Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[David Knott]

Of the four non-plumbing bachelors at 22, I have found 3 of the father's occupations: -
Agricultural labourer
Bookkeeper
Lighterman
Of the three plumbers at 22, I have found 2 of the father's occupations: -
Plumber & Glazier
Shoemaker

Plumber & Glazier seems to be quite a popular double occupation on census records, as does plumber & painter.

David

[Observer]

Hi Maggyann

Mea Culpa, I should not have posted in a thread I had not completely read through, I lost it at Carol Thatcher - sorry. :

"Mea Culpa," Lynn Cates uses this Latin phrase also what's it mean hehe? Latin not one of my strong points.

all the best

Observer

[lynn cates]

Latin

Salve Observer. "Mea culpa," taking a free translation, means, roughly, "My fault."

Vale.
LC

[Ben]

Of the 7, three were plumbers when they were 22. Among the others there was one labourer, one toll collector, one painter, and one I couldn't read but it definitely wasn't plumber.

Most interesting, David, and my grateful thanks for sharing your research efforts with us. The natural inference, of course, is that the four men who were not listed as plumbers in 1891 (but who were listed as belonging to the trade by the mid 1890s) were those who had undetaken the usual apprenticeship, but had yet to secure a toe-hold in the profession. They put their "temp" jobs on their census entries because that's what they were doing at the time, much like an actress fresh out of RADA who earns her money waitressing while the acting jobs are scarce and her career is in its infancy.

If these four men were ever interviewed by the police about their professional history for whatever reason, they would each have responded that they were a plumber by trade, now working as a labourer, toll collector, painter etc in the absence of any plumbing opportunities at that stage. If Toppy had any occasion to give a statement to the police, he too would doubtless have given a similar account of himself, which is quite different to the real Hutchinson's claim to be working as a labourer and that he was a groom by trade. What doesn't seem very likely is that the individuals in question managed to bypass a formal apprenticeship, since the above referenced press accounts surely demonstrate that this would have been extremely difficult to acheive after 1886.

Best regards,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Hi Maggyann



"Mea Culpa," Lynn Cates uses this Latin phrase also what's it mean hehe? Latin not one of my strong points.

all the best

Observer

I think this must be where we get the word 'culprit' from.

[lynn cates]

culpability

Hello Good. Not to mention "culpability."

The best.
LC

[Fisherman]

A number of questions and reflections:

If all people with an education behind them that did not represent their current profession wrote "a carpenter of trade, but now a painter" or "a painter of trade, but now a carpenter", one would expect the police protocols of the time to be full of such things. Are they? Did the police specifically ask for education no matter what profession somebody gave?

How long would a man with an education or apprenticeship behind him that did not represent or have anything to do with the trade he eventually ended up in, refer to that education or apprenticeship when speaking with the police? If somebody had worked as a painter for one, two, five, thirty years (not that such a long perspective applies in Toppys case), but had a former education or apprenticeship as a carpenter behind him, would he not sooner or later just identify himself as a painter - and give that as his profession when speaking to the authorities?

And Toppy? What do we genuinely know about him? He gave his profession as a plumber as early as in the 1891 census and fortwith, but since I am totally confident that he told the police that he was a former groom and a labourer when speaking to them in November 1888, then we must assume that he had a reason for doing so.

Even if we work from the presumption that he took up an apprenticeship to become a plumber at the age of 14, we have no guarantees that he followed it through along the laid-out track. It is spoken of a fall-out between Toppy and his family, and therefore he may have decided not to go through with an education imposed upon him by his parents - or, equally, Hutchinson senior may have cut off his possibilities to complete the apprenticeship.

He would, presumably, have found himself in a difficult situation after that. Let´s say that he found work, taking care of the horses in some sort of establishment, and let´s theorize that this gave him a years work or two. Then, unable to hold on to the job for any longer, he had to try and find whatever labour there was around for an unskilled man.

Questions: How much of an education did it take to become a groom? Was this occupation also subjected to the seven year apprenticeship? Or could anybody who was hired to take care of horses call himself a groom? If so, we need not see the grooming as something that had occupied Toppys years to any larger extent.
And what did he tell the police, exactly? That he was "a groom by trade", or that he was a "former groom"? Not that it necessarily means all that much.

Anyhow, let´s say that Kelly is killed, and we find Toppy at the police station, asked "What line of business are you in?"
What would he say? "I used to be a plumber´s apprentice?" Or "I used to be a groom, but for the moment I do whatever labour I can find"

Moving on, if the kind of circumstances I am painting has some sort of relevance, we can see that Toppy Hutchinson of 1888 would have been a man travelling on a downward plane - a promising education is changed for a job as a groom, but he is subsequently deprived of that job and has to try and tag along as well as he could.

What would he do in such a situation? Could it be that he decided to make up with his father, and that the latter took him under his wings once again? If so, what future would the two have seen for Toppy?
Exactly - a reembarked apprenticeship as a plumber would seem a logical choice.

And this is where more questions arise:
What, exactly, would the apprenticeship mean? Were there ongoing tests performed throughout the seven years? Were the growing skills and knowledge of the apprentice somehow tested by some sort of authority?
Or was an apprentice simply somebody who worked alongside a man of the trade? Could it be that Hutchinson senior had total control of the apprenticeship? Did he make all the calls? Was his word good enough to secure Toppy his certificate? May Toppy´s way to that certificate as a plumber have been designed and timed by nobody but his father?

This is one way to try and outline a possible development of events and destiny in Toppy´s case. How credible it is, is hard to say since I do not know all the factors involved - but I hope there will be those who can enlighten me on the issues I raise!

It is a fascinating Toppy-c (sorry for that pun...) whichever way we look at things. Holding my belief that Toppy was the witness, I am certain that the solutions to all the questions are out there.

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
I have said before , no other person has every made himself known as George Hutchinson except one GWTH, he claimed to have been the witness , and therefore who are we to doubt , why should be doubt?
'I knew one of the women , and I gave a statement to the police ', he maintained .
Yet your good self and others, still insist that Topping was a fraud, and was merely using GHs identity , for personal gain, and glory, or even in the slightest chance that he was the witness, fabricated the whole scene for a laugh/financial gain/ or even attempting to get away with murder.
I find all of this quite unexceptable.
GWTH, better known as Topping, was without any doubt [at least to me] GH ,he has to be, for him to have known all what he revealed in the 1920s/30,to friends and family, if he was a fraud then he would not have known that.
So we are left with Costermonger Reg, the son... Was he a fraud?
I have been led to believe that he knew absolutely nothing about the Ripper murders, until a younger member of the family lent him a book a few years ago, so he was a non starter as far as i am concerned.
So we have one GWTH, as a young 22 year old involving himself in the whitechapel murders on the eve of the 12th Nov 1888, by offering a statement to the police.
Question Why?
Because he believed he had seen her killer, and informed the police.
Was he telling the truth?
I believe he was, regardless of our 21st century interpretations, of light/dark.
Was he a stalker/pimp/mugger/accomplice/murderer?
Most certainly not.
The whole Hutchinson debate is so frustrating as some are placing guilt on a man, because of a description issued, and a late visit to the police, which he gave an explanation for.
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

Fisherman,

In Sally Mitchell's book, I didn't see groom listed as a craft or skilled labor which would have required, prior to Victorian times, an apprenticeship of 5 - 7 years, but depending on the master craftsman's decisions. As she says, things were rather lax in the LVP with regards to apprenticeships. That means another niggling doubt can be, by all sensible people, removed as an obstacle.

Cheers,

Mike

[Fisherman]

Thanks for that, Mike!

The picture that springs to mind when speaking of a groom is of course somebody tending to a large stable of riding horses.
But would not a man who tended the horses that, say, pulled the brewer´s carriages also be a "groom"? And would such a groom have to be approved by any master craftsman?

Just like you, I think the pieces are beginning to fit together better and better. And just like you, I think, I hold the belief that even if all the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle are not easy to find, they will be there!

Once again thanks,
Fisherman

[harry]

Even today in many countries,one has to be licensed to carry out certain work,and plumbing comes under that category.In days gone by,In England especially,to gain a license ,one had to be apprenticed.That was the term used.It meant an entrant to a trade had to train under the guidance of a master,for a set period,and at the end of that term,on passing set tests,were given his Papers.So the term,'I have papers' had real meaning.A term rarely used today,because in England,and I believe other countries,since the 1950's or thereabouts,a lesser period of training,with the award of a 'Certificate' was introduced. Today,a person with'Papers'is rated as more proficient than a person with'Certificate'.I am certificated in two trades.
As Garry says,in 1888 a person would have to have been apprenticed and gained his 'Papers",to carry out the trade of plumbing.A plumbers mate however would be just a labourer.
If Topping labelled himself a plumber,he either had papers,or he was lying.I'd plumb for the second.

[Fisherman]

Thanks for this, Harry! Do you have the knowledge and experience to touch on the questions I asked in my former post?
Were there ongoing tests performed throughout the seven years?
Were the growing skills and knowledge of the apprentice somehow tested by some sort of authority?
Or was an apprentice simply somebody who worked alongside a man of the trade?
Could it be that Hutchinson senior had total control of the apprenticeship?
Did he make all the calls?
Was his word good enough to secure Toppy his certificate?
May Toppy´s way to that certificate as a plumber have been designed and timed by nobody but his father?

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Harry,

Thanks, but we've already gotten past that apprenticeship thing, have shown it to not be such a hard and fast system in the LVP.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

As she says, things were rather lax in the LVP with regards to apprenticeships.

Correction, Mike - things became rather lax in the LVP with regard to the apprenticeships, but as we learn from sources from the actual period, it was in recognition of these slipping standards that changes were introduced to ensure that entry into the plumbing trade once again became subject to restrictions. Since apprenticeships were not remotely "lax" after 1886, doubt must certainly be entertained by all sensible people. And no, we haven't got past "that apprentice thing". Primary sources, as well as very useful information from Garry, Gareth, Harry and others have exposed that concern as a very significant obstacle, and we shouldn't just brush it aside as wanted, inconvenient evidence.

There is no way of knowing if the police asked Hutchinson about his professional history as opposed to his then current employment status. One might reasonably surmise that the police were as thorough as possible when addressing this question, but even if they weren't, the press clearly made inquiries along those lines, culminating in the revelation that Hutchinson was:

“The story is told by George Hutchinson, a groom by trade, but now working as a laborer.”

This from the Star, 14th November 1888.

The obvious inference here is that Hutchinson was a groom by occupation but was now working as a labourer, perhaps because grooming opportunities had taken a recent nose-dive. If the real Hutchinson had been apprenticed in the plumbing trade (which he simply must have been in order to be listed as one in the census records three years later) then there was no obvious reason not to state the truth; that he was a plumber, now working as a labourer. The simplest and most logical explanation for the absence of any reference to plumbing work in Hutchinson's police and press accounts is that he wasn't one, and if he wasn't one in 1888 - and he had no apprenticeship either - then he was very unlikely to have become a plumber by 1888.

Even if the grooming work constituted another "temp" job and wasn't a far cry from labouring work, his actual trade - what which he had been apprenticed in - he would still have been a plumber, now working as a labourer, but this was not the account given of himself by the witness Hutchinson. Once you've finished your apprenticeship, you're in the trade, and thus entitled to call yourself a "plumber, by trade". You'd certainly be more than a former apprentice.

There is no evidence of a fall-out with his father until 1888, according to David's information, when Hutchinson Sr remarried to a much younger woman. By that time, Toppy would have finished his apprenticeship if he started in his mid teens as per the usual custom, thus preventing any spiteful efforts his father could conceivably have made to hamper his progress.

It should be observed, incidentally, that Hutchinson was described as a groom “by trade”, which suggests that although the job might not have required as much in-depth training as a plumber, was at least considered a trade. It would be very usual for a recent entrant in the plumbing trade, via an apprenticeship, to list another trade as his occupation.

An important, if oft-overlooked, point is Hutchinson’s claim to have known Kelly for about three years. If true, it would place him in the district for that period, militating somewhat against the suggestion that Toppy had sought solace and work here during the period of unease with his father and new wife. There is no evidence that Toppy had anything to do with the East End until he met his East End wife in 1895. I have no idea who Toppy was apprenticed to, but I agree that his father would be a logical candidate, and this too would seem somewhat at odds with an individual who has been consorting with prostitutes in the East End since 1885.

[Ben]

I have said before , no other person has every made himself known as George Hutchinson except one GWTH, he claimed to have been the witness , and therefore who are we to doubt , why should be doubt?

Who are we to doubt, Richard? Sensible and discerning adults, I should dearly hope. Why do we doubt it? Because the preponderance of evidence tells us we really ought to. You have to try to get past this face value approach to evidence. It really isn't that outlandish to accept that people lie for various reasons quite a lot of the time, and it tends to crop up fairly often in high profile police investigations where there is often a lot at stake. I find, with respect, that a few too many of your posts appeal to the "Oh, why oh why don't we just believe?" school of thought, and I find it too simplistic and irrational. I don't believe because I have lots of good reasons to disbelieve, Simple as that.

GWTH, better known as Topping, was without any doubt [at least to me] GH ,he has to be, for him to have known all what he revealed in the 1920s/30,to friends and family, if he was a fraud then he would not have known that.

I don't know how you can possibly believe this to be true. What details are present in Reg's account that a person with the most superficial knowledge of the case could not have known about? You even acknowledge yourself that Reg knew very little about the ripper murders. You don't even know that the real Toppy revealed anything about the ripper murders to his children in the 1920s or 1930s. Even if he did precisely that, there's nothing in the recorded revelations that couldn't have been read in the papers.

So we have one GWTH, as a young 22 year old involving himself in the whitechapel murders on the eve of the 12th Nov 1888, by offering a statement to the police. Question Why? Because he believed he had seen her killer, and informed the police. Was he telling the truth? I believe he was, regardless of our 21st century interpretations, of light/dark.

That's just listing your beliefs, Richard.

That's a lot different to actually arguing a case for those beliefs.

I've argued against those beliefs for a number of years, but I least provide some exclamatory reasoning. If you did the same, I'm sure you'd feel a lot less frustrated by those who subscribe to a different view.

Best regards,
Ben