Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Lechmere]

I'm not sure actually that both those press reports relate to the Parnell Commission, but that isn’t actually very important for the issue at hand. I also notice the use of the term ‘military form’ which is a clear indication of physical build and is also clearly linked to the term ‘military appearance’ rater than ‘military bearing’.

[Lechmere]

Mr Ben
What you are missing is that the use by a journalist of the term ‘military appearance’ was used to convey a visual impression that would be understood by an average person on the street. This would have been a stereotyped or archetypal image, and as such is precisely that ‘Victorian military ideal’ which you think is something altogether different. It was the same as the ‘Victorian military ideal’.
It is an archetypal image that was reinforced – or rather placed – in peoples’ minds by prints they saw in the popular press of soldiers. Images they saw in military paintings – which went on public display and attracted huge crowds. The image the public had when they saw soldiers performing ceremonial duties such as Trooping the Colour – or even while parading through London or lining the route on the Lord Mayor’s Show.
That is why I reproduced some of these images for comparative purposes.
A description ‘not tall but stout’ cannot be made to conform with this image. That is trying to put a not tall but stout peg into a round hole.

And it is an ‘image’ as the word ‘appearance’ should tell us. That ‘image’ includes an impression of height and weight. The archetypal ‘military appearance’ was one that emphasised height and slim wastes. The uniforms were designed to accentuate such features deliberately.
This is the case to this day. No. 2 Service Dress is the parade smart dress for most of the British Army (it is based on the combat dress that was in use before the First World War) and is made to measure, and fits like a glove, with a pulled in waste and is designed for the wearer to stand tall and erect. The same goes (but even more so) for Full Dress which is the red worn by the Guards on Royal duty but was the standard uniform in 1888, and the No 1 Dress (which is blue) which is the other ceremonial dress.

While Archaic’s references are very interesting indeed they actually do not tell us anything much about what the Times journalist meant by ‘military appearance’ in its descriptive sense. It clearly did have a descriptive sense and was not exactly the same as ‘military bearing’, although it is equally true that the two terms are linked.
The difference is that someone could be said to have a ‘military appearance’ yet once they started to talk it might become apparent that they had no ‘military bearing’. Their appearance could be deceptive. They might not conduct themselves in a military manner.
Incidentally the ‘military bearing’ definition is just as misleading as ‘military appearance’ in determining the real nature of soldier and is another stereotype. I could produce numerous press reports of soldiers (officers even!) who were swindlers and so forth. This does not invalidate the use of the term ‘military bearing’ any more than the existence in reality of short fat soldiers invalidates the concept of ‘military appearance’.

Archaic’s American references are to making sure the soldiers’ kit is spick and span and not scruffy as a cowboy might be, and are not informative as to what ‘military appearance’ might mean when applied to a civilian in Victorian London.

James O’Kelly served in the Foreign Legion and was also a war correspondent: in the late 1870s accompanying the US cavalry to cover the final acts of the Sioux uprising; and in 1883 he went out and covered the early stages of the Mahdist revolt in the Sudan. War correspondents in such campaigns had to be prepared to fight and die alongside the troops they were accompanying.

I cannot comment on the nature of Kelly’s appearance at the Parnell commission.
However the ludicrous claim that the terms ‘military bearing’ and ‘military appearance’ were exactly cognate is disproved by the repetition ‘military bearing and appearance’ and then ‘military appearance and bearing’. Clearly they were two different things. Linked but different. One relates to how the person conducted themselves, and one to how they looked. If this were not the case the author would have just written ‘military bearing’.
The manner in which this very obvious fact was misinterpreted and this misinterpretation was so vigorously seized upon and blasted across these pages is another one of those little indications that the whole Hutchinson theory is built on sand.

[Archaic]

More 1880's Usages of "Military Appearance", "Military Bearing", etc.

Hi guys. I did some more searching for additional late Victorian era usages of "military appearance". It was hard to find an additional definition or usage that wasn't circular, with personal "bearing" being used to describe or reinforce the phrase "military appearance", such as in the first snippet below. It's from an 1885 Civil War memoir.

The second attachment is from an 1889 report on the Parnell Commission. It shows how in London the phrase "military appearance" was applied to a civilian who happened to have a rather striking personal bearing and appearance.

After more looking I came up with an 1884 U.S. military report that used these terms and expounded on them a bit. Please note that this report is specifically discussing the uniforms, accessories, and “fashion” of the U.S. Cavalry, and complaining that when soldiers go out West they stop being neat and clean and professional-looking, lose their self-respect and become sloppy, which he says gives a poor impression. The report uses the term “military appearance” in conjunction with an individual paying attention to details, being polished, neat and clean, and having an impressive personal bearing.

U.S. Military report 1884: “Our drill, soldierly bearing, and neatness and uniformity of dress are usually the only standards which the populace have by which to judge us in time of peace... It is for the officer to set the example of this military appearance. At West Point the cadet is the pink and perfection of it. His dress is trim and fits him well; his shoes are always polished; his trousers and gloves always spotless... It is this neat appearance, added to his bearing, which makes him what he is,—the model cadet in the world.”

So perhaps George Hutchinson was a young man of confident and respectful demeanor, who carried himself well, was neat and clean, and made a positive impression on the news reporter?

Best regards,
Archaic

[DVV]

David,

How do you know Toppy/Hutch was short?

Mike

I don't remember having said anything about Toppy.
I reasonably assume Hutch wasn't strinkingly tall - see post #736.

[The Good Michael]

David,

How do you know Toppy/Hutch was short? I don't remember reading anything about that. In fact, he had to look down at A Man (according to his story).

What I'm saying is that since we don't have a description of Hutch, except a questionable one by Lewis, it doesn't really matter as he said he was there at the time she saw someone. Unless Fish is right about being a day off, she certainly may have seen Hutch.

Mike

[DVV]

I don't know what you mean, Mike.

It's up to you to believe that Lewis had no idea what the man looked like, whereas she said he was rather short, as Hutch certainly was.

[The Good Michael]

We can safely assume that one of the reasons that prompted Abberline to accept Hutch story was that he could be the man noticed by Lewis. And that man was not strikingly tall. Looks quite simple to me.

Or that he was the only man who came forward to say he was there. There needn't have been any description, and Lewis' was an afterthought. It doesn't change anything.

Mike

[DVV]

We can safely assume that one of the reasons that prompted Abberline to accept Hutch story was that he could be the man noticed by Lewis. And that man was not strikingly tall. Looks quite simple to me.

[Rubyretro]

I think she was three sheets to the wind and I believe she saw someone, but hadn't a clue as to what he looked like.

Mike[/QUOTE]

What are you basing this on ???

[The Good Michael]

Agreed that the 'military appearance' came out later and may not have been Lewis' description. In fact, Lewis gave no description to Abberline as she couldn't remember. The next day she came up with her stout man thing. I think she was three sheets to the wind and I believe she saw someone, but hadn't a clue as to what he looked like.

Mike

[Abby Normal]

Hi Lechmere
I would like to know/clarify your thoughts on the following:

1. Do you think Lewis loiterer and Hutch are the same man?
2. Do you beleive Hutch's claim that he loitered?If so, why do you think he waited there.
3. Do you believe Hutch's claim about A-man? Do you believe he could have remembered all that detail?
4. In General, what do you believe and not believe about hutch's story?
5. Why do you beleive he was "dropped" by police as a witness?
6. Do you believe Toppy and hutch were the same man?
7. Do you believe Hutch is a viable suspect in MK's murder? As JtR?

I am not asking this to be a jerk-I really would like to know your overall thoughts on this. Your coherent story on what you beleive most probable that hapened that night between hutch, MK, A-man etc. as it were. BTW-I would be glad to answer these questions for you about what I think most probable to show that I really am asking you this in good faith. Obviously you know alot about the case,know alot about the period and are passionate about it so i would like to know-whats your story on what happened that night?

[DVV]

The “military appearance” reference came from a journalist only, and it is not at odds with any aspect of either Sarah Lewis’ description, or the press sketch of Hutchinson.

This is so obvious, Ben.

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

As explained previously, the present discussion is less concerned with the actual military Victorian ideal (and I still dispute that this had anything to do with being lean and tall), but what people in the 19th century actually meant when they referred to either a “military bearing” or a “military appearance”, and it is clear from the sources provided that the expression applied to a person’s demeanour and carriage, and most emphatically not their height and weight. We may thus assume that the journalist who used the expression “military appearance” in reference to Hutchinson was not making any observations as to height and weight either.

Certainly, there has never been any suggestion that a relatively young man with a “military appearance”, as defined by the sources, must have been in the military, and I’m baffled that anyone should argue otherwise. A man is quite capable of “comporting himself with poise and dignity” and having “a respectful manner which inspires confidence” without having undertaken any formal military training, irrespective of his age.

“Then again, the papers said this, and not necessarily Lewis.”

Not Lewis at all, you mean.

The “military appearance” reference came from a journalist only, and it is not at odds with any aspect of either Sarah Lewis’ description, or the press sketch of Hutchinson.

[Ben]

“This means that all the drivel about Toppy having to serve a seven year apprenticeship - is just that - drivel.”

Ah, but I never said he “had” to have served a seven-year-apprentice - just that it was the standard means of gaining a toehold in the profession. It is also very clear that this so-called “collapse” of the plumbing apprenticeship system in the 1880s was referred to only in that article you found in the early pages on this thread. There is ample evidence of plumbers’ apprentices around at that time.

[Lechmere]

Mr Ben
As you are utterly devoid of the ability to comprehend basic sentences I will repeat that I said the apprenticeship system for plumbers in London broke down in the 1880s. This means that all the drivel about Toppy having to serve a seven year apprenticeship - is just that - drivel.
I did not say that the apprenticeship system in the entire country in all trades broke down. Can you get that? Good.