Socialism in the East End

[seanr]

Thanks Sean,

The staff at a pub (unnamed) next door to the Cambridge Music Hall were questioned as to the whereabouts of Alice McKenzie earlier in the evening. The City of Norwich seems to me to fit the bill. See the testimony of George Dixon (blind boy) during the McKenzie inquest.

Also. in this book, Spitalfields: The History of a Nation in a Handful of Streets

by Dan Cruickshank it states,

"Booth dismissed the Little Pearl Street district as a 'thoroughly vicious quarter' partly because the presence of the Cambridge Music Hall on Commercial Street makes it a focusing point for prostitutes."

The pub which was close to the Cambridge Music Hall may have been the Commercial Tavern and close to Great Pearl Street (Calvin Street). There's a suggestion that the pubs along Great Pearl Street were Gehringer aligned. No proof though. The family thought it may have been the Commercial Tavern which had previously been known as the City of Norwich, the family had a wedding reception there in the 1930s. I've not seen any documented connection to the other public house. https://pubwiki.co.uk/LondonPubs/Pop...yFields1.shtml

There is some evidence of organised crime/ protection racket like shenanigans at the Cambridge Music Hall. Music Hall star Ada Reeve recalled:

I remember once being stopped outside the stage door of the Cambridge with the request that I would 'remember the Gallery Boys'. I innocently replied that I would always remember them. The spokesman then made it plain that I would have to give them a weekly sum, for which they were prepared to applaud me vigorously, or else.... the alternative would be most unpleasant. That was the only time I was approached by what was then a recognised thing in the Halls.

From - 'TAKE IT FOR A FACT' (A record of my seventy five years on the stage) by Ada Reeve - William Heinmann 1954 - Courtesy John Grice. Quoted from: http://www.arthurlloyd.co.uk/Shoreditch.htm

[seanr]

The Chief Constable of Great Yarmouth at the time was Mr. William Bogdon, http://british-police-history.uk/sho...ab=0&nav=alpha

Intriguing detail. William Brogdon's son also William Brogdon was a detective in H Division according to Jack Kirby in 'Whitechapel's Sherlock Holmes'. Commended on 135 occasions but busted down to constable for placing a bet with a bookmaker. I wonder if he was already there in 1888.

[seanr]

I've now read Clara Collet's chapter on 'Women's Work' contained here: https://archive.org/details/lifeandl...goog/page/n268

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.

[seanr]

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 - https://booth.lse.ac.uk/notebooks/b3...244%2C739.9066. 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.

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.

[DJA]

Same son at the pub in 1861.

Mother,Emma prolly interviewed.

[seanr]

1891 census shows Fred Gehringer Jnr and family listed at 31 Pearl Street,along with wife,children and servants.

He is a house agent.

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.

It's plausible that Matilda Gehringer was the 'Mrs Gerling(h)er' interviewed by Sergeant Thick.

[DJA]

1891 census shows Fred Gehringer Jnr and family listed at 31 Pearl Street,along with wife,children and servants.

He is a house agent.

[seanr]

I realised that earlier in the thread I've stated that McCarthy owned property in Great Pearl Street. I missed this later, as I started to assume the street was controlled by Frederick Gehringer.

I received the impression McCarthy had property in Great Pearl Street from discussions on Sarah Lewis, the witness at the Mary Kelly inquest. There's discussions suggesting that 24 Great Pearl Street was owned by McCarthy. Any source on McCarthy owning 24 Great Pearl Street?

As it may be possible, Sarah Lewis had been working at a Gehringer establishment but had recently switched allegiances to McCarthy.

[DJA]

In Dorset Street during 1888 .....

McCarthy leased 11 and 12,26 and 27,30 which probably had "the" gaslight out front

McCarthy owned 37,38 and 39 which might have supplied Mary Kelly's coal.

Crossingham leased 14,15,16-19,20/20A and 35.

[seanr]

Funny you should mention that speech...how do you think McCarthy's description of the street tallies with the impression given by the Booth notes? For instance, McCarthy says he owned two of the five lodging houses in the street (there were reportedly 13 in 1888, but I believe this was because it counted the addresses whereas many were aggregated into one large establishment, eg Commercial Chambers address covered 15-20 Dorset St) but by far the largest two were owned by Crossingham (although I believe these were single sex houses, not mixed). He also says there were three shops owned by McCarthys, but from "three separate and distinct families". Which, if true, may have given the impression that one man controlled the whole street.

I think I might need to re-read McCarthy's speech and compare to the comments in the Booth notes to really answer the question properly, but from memory I found McCarthy's speech 'defending' Dorset Street very sinister. He sets out that he knows exactly where the author of the article lives, that it was poorly lit and he had also seen a woman in the area. I saw an implied threat.
On Duckworth's notes; Duckworth was Booth's secretary. It's possible Booth was on the walk and Duckworth was responsible for taking notes. Therefore, it is hard to be clear on whether the opinions on McCarthy are Booth's, Duckworth's or Sergeant French's. If it was Sergeant French saying Dorset Street 'belongs' to McCarthy, that would be very significant.
I don't take Duckworth's note on Great Pearl St and Dorset St belonging to Gerlingher and McCarthy respectively, to be an expression of property ownership alone. In short, I believe the claim to be 'there's a lot of criminal activity on Dorset Street and McCarthy is The Boss'.
McCarthy being The Boss of Dorset Street, could be the reason why he is the one to speak in its 'defence' after the Daily Mail article. It's literally an attack on his manor.

Regarding Crossingham's houses being single sex, I'm not so sure. 35 Dorset Street was a Crossingham property, where the Mary Ann Austin murder occurred in 1901. The coroner Wynne E Baxter clarified with William Crossingham that he is aware of the lodging house rules that males and female should not share a room unless they are married, at the inquest. It was these very comments of Baxter's, I was reminded of when i read Duckworth's comments about the 'doubles' lodging houses being 'really brothels'.

Yes. Not one owned by McCarthy, though, I think, at least not at thr time of the Ripper scare. From memory, Debs found he purchased his properties in the 1890's.

I found a reference on a previous casebook thread stating number 14 was owned by Lewis White and leased to William Crossingham - https://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4926/5408.html. From memory, Fiona Rule speculates the Crossingham and the McCarthy families were somewhat allied.

Incidentally, did you say you found McCarthy owned property in streets other than Dorset St?

From Duckworth's notes from the walk in Spitalfield in 1898, I saw comments that McCarthy owned properties on Dorset Street and Little Paternoster Row. I checked for other streets where McCarthy owned houses, I think it was from Debs' research that I found the reference to Thrawl Street. Checking Duckworth's notes, he comments on a McCarthy property there, too.
I don't know which of these he owned in 1888.
If we know of anywhere else he owned properties, it could be illuminating to check the Booth records on those houses, too. There's a definite pattern.

Checking the page on Thrawl Street again, I see Duckworth comments on Lolesworth Street. Of the east side, he notes 'brothels - thieves, prostitutes, ponces' - https://booth.lse.ac.uk/notebooks/b3...240%2C737.5275
I'd guess that number 19, where Emily Horsnell, Margaret Hames, Emma Smith, Martha Tabram and Mary Kelly had all lived at one time or another was on the east side?

[Joshua Rogan]

Here's the clipping about the letter that was found by Chris Scott and posted at jtrforums

Thanks for posting that, couldn't remember where I'd read it.

It was the Duke of Wellington where McCarthy made his speech denouncing the Daily Mail's 'Worst Street in London' article a few years later. It seems safe to assume 'The Duke of Wellington' was a pub McCarthy consider friendly to him.

Funny you should mention that speech...how do you think McCarthy's description of the street tallies with the impression given by the Booth notes? For instance, McCarthy says he owned two of the five lodging houses in the street (there were reportedly 13 in 1888, but I believe this was because it counted the addresses whereas many were aggregated into one large establishment, eg Commercial Chambers address covered 15-20 Dorset St) but by far the largest two were owned by Crossingham (although I believe these were single sex houses, not mixed). He also says there were three shops owned by McCarthys, but from "three separate and distinct families". Which, if true, may have given the impression that one man controlled the whole street.

14 Dorset Street was, I think, a common lodging house which the witness at the Mary Kellly inquest, Caroline Maxwell gives as her address.

Yes. Not one owned by McCarthy, though, I think, at least not at thr time of the Ripper scare. From memory, Debs found he purchased his properties in the 1890's.

Incidentally, did you say you found McCarthy owned property in streets other than Dorset St?

[seanr]

I was thinking City of Norwich was on Great Pearl Street or that area for some reason.

I can see why someone would get that impression. Duckworth describes Great Pearl Street as 'belonging' to Gehringer, which implies to me this was the area he controlled. It's perhaps reasonable to assume the pub he owned would be in the same area.

[jerryd]

Hi Jerry,
I'm not sure the City of Norwich was anywhere near the music hall. More likely George was taken to the Commercial Tavern (which Dave Hill thought might once have been called the City of Norwich, but not so, according to the website London Pubology). Or The Ship in nearby Wheler St. Or even closer was the White Hart, in Vine Court, which a few years later became part of Little Pearl St.

Thanks Joshua,

I was thinking City of Norwich was on Great Pearl Street or that area for some reason.

[seanr]

Mmm, although the name is spelled Gerlinger in the report. Mrs Gerling(h)er was questioned by Sgt Thick, but she denied any knowledge of Isenschmidt, as did the other Germans he questioned in the area. Could she be the female relative?

I think this is probably it. I stumbled on a reference over on jtrforum that Isenschmid drank at the 'The City of Norwich': https://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=9778&page=2
I can't find a source for the claim but it's possible someone put it together from the publican's name.

The name fits and the Wentworth Street location. It's cool that one of these word-of-mouth stories passed through the generations checks out.

I doubt that the proximity of ‘The City Of Norwich’ and the attacks on Emma Smith and Martha Tabram could have been missed by the police at the time. It’s possibly why Isenschmid seemed such a promising suspect.

[DJA]

Simply no evidence against him.