Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Lechmere]

Actually Mr Ben I have previously listed a whole series of things I find unconvincing about Hutchinson’s story – not just the 3 year thing with Kelly.
You also can’t shake that apprentice infatuation can you?
“If he had been apprenticed as a plumber before 1888, as you are suggesting, that would make him a plumber by trade or a plumbing trainee by trade, not a groom by trade now working as a labourer...”
Not if he didn’t in 1888 intend to return to plumbing and had been a groom/labourer.

“The idea that Toppy could have emerged from the East End life of a labourer or groom to become chummy again with his dad, re-learn the entire plumbing trade more or less overnight and march straight into the examination room is very obviously incorrect.”
Incorrect? We have no idea whether it’s incorrect. And it would not be overnight - it would be a couple of years. That is not overnight - well it might be on a planet in the far outer reaches of the solar system.

DVV
“I'm even of opinion that a man who would have been apprenticed as a plumber would have been a bit proud of it”
You may be right, but as there were very few apprentice plumbers it is exceptionally unlikely that this would apply to Toppy wherever he lived.
This apprentice infatuation is spreading.
If he hadn’t passed the much more basic plumbers test by 1888 and at that moment did not intend to go back to plumbing (which he probably had started to engage in with his father at a younger age) then why would he define himself as a plumber?

To clarify...
If Toppy is the Kelly Hutchinson...
1. He probably worked with his father as a plumber for a few years.
2. He moved to the East End for whatever reason, by 1888, and took whatever work he could get (groom and labourer) as he was not sufficiently proficient as a plumber to work in that profession on his own account
3. Then he resumed working as a plumber, probably with his father again and possibly passed the Worshipful Company of Plumbers test (or possibly not) and was an independent plumber by 1891.
I see nothing remarkable about this as a hypothesis, but there is no proof for the second stage.

I don’t think Toppy could have been in the Army – the minimum period of enlistment in the infantry was four years and eight years in the cavalry and artillery.

[DVV]

Hmmmm.....this so-called military appearance comes from the press....If Toppy was Hutch and was VISIBLY fresh from the army, we would have known it.
Seems you're about to change Toppy's life into a fanciful novel.

[The Good Michael]

Well, his father being a plumber, I have serious doubts about him having learnt his trade after 1888.

As boring as rain can be, there is a splendid and special atmosphere in Ethiopia during the kremt.

I think Topping was maybe in the military for a few years and could have been grooming an officer's horse. many Englishmen went in the army for a time. In the 19th century folks thought about seeking their fortunes through such things. May have been where the military appearance came from as well. He may even have learned to use a blade very well... oops. Didn't mean to go there. I think the plumbing thing came later. And no surprise really, and nothing odd about it. My father was supposed to take up the construction trade but went in the military. When he got out, he took odd jobs in California and after a few years, guess what? He was running a construction business. No formal training, just OJT.

Ethiopia... maybe. The ladies there..

Mike

[Ben]

If anyone has stated that it's "obvious" that Toppy wasn't a plumber in 1888, they're just wrong, because it's anything but.

More likely, Toppy became a plumber at the earliest opportunity (i.e. certainly by his twenties) after taking advantage of his father's plumbing connections.

The real George Hutchinson on the other hand....

[DVV]

Well, his father being a plumber, I have serious doubts about him having learnt his trade after 1888.

As boring as rain can be, there is a splendid and special atmosphere in Ethiopia during the kremt.

[The Good Michael]

Mike, I thought Lechmere was of opinion that Toppy had probably learnt his trade from his father.

It was an opinion, yes, but he clearly stated that in 1888 it was obvious that he wasn't a plumber. That's all I was saying. I thought you may have misread that and I wanted to clear it up. I have no idea what Lechmere really thinks, however, except that we agree on many things. Maybe Faroes then. I was thinking Faroes and then a ship to Shetland as well. Never been and the weather will be dryer there, but still cool. I like cool.

Cheers,

Mike

[Rubyretro]

and Sicily will be hot as hell.

Mike should feel at home then..

[DVV]

Mike, I thought Lechmere was of opinion that Toppy had probably learnt his trade from his father.

As for your trip, you could make your choice according to the weather.

It will rain hard in Ethiopia, and Sicily will be hot as hell.

Hope it helps.

[The Good Michael]

David,

Of course he wasn't a plumber in 1888. You must be correct on that. That he became a plumber through training or simply by taking the trade name, is irrefutable at this point. In a bit of a convoluted way, Lechmere was saying exactly this, that it's obvious he didn't call himself a plumber because he was a groom or laborer.

Mike

PS. I have a few months free time this summer. Ethiopia, Sicily, the Faroes, or Chile. I can't decide.

[DVV]

DVV
If Toppy was Hutchinson (and I will suspect there will never be absolute proof – there is however a more than plausible connection) then why would he call himself a plumber in 1888 if he had been working as a groom or labourer in the immediate past and if he at that time did not intend to go back to being a plumber?
The obvious answer is that he wouldn’t.

That is far from obvious, I'm afraid, since the police statement and the press reports have been more eloquent regarding his trade than, for example, his age or physical appearance.
I'm even of opinion that a man who would have been apprenticed as a plumber would have been a bit proud of it, especially in Whitechapel where many people had to work here and there without qualifications nor skills.

Then why would Hutch had said "I was a groom", if he had been a qualified plumber ?

[Ben]

“If Toppy was Hutchinson (and I will suspect there will never be absolute proof – there is however a more than plausible connection”

Not really, Lechmere. Not with biographical data that doesn’t match, signatures that a professional document examiner has adjudged to be a mismatch with the statement signatures, and a discredited royal conspiracy theory attached to his name. What you really should say is that while there may never be absolute proof that Toppy was not Hutchinson, they were very unlikely to have been the same person. If he had been apprenticed as a plumber before 1888, as you are suggesting, that would make him a plumber by trade or a plumbing trainee by trade, not a groom by trade now working as a labourer like the real person who introduced himself to the police as George Hutchinson.

I do wish you would stop trying to assert that the only obstacle to the very absurd Toppy-the-witness premise is the absence of “absolute proof”. Try the absence of any indication to suppose that they were the same, and the compelling indications against such a suggestion instead.

“There is nothing to say that Toppy’s father’s re-marriage in 1888 was the cause of a fall out.”

I know.

I wish to make a small but crucial correction to my last post, incidentally. It appears that that George Sr’s marriage to his second wife, Emma Gin, occurred in June of 1890 and not in early-to mid 1888 as previously stated. So I’m afraid that’s an even bigger piss on the bonfire for those who have argued that Toppy’s highly speculative, no-evidence “fall out” with his father was the reason for his move from the family home to the East End and subsequent mutation into the George Hutchinson who gave his statement in November of 1888. This marriage occurred two years after the real Hutchinson gave his statement - two years after Toppy was supposed to have stormed off to seek his fortune in the East End to escape poor old Miss Gin (in this Utoppia that lacks any supporting evidence).

I’ve always wondered why you were prepared to defend Hutchinson in almost all other details apart from the claim to have known Kelly for three years, and now it seems obvious. The detail is clearly very inconvenient to the attempted Toppy identification.

If you weren’t attempting to pass Gareth’s press-related finds off as your own (which I’ll cheerfully believe on your say so), then at least give your Toppiological ally Fisherman a helping hand as he is clearly under the impression that “there is no such need any further” to discuss the plumbing issue purely on account of your purported “finds”. If it was abundantly clear that you had extracted those sources from this thread, it certainly wasn’t so to him.

“Why did Toppy leave the bosom of his family and move the central London – which he undoubtedly did”

Because he’d completed his training as a plumber, and was then in a position to work as one. I can’t think of anything less unusual or complicated.

“The Worshipful Company of Plumbers introduced a test that they wished to encourage plumbers to undertake and to encourage potential employers to insist upon their plumbers being suitably qualified.”

But he wouldn’t have been “suitably qualified” if he had been bumming around the East End as a labouring former groom, would he? That’s the whole point. It was precisely because of the decline of apprenticeships that the rules for entry into the profession were tightened up. These exams were very obviously intended for plumbing aspirants who had undertaken extensive training already, which is why it was considered a viable substitute in the very late 1880s for the apprenticeship process. The idea that Toppy could have emerged from the East End life of a labourer or groom to become chummy again with his dad, re-learn the entire plumbing trade more or less overnight and march straight into the examination room is very obviously incorrect.

“The fact is he moved away from the rest of his family to central London by 1891, and then married an East End girl and moved there and raised a family there.”

Exactly, and there’s no evidence that he had any personal connection to the East End until he met his East End wife.

[Lechmere]

DVV
If Toppy was Hutchinson (and I will suspect there will never be absolute proof – there is however a more than plausible connection) then why would he call himself a plumber in 1888 if he had been working as a groom or labourer in the immediate past and if he at that time did not intend to go back to being a plumber?
The obvious answer is that he wouldn’t.

Mr Ben
There is nothing to say Hutchinson was destitute just because he lived in the Victoria Home.

There is nothing to say that Toppy’s father’s re-marriage in 1888 was the cause of a fall out. However Toppy’s father’s relationship with the woman who became his second wife may have been the catalyst. But I presume that his father met his second wife prior to marrying her in 1888... plausibly a year or two before. We don’t know how long Hutchinson (whether it is Toppy or not) lived in the East End.
Then again perhaps it was a whirlwind romance. Just like in a Disney film.
Anyway Toppy (or a non Toppy Hutchinson) could have moved to the East End in the beginning of 1888 for all we know. Or his father could have met his future wife and began courting her in 1885.
I have previously stated that it is implausible that he knew Kelly for three years.
Why did Toppy leave the bosom of his family and move the central London – which he undoubtedly did? We have no way of knowing. It may have nothing to do with his father’s re-marriage.

I would be interested to see you reproduce some bits of text that I ‘significantly’ did not reproduce. I am sure I reproduced all the relevant bits. Come on – which bits are missing?

And what exactly do you mean by this ridiculous and precious statement...
“In future, Lechmere might consider telling us where he obtains the sources he provides and avoid creating the erroneous impression that he is telling us something new when he isn't.”
I made it abundantly clear that I had gone through this thread for my information. Were you unable to work that one out?

Mr Ben – this statement of yours (yes just to confirm, I am quoting you) was frankly worthless as hardly any plumbers in the late 1880s and early 1890s bothered with apprenticeships.
“Plumbing apprenticeships usually lasted seven years (between the ages of 14 and 21) meaning that if Hutchinson had been bumming round the East End as an unemployed labouring former groom at age 22, he had most assuredly missed the boat, and was very unlikely to be a working plumber by 1891 (as Toppy was)” – 13th June 2009

The Worshipful Company of Plumbers introduced a test that they wished to encourage plumbers to undertake and to encourage potential employers to insist upon their plumbers being suitably qualified. The test clearly did not require anything like seven years training.
Also it isn’t correct to say he could easily have gained entry to the profession before 1886. All that can be said is that he could more easily have found work as an unqualified and potentially bodging plumber before then. Clearly the situation did not right itself overnight and the ‘problem’ of there being a large number of bodgers persisted. Whether Toppy worked as a plumber continuously from when he was 14 until 1891 (when he would have been 25) or whether he had a break in between for some reason, it seems likely that he will have taken the test at some point. Then again maybe he didn’t and just got by with the skill he learnt and on recommendations – as many tradesmen do to this day.

The simple fact is we don’t know the answers to any of these questions.

The fact remains that Toppy had ample time between 1880 (when he was 14) and 1891 (when he was 25) to become a qualified plumber and have a break in between. I don’t think anyone will ever be able to prove that he did but it is quite possible.

Similarly he could have moved to the East End and been living there in 1888. The fact is he moved away from the rest of his family to central London by 1891, and then married an East End girl and moved there and raised a family there. And of course his parents were married in Shoreditch. Again I don’t think anyone will ever be able to prove that he lived there in 1888, but it is quite possible.

To argue against either of these possibilities as if they are totally improbable seems to me to be ludicrous.

[Fisherman]

All of these incredibly long posts to try and hold on to a picture of Toppy as an apprenticed seven-year educated plumber are pathetic! It´s no longer an issue. We used to discuss it when there was a need, but there is no such need any further. Haven´t you noticed?

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

You could reply to Jen's post, though.

PS: could be a hard task.

[The Good Michael]

Just wonder how the big thread could have been so big, in retrospect...

Because the needle was enormous.

Mike

PS. Could be a metaphor