Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Fisherman]

"And so, we are (you, I, Fisherman, Observer, Gareth) the unwitting pawns of George Hutchinson"

Probably the truest post on these boards, Mike...

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

“Again, there are many possibilities, and the objections are somewhat weak. Toppy is Hutch. It really is a done deal”

By all means continue with the gauche triumphalist rhetoric that has become your annoying preference of late, Mike, but at least take the trouble to address Garry’s post properly. There are several reasons why either a plumbing aspirant or a fully-fledged apprentice-completed plumber would list a different occupation on their census entry, but there is no good reason whatsoever for someone in that position to withhold any mention of plumbing when asked by the police or press about their occupation. If he started later and was midway through his apprenticeship for whatever reason, a) he was unlikely to have bummed around that part of the East End consorting with prostitutes for at least three years, and b) he was very unlikely to have concealed this “plumbing” detail to press and police. He certainly wouldn’t have listed a different trade, such as that of a groom, if he was on the verge of joining a more prestigious one.

The other suggestion; that Toppy took an extended pause from his apprenticeship seems unlikely to me, especially in light of the post 1886 tightening-up of the rules which governed entry into the plumbing trade. Take a few years off, and you’re pretty much starting from scratch, re-learning everything. Garry’s observation was not that apprenticeships in the LVP were “weaker”, but rather that the system did not entail enforced child labour as it had done in the past. On the contrary, we know that the system was tightened around the time that Toppy was very likely to have completed his apprenticeship.

Toppy was living in Warren Street, in the West End, when he was listed as a plumber in the 1891 census, and since he was clearly independent of his father by this stage, it seems reasonable to infer that he was indeed a bona fide card-carrying plumber at the time. It would certainly account for his ability to lodge in such an area without his family.

I don’t begrudge you stating that there are possibilities that surmount the issue of plumbers’ apprenticeships. I don’t find them very probably myself, but that doesn’t mean I’m about to go around confidently exclaiming that my conclusion is that correct one, and that Toppy not being the witness is the “done deal”.

[Ben]

I can only say how very selective some posters are when commenting on what Georgie boy said in 1888. They are only too willing to cry Liar when he gives his description of Mr A

Ah, but then in your efforts to be sarcastic, you miss the point rather spectacularly, I'm afraid, Observer. We're exploring the premise that the witness in question was Toppy, and since the Toppy-as-Hutch hypothesis is most commonly allied to the premise that he was a nice honest witness who was smitten with Kelly and wanted to protect her from the scary Jewish toff, the obvious question is begged: why would he pretend to be a groom when he wasn't one? Reg passed on alleged claims that his father actually was interviewed by the police, and believed his he "never embellished anything". No suggestion that Toppy ever regaled his son with that hilarious story of how he stitched the coppers up a real treat.

Maybe Toppy lied to his son as well as the police? Or maybe he did tell his son that he'd fibbed, and Reg decided to follow dad's example and pass it off as genuine?

[Ben]

“In order for GWTH to have been a faud, and identify himself with the real Hutchinson, for whatever motive he may have had, he would have had to have a real knowledge of the millers court murder, he would have had to familiar himself with the statement of the man he was impersonating.”

No, that doesn’t follow at all, Richard.

Firstly, we don’t know if the claims didn’t come from Reg, rather than Toppy, and Reg could easily have acquired knowledge of the Miller’s Court murder by reading a few books and talking to his interviewers – Melvyn Fairclough and Joseph Sickert – all about it. Bear in mind that Reg’s original claim didn’t betray any knowledge whatsoever of the Miller’s Court murder. All his professed “knowledge” amounted to was a claim that his father knew one of the victims and was interviewed about it, and that observation requires no knowledge whatsoever about the Miller’s Court murder. So how did Reg gain new insight into the Miller’s Court murder?

Because Fairclough and Sickert showed him the police statement.

Forgive the bold highlighting, but it’s absolutely crucial for dismissing any suggestion that Reg needed any prior knowledge of any ripper-attributed murder in order to pull off a lie.

“Everytime you answer a post of mine, which suggests that Topping was GH, and I suggest that it is improbable that it was anyone else, you say 'Ah But' even when I have offered the Wheeling report as exhibit [1] you reject that with 'Ah But' he may have read that way back in 1888”

I think you know full well that my “Ah, buts” are always followed by very thorough reasoning which explains in detail why your basis for declaring that any other Hutchinson identification is unlikely is demonstrably flawed. For example, when you wheel out the Wheeling Register – as you do far too often, despite it being refuted goodness’ knows how many times – I point out yet again that there is no interesting coincidence between this and Reg’s claims. Since the police were under the impression that Hutchinson was not earning a regular wage, they could not have paid him five times a regular wage.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"you miss the point rather spectacularly, I'm afraid, Observer ... why would he pretend to be a groom when he wasn't one?"

I think that what Observer was trying to say is that he found it strange that those who speak for Toppy not being Hutch paint most everything that Toppy said out as lies - but for some reason they cling on to the groom part as absolute truth, somehow proving that Toppy would not have been Hutch. Its in all probability that inconsistency Observer is after, Ben, and thus I am not at all sure that he himself genuinely believes the groom bit a lie.

Just my five cents, of course ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

Just to clarify, I believe that the groom detail could easily have been a lie. I'm just wondering why Toppy would have resorted to that specific lie, since the Toppy theory is most commonly woven around the innocent-witness hypothesis. I take on board your comparison with Fleming, incidentally, in reference to young men who "spiral downwards" professionally and socially. If Toppy was in a similar position to Fleming, however, I can't see how he could possibly have spiralled back up again to the extent of becoming a West End based plumber by 1891.

Best regards,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

But wasn't Joe Fleming a plasterer's mate, rather than a plasterer? If so, where is the occupational downturn?

Garry Wroe.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"If Toppy was in a similar position to Fleming, however, I can't see how he could possibly have spiralled back up again to the extent of becoming a West End based plumber by 1891."

Of course you can see it, Ben! There are a good deal of possible solutions, some of them being not very credible (winning on a lottery, robbing a bank etcetera), but above all, there is one very credible alternative, at least to my eyes: If Toppys situation was once that of a plumber to be, and if that prospect was cut short by one reason or another (and yes, this is where the falling out applies), then all it would take to get him back on that self same level again would be a making up with his dad and a reentered plumbers course. And voilá - we find Toppy the plumber has evolved out of Toppy the labourer.
It really does not have to be all that hard.
Similarly, if he had proven a good prospect for a plumber in the years leading up to 1885, then one or another of his fathers colleagues may have caught wind of that, only to later find him bogged down in labouring in the East end. In such a case, they may have offered him prospects. It´s a world of opportunities!
Besides, if we listen to Sam - and I habitually do so - Warren Street was not exactly the equivalent of todays Hasker Street, West end or not.

No, I see no truly bothering obstacles in all of this, although I think it reasonable to point out that if Toppy did not use the main road to plumbership, he would have deviated from the expected journey through life to some extent. But the world around me is full of people that have not followed the expected track. My dumbest schoolmate from the gymnasium is today a top dog politician in a city nearby, my lady friend who set out to be a psychologist became a physician, I once entered law school but became a journalist and I am married to a woman who once peddled sausages in a supermarket but is now a research and development manager at a biochemistral company. Imagine the trouble we will have, if we in a 121 years time are given only the outset details of these four examples, and asked to go looking for them in the logical places. And all restrictioins and regulations aside, that applies to the Victorian age too. If anybody should ask me for a prime example, I´d instantly name the rollercoaster carreer of young Toppy! Let´s sidestep the molehills instead of making mountains of them.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe asks:

"But wasn't Joe Fleming a plasterer's mate, rather than a plasterer? If so, where is the occupational downturn?"


Chris Scott has posted this bit on the 1881 census:
”By the time of the 1881 census, Joseph had left home and was living in lodgings in 61 Crozier Terrace which was in Homerton, north east of Bethnal Green. By this time he is listed as following his father´s trade as a plasterer.”

At that time he would have been 22. If he followed in his fathers footsteps, Garry, does it not make sense to believe that he had fulfilled his apprenticeship the year before? That is, if Chris´work is on the button.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Of course you can see it, Ben!

Well, okay, I can see it, but it doesn't seem a very credible proposal to me, Fisherman. If his plumbing opportunities were cut short for an extended period for whatever reason, he was very unlikely to have carried on from where he left off the moment the obstacle is removed. The fact that he was listed as a plumber in the 1891 census militates very strongly against the suggestion that he experienced several wilderness years in the East End, during which his plumbing-learning was on extended temporary hiatus, before suddenly steering his life back on (plumbing) course. He would, quite simply, have missed the boats, since apprenticeships generally didn't permit three successive gap years. Simply making up with his dad wouldn't have been enough to surmount the problem which would, after all, have been out of Hutchinson Senior's hands by then.

As such, any reconciliation between father and son was unlikely to resolve a situation that could not, in any case, be reversed. Restrictions had been tightened after 1886, and unless Toppy's father enjoyed a position of control of seniority within the plumbing world, he couldn't have laid the foundations for his son to gain a speedy entrance into the trade.

In such a case, they may have offered him prospects. It´s a world of opportunities!

I think that's precisely what it wasn't, Fisherman, which is why the East End enjoyed the reputation it did for poverty. Warren Street may not have been Albert Hall Mansions but it was a far cry from the dismal doss houses of the East End. But no, a mecca for job opportunities was the very last thing the East End was.

For that reason, I don't see how the career paths of your friends and family are of immediate relevance here, considering that none of them were subjected to trade apprenticeships, especially late Victorian ones with their own guidelines, as outlined by Garry. I can't possibly agree with your assertion that "all restrictioins and regulations aside, that applies to the Victorian age too". It is these very restrictions and regulations that oblige us to consider a putative career-hopping Topping in the context of the time in which he lived. To that end, I'd argue that molehills you're hoping to sidestep are the snowy-capped peaks.

All the best,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

This reasoning makes a lot of sense to me in many a sense. But does it not swear against the assertions that anybody who had gone through an apprenticeship and finished an education would take a lot of pride in that thing, more or less habitually taking great care to point out what they were by trade whenever asked?
Why would anybody be sloppy with such things because the question came from a census taker? Especially if the apprenticeship and the gaining of a plumbers certificate was so near in time as it would have been in this case?

Similarly, if a few months of painting was all it took for a man with a pocketed plumbers certificate to forget all about his true professional strivings when the census takers came knocking - would not a more substantial time of, for example, grooming be enough for a man to call himself a groom when asked by the police? Especially if this man did NOT have a completed plumbers apprenticeship behind him?

The census, Fish, was and still is an official database designed to shape and inform government socioeconomic policy. Since it relates to a specific point in time, the legal requirement would have been for Toppy to provide only that information which was current at the time he was canvassed. His historical details would have been immaterial for statistical purposes, so any pride that he may have had with regard to completing his apprenticeship is irrelevant. The issue as far as the census taker was concerned was Toppy’s employment information at that specific point in time. As such, Toppy might have spent the previous twenty years working as a time-served plumber, but if he had taken a job as a flower arranger the day before the census taker arrived, his occupation would have been recorded as flower arranger – and this even if he was due to recommence plumbing the following day.

The information relating to George Hutchinson, on the other hand, has been derived from his police and press interviews. Given that it was not restricted to a specific day in time, it is far more expansive, far more biographical, and should have revealed details relating to Hutchinson’s status as a plumber had he been so qualified. That it doesn’t provides compelling evidence suggestive that Hutchinson and Toppy were different men.

I cannot improve on Garry's submissions.I suppose an individual could describe himself any way he wanted to.The trades,as opposed to the professions,were regulated by law to a greater extent.It was,as is now,an offence in law,in certain instances,to gain advantage by pretense,and it was and is, an offence to give false or misleading information to a census.People generally take heed of this.

Many thanks, Harry, not only for this post but also an earlier one in which you provided additional details relating to the UK apprenticeship scheme.

Best wishes.

Garry Wroe.

[Garry Wroe]

Chris Scott has posted this bit on the 1881 census:
”By the time of the 1881 census, Joseph had left home and was living in lodgings in 61 Crozier Terrace which was in Homerton, north east of Bethnal Green. By this time he is listed as following his father´s trade as a plasterer.”

At that time he would have been 22. If he followed in his fathers footsteps, Garry, does it not make sense to believe that he had fulfilled his apprenticeship the year before? That is, if Chris´work is on the button.

Many thanks, Fish. Much obliged.

Best wishes.

Garry Wroe.

[Fisherman]

You´re welcome, Garry!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"If his plumbing opportunities were cut short for an extended period for whatever reason, he was very unlikely to have carried on from where he left off the moment the obstacle is removed."

I really could not say how unlikely this would be, Ben - I do not have the detailed knowledge. What I DO have, however, is a sneaking suspicion that having a plumber for a father would not do your cause any harm at all in such a situation.

"apprenticeships generally didn't permit three successive gap years"

Where dos this knowledge come from? I would value if you could share the source. And whichever way, it once again may perhaps well apply that his dad could have covered for him.

"unless Toppy's father enjoyed a position of control of seniority within the plumbing world, he couldn't have laid the foundations for his son to gain a speedy entrance into the trade."

The same question applies here as in the former instance - and do we know exactly what Hutch senior could do for his son?

"I think that's precisely what it wasn't, Fisherman, which is why the East End enjoyed the reputation it did for poverty."

And still, each and everybody living there lived individual lives. They were not a grey mass, all subjected to the exact same fate, Ben, even if it would facilitate things for us. Some fell, some rose, some were added, some found a way out. Let´s not overgeneralize.

"I'd argue that molehills you're hoping to sidestep are the snowy-capped peaks."

Snow don´t fall on as low altitudes as we are speaking of, Ben. It´s wrist-height, methinks.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe writes:

"The census, Fish, was and still is an official database designed to shape and inform government socioeconomic policy. "

Well, Garry, if there is a nation where census listings are well known, it is my country. Swedish censuses reach further back than any others, in fact! So I am well aware of the general construction of such a thing!

"Since it relates to a specific point in time, the legal requirement would have been for Toppy to provide only that information which was current at the time he was canvassed. His historical details would have been immaterial for statistical purposes, so any pride that he may have had with regard to completing his apprenticeship is irrelevant."

In the respect that the census takers would not ask for it, yes. But not in the respect that you yourself pressed earlier on - that people with a trade and an education would rather represent themselves in that fashion than by an intermittent, less prestigious profession.
And that is where things get a bit awkward, since you mean that people in general were prestigious and proud of their achievments, and they would not easily give up on using their more fashionable titles (Harry subscribed to the same belief in one of his posts, as you may recall), and by reason they would therefore habitually come clean on that score while speaking to the police - while they would casually let it slip through their fingers when filling out a census form...?
To me, though I can read your lips, the picture on the whole does not make much sense.

"As such, Toppy might have spent the previous twenty years working as a time-served plumber, but if he had taken a job as a flower arranger the day before the census taker arrived, his occupation would have been recorded as flower arranger – and this even if he was due to recommence plumbing the following day."

Could you offer some sort of substantiation for this rather drastic claim? Was the form worded "occupation" or "current occupation"? And if the former applies, did the census takers put an effort into adjusting people who habitually confessed to plumbership in spite of their floral one-day excursions?
-I´m Lord mayor of this city, see?
-Come now, sir, I just saw you pruning the apple-trees, so let´s make it gardener, shall we?

I may of course be totally wrong here, but it really defies belief to see this version of yours apply. Let´s begin by asking ourselves what the census listings were alla about - was it to find out what Mr Jones did one day a year, or was it about finding out what the people in Britain normally and habitually did for a living, and how high the general level of underlying education was? If the census was taking during the hop-picking, one can imagine what that would do to the usefulness of the census as a tool for keeping an eye at the general construction of the British labour market!
But once again, any material that goes to prove this a faulty assumption on my behalf is welcomed!

"The information relating to George Hutchinson, on the other hand, has been derived from his police and press interviews. Given that it was not restricted to a specific day in time, it is far more expansive, far more biographical, and should have revealed details relating to Hutchinson’s status as a plumber had he been so qualified. That it doesn’t provides compelling evidence suggestive that Hutchinson and Toppy were different men."

And what did it say on THIS form? "Occupation" or "Trade, education and current occupation"?
Once again, if the former applies, did the policemen step in and start pumping for information? Or did they simply say "uh-huh" and keep writing as the customer they were dealing with said "painter"?
Would the statement "painter" immediately raise the suspicion that there must be an education in some other trade hidden behind the statement? In a society where education as such was much of a luxury? Would a statement of as unqualified a job as groom make speculations of a probable education in a better trade surface? Especially given that most people would think that those who had the opportunity to make a living as a plumber, would never go anywhere near a grooms job unless they were forced to do so? Would it not actually touch on an insult to ask a meanless, ill-clad man who stated that he was a dock labourer what his education was?

I´m sure that there are answers to these questions, Garry, and I am equally sure that I have no such waterproof answers to offer, owing to lacking insights into all of these details involved.

But I see no compelling evidence at all to suggest that Toppy and Hutch could not have been the same man. What I see is generously shaped time windows, perfectly feasible travel stretches along societal ladders and the age-old truth that what profession and education you give when asked is something that is related to HOW the question is put to you - and how you yourself CHOOSE to answer it. And the latter is governed by a number of things as time in a trade, how prestigious you are and how you look upon yourself and your past and future.
Furthermore, what I see - and what I need to see, given that I have decided that there is virtually no chance of the signatures by the witness and Toppy not being by the same hand - is opportunities.
But you somehow seem to see a heap of unsurmountable obstacles..?

The best,
Fisherman