George William Topping Hutchinson Records

[Lechmere]

At the time of the 1871 census the Hutchinsons were living at no 5 Champneys Terrace, in the parish of St Luke’s in Norwood.
The household consisted of George and Jane Hutchinson and their children, George (Toppy) and Jane Emily.
Remember that in 1861 they had been living in Hornchurch in Essex.
However I have unearthed a document that shows that they must have been living at 5 Champneys Terrace at least in August 1870.
It is the marriage certificate of Jane’s kid brother, Albert Topping.
He married Mary Anne Greenaway at St Luke’s Church on 14th August 1870.
He must have moved down to London from Cambridge and stayed with his sister. It shows that the Topping family stayed in contact with each other.
This is actually an interesting ‘link’ document as will become clear.

[Lechmere]

Debra
That's excellent.
That means she wasn’t a Jervis at all!
I’m glad I didn’t spend too much time on the Jervis dead end.
Maria Terrace is near Stepney Green and I think it is intact!
More fresh leads to follow up! !

[Malcolm X]

oh yes i know what you're saying, dont worry about that.

i have 3 different theories about toppy/kelly and each one makes sense and even the ones that dont.. do !

i find it virtually impossible to rule out anything

[Debra A]

Yes, I definitely think you have cracked it.

Clara Davis, 17, spinster, father George Davis , Caulker, married Joseph Birkett on March 2nd 1879 at Allhallows Church Bromley.
Joseph, an oilman, was a widower (the 1881 census shows the family with a son older than Florence who was probably a child of this first marriage)

In 1881 the Birkett family were living at 121 St Leonards Rd Bromley.
In 1891 the family were living at 5, Maria Terrace, Mile End Old Town.
There's a Florence Birkett b c 1879 in both entries, along with Joseph, an oilman, and Clara his wife.

[Lechmere]

"She was born Florence Birkett in Poplar in 1879?"

Was there such a person?

[Lechmere]

Unfortunately they are no records to prove anything. That is the nature of it. I have a few more leads to check up on - one very good one pointing to Spitalfields at the right time, but even if I can prove that connection it will still mean we are left with conjecture.
That is what we have for everything to do with this case I am afraid. Put what facts are available together and try and join up the issuing parts to make as convincing a case as possible. Or alternatively disprove a case.
Of the records I have at the moment the only one I am sure about (including those of Toppy’s sister
Emily Jane – who is said to have married James Knott) is this.
It is for William Jervis, the father of William Jervis and the grandfather of Toppy’s wife Florence
It is from the 1891 census. He was a 87 year old widowed Navy Pensioner born in Stepney. He lived at 56 Heath Street (now confusingly called Head Street) which is off Commercial Road in Mile End Old Town, South ward, in the Ecclesiastical Parish of St Dunstan’s.

[Debra A]

Good work Lechmere!
I think you may have solved the mystery of why there don't appear to be records for Florence Jervis. She was born Florence Birkett in Poplar in 1879?

[Malcolm X]

Not really. An Electoral Register wasn't compiled for 1888 and there is no census that year - so we have to fill in the blanks.

hi and thanks

no this isn't good enough, we must never fill in the blanks

because this Toppy might not have stayed at the Victoria homes, we need to trace the records of who was staying there in november 1888 and working back from there....probably impossible now!

all your work is great but means little, because we already know that Toppy was lurking around in this neighbourhood at the time, the only thing that we need to know is if this Toppy is the actual witness and to do this we need to know if he stayed at the Victoria homes

alternatively, if you find out that say this Toppy was staying in Romford in november 1888, then bang, he aint the Kelly witness, but tracing where he was this acurately will be impossible.

but i appreciate how hard this is.

[Lechmere]

This is my favourite document.
It is the marriage certificate of Toppy’s father in-law.
The significance of tracing Toppy’s in-laws is that it will give some indication of what connections Toppy had with the East End. He must have met and courted his wife somewhere. And of course they ended up living in Bethnal Green.

The in-laws marriage took place in Holy Trinity Church, Morgan Street. This is the same church (which is unused but still standing) where Toppy got married to their daughter in 1898 (see page 2, post 20) and where Toppy’s first son and wife were baptised in 1899 (see page 3, post 21).

The marriage was between William Jervis and Clara Birkess.
They lived at 45 Coborn Road (firmly in what anyone would call Bow nowadays) which is still a very pleasant street of Georgian properties with two nice pubs – the Coborn Arms and the Morgan Arms (on the corner of Morgan Street). I think the original house is still there.

The first clue as to how this family may be able to be traced is provided by William Jervis’s father’s name and profession – he was also called William Jervis and was a deceased Master Mariner.
William Jervis junior is listed as a Commercial Traveller (on his daughter’s marriage certificate he is listed as a Clerk and on his daughter’s baptismal record he was a Book Keeper).

His wife’s father was called George Davis (was innocent?) and he was a deceased Ship Builder. His wife was a widow, hence her surname was Birkess rather than Davis.

Now we get to the strange bit.
William Jervis was 53.
Clara Birkess was 49.
The marriage took place on 18th February 1912.

That is almost 14 years after his daughter got married.
Mr and Mrs Jervis witnessed that marriage certificate as Mr and Mrs Jervis not as Mr Jervis and Ms Birkess.
Check the signatures (see page 2, post 20) with those on this marriage certificate.
Clara Birkess signs as Clara Jervis!
Their daughter Florence Beatrice was baptised at the age of 20 at Holy Trinity Church on the same day as Florence’s eldest son (see page 3, post 21).
On this baptismal record Clara is definitely listed as Florence’s mother.

This means that Toppy’s wife’s parents were not married when she was born and actually only got married late in life.
The Jervis family seem to have been late developers because Florence herself only got baptised at the age of 20.
Also remember that Toppy and Florence’s eldest son was born just seven months after they got married.
They seem to have had a relaxed attitude towards convention.

Notwithstanding Clara being listed as her mother on the baptismal record, there is a chance that Clara was actually William Jervis’s second wife.
A couple of different potential Jarvis or Jervis families have previously been identified but I am dubious as to whether either are the right one.

I think Florence witnessed her parent’s marriage. Someone called Hutchinson certainly did – and the initial looks like F.

[Lechmere]

Sally has been in a mood with me ever since I went to the LSE Library and looked at the Booth papers relating to the Victoria Home and blabbed on here about what they contained.
She keeps misunderstanding the nature of Copyright law and what is or isn't a lodging house - and when the term 'common' can or can't be applied to the same.
But luckily she has given me permission to carry on.

[Stephen Thomas]

Lechmere

It wasn't a common lodging house in fact. Do your homework (yawn). And maybe even do your homework on Warren Street before you start with the confident pronouncing of 'facts'.

What is this thread about, exactly? So far we've seen a veritable plethora of reproduced images (and I do hope you have COPYRIGHT permission to reproduce them in full, Lechmere) which are all very interesting and all - but how exactly do they add to the debate on the identity of the witness George Hutchinson? Unless of course your'e one of those people who have already decided.

Then it becomes a matter of faith, eh?

Carry on...

Blimey, wots goin on ere then?

[Sally]

Lechmere

It wasn't a common lodging house in fact. Do your homework (yawn). And maybe even do your homework on Warren Street before you start with the confident pronouncing of 'facts'.

What is this thread about, exactly? So far we've seen a veritable plethora of reproduced images (and I do hope you have COPYRIGHT permission to reproduce them in full, Lechmere) which are all very interesting and all - but how exactly do they add to the debate on the identity of the witness George Hutchinson? Unless of course your'e one of those people who have already decided.

Then it becomes a matter of faith, eh?

Carry on...

[Lechmere]

Mike
The fact that George Senior was a labourer at 15 in 1841 does suggest he didn’t do one of those apprenticeships. However he was a plumber in 1851 when he was about 25.
It is possible that Toppy took a similar career path – being a labourer (or even a groom) before becoming a plumber by 1891.
The idea that it is ‘impossible’ can be rejected. But we knew that anyway as plumbing apprenticeships had gone out fashion by the 1880s.

It is also of interest that in 1891 Toppy was living in a common lodging house in Warren Street and in 1899 was living in what was the south London equivalent of Dorset Street and a real rival for the title of ‘worst street in London’, namely Barbel Street. That was a real hell hole.
Yet some also claimed that it was ‘impossible’ for a violin playing scholar to live in the Victoria Home as it was a common lodging house.

I think the balance of probability has tilted significantly in favour of Toppy being the man.

[The Good Michael]

Lechmere,

GH senior was a labourer in the 1841 census at age 15 and then was a plumber for sure by the age of 31. This does throw a wrench in the old (but wrong) suggestion that all plumbers were apprenticed at age 14 for a seven-year period. If GH is GWTH, there seems to be a parallel of not following the exact apprenticeship "guidelines". Indeed, a father could almost understand his son deciding to take up the trade later in life. In fact, we don;t know when GH senior became a plumber except after the age of 15 and before 31. It is interesting and though I had no doubts before, the noose is tightening even more,

Mike

[Lechmere]

I will revisit the 1891 census entry for Toppy’s dad George Hutchinson Senior.
Robert has already posted it up on post no 50.
George Senior was living at 4 Lenham Road which is just off Lee High Road. It is about 2 miles away from where he had been living in 1881 (Roper Street, Eltham).
Lee comes under the Lewisham in the parish of St Margaret’s.

The household consisted of:
George Hutchinson, aged 65, a plumber born in Chelmsford, Essex.
Emma Hutchinson, his wife aged 41, from Upton (in Devon by the look of it).
Herbert Hutchinson, their son aged 1, born in Lee, Kent
Agnes M Wratton, their niece aged 14, also born in Lee, Kent.

So Toppy’s dad remarried a woman 14 years younger than himself and fathered another child.
Is this the reason Toppy moved away?
Is this the reason Toppy suddenly started calling himself Toppy?

It has been pointed out before that in 1881 George and Harriet Wratten lived in Lee with a daughter called Agnes.
Harriet was born in Upton, Buckinghamshire. Note that Emma Hutchinson was born in Upton so it is possible that Harriet and Emma were sisters, which would make Agnes Emma’s niece. Agnes was 4 in 1881, which is the right age, although was listed as being born in Blackheath, rather than Lee. However more research needs to be done as some aspects do not wholly add up. For a start it seems Emma is from Upton, Devon and Harriet from Upton, Bucks!
Also I have been unable to find that family anywhere prior to this... although sisters Harriet and Emma lived in Upton-upon-Severn... but the ages are I think out by about ten years.
It might however explain the move from Eltham to Lee.