. It's not as clear as it seemed that Frederick Gehringer, lodging house keeper, did in fact own the pub and not some other member of the family.

      Frederick was a popular name for the Gehringers. Which Frederick Gehringer is the one who died childless in 1909? - that's one who was wealthy and is acknowledged to have been some sort of a crime lord by his modern descendents.

      Strangely, I can't find an entry for the City of Norwich in the 1891 census. 61 Wentworth Street has a Polish family of hot water fitters living there and there's no entry for 111.


      • #48
        I've now read Clara Collet's chapter on 'Women's Work' contained here:

        There's no specific mention of prostitution, but there are a few hints of critique towards the 'morality' of the working women of the East End. They are described as dressing well, to please themselves and each-other, as well as men and then go out drinking at the weekend - sometimes drinking with men they have only just met (shock, horror!). It's pleasing to me, to see that modern working class culture was already a thing in 1888.

        A few interesting details to illustrate how the women lived.

        I was personally quite interested in the details on the match factory workers (my grandmother worked in a cigarette factory and I imagined the lifestyle to be somewhat similar). It seems it was quite common for the women on the match factory to not turn up for work about one day a week, most frequently Monday. The ability to not turn up, seems to have been a perk of the job to some extent. It is noted, that the frequency of missing a day means most of the women rarely make the full week's wages.

        What is notable is the amount of women who were working from home. Often these were women working in the clothing industry, who were paid per dozen of items (without the modern support of a contract). This approach to pay meant younger women were often able to earn far more as able to produce more and put in more time to sew.
        I could easily see how workers in this situation could lose pay when sick or from other life events. I could imagine casual prostitution helping to support some when needed. I note previously I have seen some refer to the job of 'seamstress' being the job prostitutes might give when interviewed by the police and it being a euphemism. It's actually quite possible for woman to be both an occasional seamstress and an occasional prostitute.

        There are some notes about women who became widows, after years of not working and then having to find whatever work they can do. Often as seamstresses or other skilled work with their hands. It was easy for me to imagine someone finding themselves in desperation, without skills and perhaps feeling they must turn to prostitution.

        Many of these workers moved about seasonally in order to be close to where the work was, and would prefer to stay at a location which would not require them to pay out tram fare to collect work. A case, it seems, for lodging houses could perhaps be made to support these workers.

        Notable perhaps was the rates of pay. A little higher than I thought, the top paid could make 20 shillings a week or more. The average looks as though it was in the region of 4 - 8 shillings a week. I found that interesting as Annie Chapman was known for her skills with crochet (as well as knocking on doors asking for odd jobs like cleaning the step). With a skill like crochet she might easily have been able to make a living of around 4 shillings at a minimum. Probably more. Perhaps she did, or perhaps she preferred not to have regular work.

        It's also been speculated that Mary Kelly made some money by doing home work as a washer woman, which is plausible. I think she could also may have made around 4 - 8 shillings a week from this. Although, she may have shared the income with Maria Harvey.

        Overall though, I found Booth's notes and opinions on the administration of prostitution more enlightening/ intriguing for detail on how the victims may have been living and working.
        Last edited by seanr; 02-16-2019, 01:02 PM.