So would he have run?

[Observer]

It's all relative, Obs. Booth made the mistake of starting in the East End; as I've said elsewhere, this was tantamount to setting out to survey average height by calibrating your tools in Lilliput.

When Booth extended his survey to other London boroughs, his categorisations (and colour-codes) started to creak, such that comparing a "red" in Whitechapel to a "red" in (say) Bloomsbury would give a rather misleading impression.

Don't get me wrong - Booth's maps are an excellent resource, but they should be treated with a little caution.

Hi Sam

Yes, I appreciate what you are saying, I must admit though my earlier post on the subject was a tad tongue in cheek. It would be interesting to know however which class of people actually inhabited the red zones dotted around Dorset as depicted in Booth's poverty map.

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

Obs

As Ed points out, Booth's intention was to identify concentrations and degrees of poverty, hence the 5 categories of working class people, using very specific monetary criteria, compared to the catch all classifications for the more prosperous inhabitants - lower middle class (red)/upper middle class and upper class (yellow). I don't think the red classified inhabitants of Commercial Street would have been toffs.

Tellingly, he makes no mention of earnings when listing the criteria for black classification. And throughout the note books he explains his use of black in terms of criminality.

MrB

Hi Mr B

Again, yes, I appreciate what you are saying, perhaps not toffs in those red areas in Commercial Street.

However, (considering Booth uses seven levels of "wealth" in his map) I'd imagine there would still be be quite a gap between the black and red levels in and around Dorset Street, and that's taking into account Sam's and your own take on the matter.

As I said , it would be interesting if we could reveal the social status of those people inhabiting the red areas surrounding Commercial Street.

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

Obs

As Ed points out, Booth's intention was to identify concentrations and degrees of poverty, hence the 5 categories of working class people, using very specific monetary criteria, compared to the catch all classifications for the more prosperous inhabitants - lower middle class (red)/upper middle class and upper class (yellow). I don't think the red classified inhabitants of Commercial Street would have been toffs.

Tellingly, he makes no mention of earnings when listing the criteria for black classification. And throughout the note books he explains his use of black in terms of criminality.

MrB

Hi Mr B

Again, yes, I appreciate what you are saying, perhaps not toffs in those red areas in Commercial Street.

However, (considering Booth uses seven levels of "wealth" in his map) I'd imagine there would still be be quite a gap between the black and red levels in and around Dorset Street, and that's taking into account Sam's and your own take on the matter.

As I said , it would be interesting if we could reveal the social status of those people inhabiting the red areas surrounding Dorset Street

Regards

Observer

[MrBarnett]

Hi Obs,

A cursory look at the 1890 Goad map for the short stretch of Commercial Street between Dorset Street and White's Row shows two factories and a warehouse shaded red.

MrB.

[bolo]

Hello Observer,

As I said , it would be interesting if we could reveal the social status of those people inhabiting the red areas surrounding Dorset Street

perhaps this refers to people like McCarthy who may have lived in the middle of the muddle but weren't exactly poor and had a steady job/income as landlords.

Best wishes,

Boris

[Observer]

Hi Obs,

A cursory look at the 1890 Goad map for the short stretch of Commercial Street between Dorset Street and White's Row shows two factories and a warehouse shaded red.

MrB.

Hi Mr B

Right, the electoral role is the way forward then. Some of the red shaded buildings are bound to be dwelling houses I'd imagine.

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

Hello Observer,
perhaps this refers to people like McCarthy who may have lived in the middle of the muddle but weren't exactly poor and had a steady job/income as landlords.

Best wishes,

Boris

Hi Bolo

That's possible. Looking again at the red areas which are in close proximity to Dorset Street it appears they are all on Commercial Street. Booth also describes the red shaded areas of his map thus

Lower middle class. Shopkeepers and small employers, clerks and subordinate professional men. A hardworking sober, energetic class

Taking the above into consideration, I'd say the majority of the red shaded areas on Commercial Street were shopkeepers.

However, shopkeepers are wont to live above their shops, and I'd say a fair few of them living on Commercial Street were wealthy enough to own astrakhan coats, gold chains, and horseshoe tie pins. What do you think?

Furthermore, picture the scene, the night before the Lord Mayor's show, no work the next day, shop shut up, Mr Somethinginski has had one too many, and is returning home from one of the many men's clubs in the area, he is approached by a not unattractive lady of the night of roughly five and twenty years, and you know the old sayings Bolo about the heart ruling the head, the standing member has no conscience.



Regards

Observer

[Lechmere]

This Booth discussion was provoked by his classification of about 100 yards on the northern side of Old Montague Street as black. This particular classification was almost certainly because that area had a high concentration of Lodging Houses.
It is conjecture to suggest that this area was so classified due to the presence of a high number of criminals and it isn’t a classification that shows it was a ‘dangerous street’
We are told that Bucks Row was regarded as a dangerous street yet Lechmere – and the windy Paul – happily walked down there
We know that a soldier was loitering directly opposite this black zone for an unspecified time on the night Tabram was killed.

As I never tire of pointing out, besides the colour coded map, Booth also produced a map called ‘Map Shewing Degrees of London Poverty’ with data collected between 1889-1890, in which he divided London up into 134 districts, each of roughly 30,000 inhabitants and gave each district a shading – the darker the shade of grey, the more poverty struck it was, expressed as a percentage.
Poverty being defined by those inhabitants that where within his bottom four classifications – people who earned less than 21 shillings a week.

Lechmere lived just inside district 57 (44.2% in poverty). This was a largely residential area, without lodging houses so it was just relatively poor overall.

Both Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street were in District 72 (49.1% in poverty). This included a lot of lodging houses in the Brick Lane and Flower and Dean Street areas which undoubtedly skewed the poverty figure which otherwise would have been much lower. With all these lodging houses it was the eleventh worst district in London in terms of poverty.

When he crossed Commercial Street, via either route he entered District 71 (32.5% in poverty). This included the Victoria Home and Dorset Street which must also have skewed the figure downwards. This was only the 58th worst district in London in terms of poverty (out of 134) – so without the Lodging Houses it would have been relatively prosperous.

Lechmere had previously lived in District 73 (46.5% in poverty) – again an area with few lodging houses, so there must have been a high general degree of poverty among the house holders. It was the 16th worst district in London.

In short Lechmere would have been quite used to walking down poor streets and seems to have chosen to walk down a ‘dangerous’ street.

[MrBarnett]

Hi Obs,

Do you happen to have one of the Godfrey reprints of the OS map for Whitechapel and Spitalfields? On the back they show the Post office directory entries for the principal streets of the area. I'm pretty sure Commercial Street would be covered. Sadly my copy seems to have gone walkabout.

That in conjunction with the Goad map (available online) for the street numbers and the Booth map should provide the info you are after.

That's the rather cumbersome way I would go about it, but there
are probably any number of real researchers on here who can suggested a better solution .

Cheers ,

MrB

[Fisherman]

Lechmere would have been quite used to walking down poor streets and seems to have chosen to walk down a ‘dangerous’ street.

One can of course always search the Old Bailey online records, to get a picture of how criminally infested Old Montague Street and Hanbury Street were, respectively
It will, in any case, give an interesting insight into the topic, a general idea, sort of.

A search for January 1887 to January 1890 produces four instances of Hanbury street being mentioned: One case of unlawfully obtaining from one Samuel Thomas Stafford 30l., and an order for the payment of 30l, one case of stealing 1,274 yards of shirting, and 1,098 yards of cretonne, one affair of unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin and finally, one case of stealing twelve cigars.

As for Old Montague Street in this period, it is mentioned twice: One case of stealing a mare, a cart and harness, a cask of ink, and two cases of stationery, and one case of unlawfully making 30 counterfeit sixpences.

So there it is – the scary and dangerous Old Montague Street.

As an aside, it can be mentioned that I made a search for the word "robbery" during the exact same period, and came up with 273 examples. None of them, however, mentioned either Old Montague Street or Hanbury Street.

All very unscientific, Iīm sure!

All the best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Hi Ed,

If Dorset Street falls into an area that is mid-table, then surely these stats are useless when trying to identify individual dangerous streets.

The Booth maps classify individual buildings and are much more useful in this respect, I think. Reading the police notebooks prepared at the time of the updating of the maps, there is a real sense that it is criminality above all that determines a black classification.

MrB

[MrBarnett]

Interesting

So far I have been working on the digitised version of the revised 1898/9 poverty map on the LSE website.

But the website also provides a link to a version of the first, 1889, edition of the map, digitised by the University of Michigan. This shows no black in Old Montague Street, the vast majority of it is a sort of grey colour used to denote 'mixed'.

Perhaps fish could extend his (scientific enough for me) Old Bailey research forward a decade to see whether the area had deteriorated significantly.

MrB

[Fisherman]

So far I have been working on the digitised version of the revised 1898/9 poverty map on the LSE website.

But the website also provides a link to a version of the first, 1889, edition of the map, digitised by the University of Michigan. This shows no black in Old Montague Street, the vast majority of it is a sort of grey colour used to denote 'mixed'.

Perhaps fish could extend his (scientific enough for me) Old Bailey research forward a decade to see whether the area had deteriorated significantly.

MrB

Well, I was actually a lot more interested in the time when Lechmere was supposed to shudder in fear of the ludicruous idea of ever entering the fiercely dangerous Old Montague Street.

But, oh okay then - just because itīs you asking, Mr Barnett!

Hanbury Street figures three times between January 1898 and December 1899. One of the crimes actually is a robbery, even. Dangerous street, that one!!!

Old Montague Street is not mentioned during these two years.

... and there were a total of 166 robberies - one of them in Hanbury Street, as stated.

All the best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Thanks, Fish.

MrB

[Fisherman]

Youīre welcome!

It could be added that for example Dorset Street (since it was mentioned earlier) managed to add to itīs reputation by providing robbery, manslaughter, theft and larceny within the first period, from 1887-1890.

Now, THERE' S a dangerous street for you! Maybe Lechmere would never have killed Kelly....?

... and maybe poverty does not equal criminality.

Fisherman