Francis Thompson. The Perfect Suspect.

[Richard Patterson]

Just glancing through,most of the letters are post 1890. There is one in Feb 87 to Wilfred Maynell and just one in april 88 also to Maynell they are about articles he is sending to Maynell. They are fairly short letters. In the second one he refers to the Passion of Mary, one of his verses that is appearing in an issue of 'Merrie England' He says in the postscript' that a flood-tide of misfortune rolled over me leaving me no leisure to occupy myself with what i regard an attempt that has hopelessly failed. Hence my subsequent silence'
He had not recieved a reply from Maynell to the first letter.

Miss Marple

An interesting poem, 'The Passion of Mary' I can see why it may have caught the eye of a Catholic editor. This poem, along with his ‘Witch Babies’ murder poem, was sent, in February of 1887, to his future editor Wilfrid Meynell. In the poem, Thompson described the mother of Christ, bleeding to death from the five wounds. A flood tide of misfortune imaged as a flood tide of blood. Here's a bit of it.

‘Thou hung'st in loving agony,…
'The red rose of this Passion-tide
 Doth take a deeper hue from thee,
In the five wounds of Jesus dyed,
And in thy bleeding thoughts, Mary...
O thou who dwellest in the day!
 Behold, I pace amidst the gloom,
 Darkness is ever round my way
 with little space for sunbeam-room!’

Richard.

[Richard Patterson]

moving over from the other thread..

Thanks Richard for the reply. Can you elaborate a little on where he was living during the autumn of terror? when mary Kelly was murdered he was living on her street?

I though he was basically homeless, living in rags on the street, during the WC murders in the fall of 88??

Happy to reply Abby,

I believe that when Kelly was murdered he was living in Providence Row, but this would have been only a short time. Three weeks at the most. He also used the newly opened Salvation Army shelter in Limehouse. By the end of August 1888, he had been offered accommodation by his recently acquainted editor but Thompson refused to leave the streets. He claimed that he did not want to give up his hope that he would find his prostitute who had left him. Thompson's postal address was the Charring Cross post office however it appears that by the 2nd half of 1888, he no longer claimed his mail.

Thompson certainly was not in rags by August 1888, because his editor had already been paid a small sum of money for some essays. His editor had also who also bought Thompson a new suit, allowed him to wash at his house and gave him meals. By November, with Thompson, who could not keep a new suit for very long would have appeared disheveled, but not homeless.

Richard.

[miss marple]

Just glancing through,most of the letters are post 1890. There is one in Feb 87 to Wilfred Maynell and just one in april 88 also to Maynell they are about articles he is sending to Maynell. They are fairly short letters. In the second one he refers to the Passion of Mary, one of his verses that is appearing in an issue of 'Merrie England' He says in the postscript' that a flood-tide of misfortune rolled over me leaving me no leisure to occupy myself with what i regard an attempt that has hopelessly failed. Hence my subsequent silence'
He had not recieved a reply from Maynell to the first letter.

Miss Marple

[MrBarnett]

I have just picked up from my local second hand book seller, The letters of Francis Thompson edited by Walsh and Francis Thompson and Wilfred Maynell a memoir by Violet Maynell.
Look foward to reading them. Lovely painting of Thompson in the memoir, he looks a sensitive soul. Will try and post it.

Miss Marple

Hi Miss M,

It's funny the effect this subject has on your library. I've now got the 3 volumes of Thompson's works, and the Meynell and Walsh biographies. (I've also got two books about Pickfords!)

Thompson is certainly an interesting character.

Let us know if you find anything interesting in the letters in particular.

Gary

[miss marple]

I tried to up load a picture but I am being told the file is too big. This always happens, its very frustrating.

Miss Marple

[miss marple]

I have just picked up from my local second hand book seller, The letters of Francis Thompson edited by Walsh and Francis Thompson and Wilfred Maynell a memoir by Viola Maynell.
Look foward to reading them. Lovely painting of Thompson in the memoir, he looks a sensitive soul. Will try and post it.

Miss Marple

[Abby Normal]

moving over from the other thread..

Thanks Richard for the reply. Can you elaborate a little on where he was living during the autumn of terror? when mary Kelly was murdered he was living on her street?

I though he was basically homeless, living in rags on the street, during the WC murders in the fall of 88??

[MrBarnett]

Thanks Gary. The Tablet does have many articles on Providence Row. It is possible that Thompson may have given the Row the name of the landlord of his Chelsea prostitute, although I wonder if him referencing a Prostitute's landlord would have been the best way to introduce himself to a nun if he wanted entry. Here is the link for what it's worth to the 1926 Darkest London book by Mrs Chesterton which details conditions at the Row. The link is for the relevant chapter.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?...ew=1up;seq=245

The Chesterton link describes an even laxer regime. The women simply had to give their names to be admitted for five days.

As you say, though, that was 1926.

[MrBarnett]

Hi Gary,

Yes. You are right. Thompson could have appeared deserving all through his time in London and been able to stay for at least five nights. Interesting. I will edit my book to take this into account for future readers. Much appreciated. I wonder, if this is what happened if, he could have done this more than once and have stayed on multiple occasions or if they kept some kind of record of dubious prior applicants.

Richard.

He was probably different enough to have stuck in the mind of those who encountered him, so I doubt he could have pulled that stunt too many times.

[MrBarnett]

http://britishlibrary.georeferencer....vf7H/visualize

If you look at Joshua's map you will see the Raven Row side of the Refuge had 2 storeys as opposed the 3 on the Crispin Street side.

This (again from The Tablet, 1898) speaks of an additional storey being built on the 'men's wing':

... the Committee hoped by next winter to have placed another floor on the men's wing, which would enable them to have a loftier refectory, a permanent soup kitchen, and a drying room for clothes in wet weather. In conclusion, Mr. Purssell paid a tribute to the efforts of Mr. Lane, the superintendent of the men's section.

I very much doubt that Thompson was ever able to gaze through the Crispin Street windows towards Millers Court.

[Richard Patterson]

Hi Gary,

Yes. You are right. Thompson could have appeared deserving all through his time in London and been able to stay for at least five nights. Interesting. I will edit my book to take this into account for future readers. Much appreciated. I wonder, if this is what happened if, he could have done this more than once and have stayed on multiple occasions or if they kept some kind of record of dubious prior applicants.

Richard.

[MrBarnett]

Thanks Gary. The Tablet does have many articles on Providence Row. It is possible that Thompson may have given the Row the name of the landlord of his Chelsea prostitute, although I wonder if him referencing a Prostitute's landlord would have been the best way to introduce himself to a nun if he wanted entry. Here is the link for what it's worth to the 1926 Darkest London book by Mrs Chesterton which details conditions at the Row. The link is for the relevant chapter.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?...ew=1up;seq=245

Hi Richard,

All he would have had to do would have been to come across as 'deserving' and provide answers to the questions below. He would then have gained acess to the refuge, which is all that he would have needed to have written a first-hand account of it. If the references didn't pan out, he would have been asked to leave after his initial 5-day stint.

The Tablet, 1885

A Sister, seated between the tables, was busy taking down answers to the questions put to those seeking relief and refuge. I was allowed to look at these questions. The following are taken from the printed form :
1. Name and age of applicant.
2. Nationality and state of life.
3. Business or occupation.
4. Name and address of reference. N.B.—If an employer, the reference must be within six months, and not of less than one month's duration.
5. Length of engagement.
6. When terminated.
7. Cause of leaving.
If for some reason reference to an employer cannot be given, state particularly the case, and then the reference may be taken to the landlord of the last residence, if within six months, and for a period of not less than one month. N.B.—No reference to a common lodging-house to be accepted.
8. Name and address of referee.
9. Any further statement which the referee can confirm.
10. Any additional particulars it may be considered expedient to mention.
Pending such inquiries as may be requisite to satisfy the active committee, a white card is given to the applicants bearing this inscription: "Providence-row Night Refuge, Crispin-street and Raven-row, E., Women under Investigation." This ticket is available for five nights, and if all is satisfactory as to references, and the case is still urgent, then a fresh ticket is given to the applicant with "Admit Bearer," the number of nights being inserted accordingly.

[Richard Patterson]

Hi Richard,

The Tablet followed the fortunes of the refuge for decades.

One report from 1888 talks of the addition of 150 beds for the 'most desperate' scooped up off the streets by their night workers. Another gives precise details of the application form, including a question on why an applicant left his last employer.

Another talks of a separate 'men's wing'.

Many of them make the point that no genuine applicant was ever turned away, although in something like 30% of cases the references did not pan out and the initial 5 days accommodation was not extended.

All Thompson had to do was convince a nun that he was deserving of charity and he would have been through the door.

I'm away from my books at the moment, but my recollection of Walsh's version of events is that Thompson was saved from rock-bottom by his Chelsea prostitute. After living at her flat (room) for a period it's likely he had cleaned himself up a bit, and he would have had the name of a recent landlord he could have given the Refuge as a referee.


Gary

Thanks Gary. The Tablet does have many articles on Providence Row. It is possible that Thompson may have given the Row the name of the landlord of his Chelsea prostitute, although I wonder if him referencing a Prostitute's landlord would have been the best way to introduce himself to a nun if he wanted entry. Here is the link for what it's worth to the 1926 Darkest London book by Mrs Chesterton which details conditions at the Row. The link is for the relevant chapter.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?...ew=1up;seq=245

[MrBarnett]

I thought it might interest you that Providence Row, as described in the book In darkest London, by Mrs. Ada Cecil Chesterton, was one of the few homeless refuges, if not the only refuge that had a policy of not locking resident inside at night. As Chesterton writes.

'Moreover, and
this is a point I would urge on the Metropolitan
Asylum Board for due consideration, the door
of the dormitory remains unlocked, and its
occupants are free, if they so wish, to walk
about in the cold. Strange to say, they do
not seem to desire this peculiar form of
recreation, and unless one of them be ill,
they all stay in the bunks till the morning
bell rings.'

If this were true in 1888 and for the men's section then the warden would not be alarmed if Thompson left at night because he would not have known.

The door may not have been locked, but surely there was a night porter of some kind. Otherwise anyone could have wandered in off the street.

[MrBarnett]

Thanks Gary for the snapshot of the December 1888 Tablet article on Providence Row. Know where does it state in the article that the most destitute were given overnight accommodation, only that they were helped with clothing and being fed. I suppose though this was the inference. Why it is not stated explicitly might be because that would be counter to the rules of the institution. I also do not see any mention of references needed, but the entire piece is rightfully very favourable to the charity. Perhaps the inclusion of red-tape and paperwork would seem to mitigate the praise.

Richard.

Hi Richard,

The Tablet followed the fortunes of the refuge for decades.

One report from 1888 talks of the addition of 150 beds for the 'most desperate' scooped up off the streets by their night workers. Another gives precise details of the application form, including a question on why an applicant left his last employer.

Another talks of a separate 'men's wing'.

Many of them make the point that no genuine applicant was ever turned away, although in something like 30% of cases the references did not pan out and the initial 5 days accommodation was not extended.

All Thompson had to do was convince a nun that he was deserving of charity and he would have been through the door.

I'm away from my books at the moment, but my recollection of Walsh's version of events is that Thompson was saved from rock-bottom by his Chelsea prostitute. After living at her flat (room) for a period it's likely he had cleaned himself up a bit, and he would have had the name of a recent landlord he could have given the Refuge as a referee.


Gary