Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Sam Flynn]

Plumbing apprenticeships usually lasted seven years (between the ages of 14 and 21)

I doubt that there was a Law that insisted on every single plumber in the land must serve such an apprenticeship, Ben. In fact, there wasn't. Bear in mind that this was a time when many people took whatever work came their way, and when there was no rigid Trades Description legislation that prevented one from setting up in a trade. London, especially, was full of people who were forced to become labourers, bricklayers, even hairdressers, due to expediency alone rather than any sense of vocation, and who did so without formal training. On the latter point, and with due respect to plumbers, it's hardly brain surgery, is it?

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
What a shame poor Reg was not still alive , a lie detector test would be intresting.
I have never understood why so much debate has arisen over a single witness, and his integreity so much disputed.
Do we doubt Cadouche,?
Do we doubt Mrs Long?
Do we doubt Lawande?
Do we doubt Mrs Cox?
Answer to the above No, at least the majority.
But medical opinion could have us disputing the first two could it not?
In the case of Lawande, the couple he saw could have been the couple that Bleinkensop saw at 130, and took no notice of, may not have been our couple.
In the case of Cox , one could assume she was a bit flimsy with the truth , having told her neice a completely different description of the man seen with kelly years later.
So who do we believe?
In the case of Hutchinson, we have samples of handwriting to form an opinion on the question of identity , and not one of us can say that there are no likenesses at all in the comparisions, even you Ben....
We have two accounts from Reg Hutchinson , one orally, one in print, that his father 'Topping ' was the witness, and this is also confirmed by the family.
yet we still believe it is bogus.
We simply cannot comprehend, that a man dressed like Astracan ever existed, we cannot understand the delay in coming foreward, we cannot grasp the possibility of two explanations.
a] The witnessed described exactly what he saw, and in the words of Regs 1970s broadcast' It was his biggest regret, that dispite his efforts, nothing came of it'
b] He was asked by the police to issue that description, in order to confuse the man he actually saw.
Both of those are realistic explanations, far better then suggesting that, the witness was obviously lying.
But the debate lingers on.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

I doubt that there was a Law that insisted on every single plumber in the land must serve such an apprenticeship, Ben. In fact, there wasn't.

Not every plumber in the land, Gareth, but plumbers were certainly required to undertake an apprenticeship that lasted several years. Seven was the norm, apparently, but others lasted five years. I've certainly never heard of a Victorian skilled trade suddenly being picked up in one's early to mid twenties with no prior apprenticeship. He'd have missed the boat. There would have been other professions that wouldn't have required formal training (such as labourer, groom etc), but plumbing was considered a skilled trade, brain surgery or not.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

Do we doubt Cadouche,?
Do we doubt Mrs Long?
Do we doubt Lawande?
Do we doubt Mrs Cox?

No, we don't doubt any of them to an appreciable extent. Why? Because none of them made any wildly outlandish claims (let alone a succession of them) that strongly suggested they were lying. Because none of them waited until the inquest had finished before giving their evidene. Because there's no evidence that any of their hands were forced as a result of being seen at the crime scene themselves. Because their evidence was not discredited.

We doubt that all of them must be correct, but very few doubts are entertained as to their honesty, unlike Hutchinson, which is only reasonable in light of the above.

In the case of Cox , one could assume she was a bit flimsy with the truth , having told her neice a completely different description of the man seen with kelly years later.

How do we know that Cox told her neice that story? What if her neice simply made up the story, and upgraded the blotchy client to a "real toff"?

In the case of Hutchinson, we have samples of handwriting to form an opinion on the question of identity , and not one of us can say that there are no likenesses at all in the comparisions, even you Ben....

Absolutely, Richard, but then it would be unusual in the extreme to find two sets of handwriting with no likenesses at all, especially if they originated from the Victorian period.

We have two accounts from Reg Hutchinson , one orally, one in print, that his father 'Topping ' was the witness, and this is also confirmed by the family

The "orally" one doesn't count unfortunately, since we only have your word for it. If you're using that as evidence, then I get to use the article located by Messrs. Hinton and Marriner that gave Hutchinson's age as 28. Only fair. The written account I find to be unconvincing, courtesy of its implicating of Churchill and Royalty (none of which is confirmed "by the family").

we cannot grasp the possibility of two explanations.
a] The witnessed described exactly what he saw, and in the words of Regs 1970s broadcast' It was his biggest regret, that dispite his efforts, nothing came of it'
b] He was asked by the police to issue that description, in order to confuse the man he actually saw.
far better then suggesting that, the witness was obviously lying.

Well no, they're not far better at all. Quite the reverse. Since people lie all the time, and liars are infinitely more common than people with amazing photographic memory (which is what we'd be forced to accept if we go with your "described exactly what he saw" option), I'd go with "lying" personally. As for your other suggestion, that the police asked him to give a false description, that isn't only unrealistic, it's impossible, since we know that Abberline forwarded the description to his police superiors privately. I doubt Abberline would lie to them, somehow.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

I've certainly never heard of a Victorian skilled trade suddenly being picked up in one's early to mid twenties with no prior apprenticeship.

When you've finished with the magnificent sixty-volume Biography of Every Victorian Artisan Who Lived, I wouldn't mind reading it myself, Ben. Only then would I feel informed enough to pronounce that Toppy "would have missed the boat".

The son of a plumber might well have learned enough by helping his father to have obviated the need for any formal apprenticeship. That said, I don't find it in the slightest bit difficult to believe that anyone would be able to learn sufficient of the trade to replace a knackered ball-c0ck, or solder a joint, in the space of two years.

Philip Glass worked as a plumber in New York to support his income as a struggling composer in his early years, and he had no plumbing pedigree at all. On the contrary, he was just out of Juilliard via the University of Chicago, where he'd gone as the son of a record-shop owner.

[Ben]

Only then would I feel informed enough to pronounce that Toppy "would have missed the boat".

Obviously we cannot pronounce with full certainty, Gareth, but I'd describe it as very unlikely that Toppy was able to start his lifelong career as a plumber in his early twenties. I'd say that's unheard of for the Victorian period, but it's another matter if anyone possesses evidence to the contrary, of course. Philip Glass was born in 1937 when, suffice to say, the rules (and the country) were somewhat different.

It's certainly true that apprentice plumbers had the option of a shorter term. It would depend on the circumstances, and in this respect, I fully agree that his parental connections would have aided the lessening of the "usual" seven year period. It's chiefly for this reason that I find it churlish to the point of implausible that Toppy would spurn that opportunity to live in squalor, only for it to turn out magically alright just a couple of years later.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I'd describe it as very unlikely that Toppy was able to start his lifelong career as a plumber in his early twenties. I'd say that's unheard of for the Victorian period"

You must possess a truly interesting collection of literature about the differing destinies of Victorian plumbers, Ben?

When you get those volumes back from Sam, I wouldn´t mind taking a peak in them myself, if that´s alright with you!

You sure you haven´t any sorrows to drench...?

Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Philip Glass was born in 1937 when, suffice to say, the rules (and the country) were somewhat different.

I wasn't aware that there was a fixed rule dictating the minimum length of training required by a plumber in this country... at any point in its history, Ben.

It's chiefly for this reason that I find it churlish to the point of implausible that Toppy would spurn that opportunity to live in squalor, only for it to turn out magically alright just a couple of years later.

Five points:

1. We don't know what the employment prospects of plumbers were in the late 1880s - especially young plumbers;

2. We don't know what the state of Toppy's personal life was in 1888 - perhaps there'd been a family row, or something similar, that drove him away;

3. We don't know how long Toppy had been in the East End at that point - it might only have been for a comparatively short period while things "sorted themselves out";

4. Toppy was living in a lodging-house in Warren Street in 1891. This might have been a step up from the Victoria Home (it might not have been!), but it was still a distinctly low-grade situation to be in;

5. If it had been the other way around (i.e., that he'd started off in relative prosperity and "fallen from grace") the situation might be more remarkable. As it is, Toppy was a young man who had a chance of dragging himself out of the swamp, and seems to have succeeded in doing so. He can't have been the only one to achieve that.

[Jane Welland]

How easy..

..it would have been to have changed trades at that time and in that place, I don't know. A slightly broader view may be enlightening here, as two subsequent World Wars expanded the opportunities for social mobility somewhat, and left us with a very different vision of society. I think a couple of points are salient in this case: First, I can't see any obvious reason for Toppy not to have been apprenticed to his father, which would have been normal and expected; second, I can't see why he would elect to odd job and live in squalor if he had a better option. I think you would require special circumstances for either to be true. Labour demand must be considered here. Supply and demand, naturally. Why give up a trade for casual and unreliable work? Let's not look at this with a modern eye-the liberty to choose, chop and change trades as and when just didn't exist for most-nor do I think it was socially embedded. Jane x

[Ben]

I wasn't aware that there was a fixed rule dictating the minimum length of training required by a plumber in this country... at any point in its history, Ben

Perhaps not a fixed rule, Gareth, and of course, extraordinary and unlikely things do happen on occasions. However, the usual period of apprenticeship for a skilled trade such a plumber was seven years, and the usual age of apprenticeship took place between the ages of 14 and 21. It would be very unlikely and unusal for anyone to waltz into such a profession in one's early twenties with no prior experience. It may well have been the case that his parental connections ensured that he could reduce that period of apprenticeship, but in that case, it's almost impossible to accept that he'd spurn those opportunites in favour of abyss-dwelling.

People lived in the latter grotspots because, invariably, they had no other choice. This wasn't remotely the case for Toppy.

We don't know what the state of Toppy's personal life was in 1888 - perhaps there'd been a family row, or something similar, that drove him away

It must have been one heck of a row to send Toppy right into the heart of the some of the worst slum areas in London, and considering that his family were dotted around the place, it would have to mean they all "drove him away".

3. We don't know how long Toppy had been in the East End at that point

George Hutchinson claimed to have known Kelly for three years, which, if true, would suggest that he was living in the East End for at least the duration of that period. Warren Street would have been a major step up from the Victoria Home on the boundary between Whitechapel and Spitalfields. This esteemed establishment catered for upwards of 400 men-per-night, a far less comfortable set-up than Toppy's much smaller lodging house in the West End in 1891.

As it is, Toppy was a young man who had a chance of dragging himself out of the swamp, and seems to have succeeded in doing so.

Or, more likely to my mind, he was never IN the swamp to begin with, and simply availed himself of his father's plumbing connectionms at the earliest opportunity. Makes more sense to me than the sudden emergence into a skilled trade in his early twenties after bumming around as an unemployed labouring former groom.

Hi Fish,

What's with the repeated references to drenching my sorrows? I light-heartedly suggested that you tank up in order to emulate the Kelly-intoxication experience. Not sure where "sorrows" entered into the equation.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

It may well have been the case that his parental connections ensured that he could reduce that period of apprenticeship, but in that case, it's almost impossible to accept that he'd spurn those opportunites in favour of abyss-dwelling.

No, it's almost impossible for you to accept, Ben - as is anything and everything that might link George William Topping Hutchinson with the Dorset Street witness. A pity, because they most assuredly were one and the same man.

[Ben]

Good post, Jane, and my sentiments on the subject exactly.

A pity, because they most assuredly were one and the same man.

I'd respectfully beg to differ, Gareth, and should point out that the plumbing issue had struck me as problematic for the hypothetical Hutch-as-Toppy scenario way in advance of me seeing any signatures.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"What's with the repeated references to drenching my sorrows? "

Haven´t you heard, Ben? Rumour has it that a dear friend of yours has passed away recently - Flemchinson, or whatever his name was...

Fisherman

[Ben]

This has been quite a friendly thread so far.

Please don't spoil it with antagonsitic remarks concerning unrelated topics, Fisherman.

Thanks in advance,

Ben

[Sam Flynn]

I'd respectfully beg to differ, Gareth, and should point out that the plumbing issue had struck me as problematic for the hypothetical Hutch-as-Toppy scenario way in advance of me seeing any signatures.

Indeed, I remember as much, Ben. However, I might add that it didn't strike me as being an issue in pre-signature days, and I still don't see it as a problem.