Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

[JeffHamm]

Hi MrBarnett,

Thanks, Jeff.

It’s obviously wrong for the Leadenhall Street end, but the central space looks very similar and if there is still a mediaeval arch in place, then it’s possibly in the gap we can see in the 2004 photo and it may have once provided the access from Mitre Street.

Next time I’m that way I’ll have a look to see if there is anything visible through the modern arch.

Yah, the Leadenhall end has changed position, but I wonder if there was some requirement to continue to provide throughway access to Mitre Street? Here's my thinking on this. The passage to Leadenhall street in the photo looks too small for vehicles, and when the new construction went up, it seems strange they would bother to provide foot traffic access unless required for some reason. However, if there had been access between the two streets since medieval times is there some requirement to provide continued access? If so, it seems unlikely that requirement would apply if the Mitre Street end had previously been shut off as that would mean that access had not been continual. So if there is such a requirement, it would imply the access between the streets had some sort of historical continuity.

Otherwise, it just seems strange to me that during the construction of the new buildings they would continue to leave a passage at all unless there was some requirement to do so. Square footage isn't exactly something one disposes of needlessly in London after all.

If there is such an ordinance, perhaps the very existence of the modern Leadenhall passage way is another pointer to it being a through way passage in 1888?

This is all speculation and off the top of my head, and hinges on there actually being such a building code/access requirement (or was at the time the buildings were constructed). What becomes interesting, though, is if that's true, perhaps there are documents from the time of construction where that passage gets discussed, as they would probably have had to argue for shifting its location.

- Jeff

[MrBarnett]

Hi MrBarnett,



Yah, the Leadenhall end has changed position, but I wonder if there was some requirement to continue to provide throughway access to Mitre Street? Here's my thinking on this. The passage to Leadenhall street in the photo looks too small for vehicles, and when the new construction went up, it seems strange they would bother to provide foot traffic access unless required for some reason. However, if there had been access between the two streets since medieval times is there some requirement to provide continued access? If so, it seems unlikely that requirement would apply if the Mitre Street end had previously been shut off as that would mean that access had not been continual. So if there is such a requirement, it would imply the access between the streets had some sort of historical continuity.

Otherwise, it just seems strange to me that during the construction of the new buildings they would continue to leave a passage at all unless there was some requirement to do so. Square footage isn't exactly something one disposes of needlessly in London after all.

If there is such an ordinance, perhaps the very existence of the modern Leadenhall passage way is another pointer to it being a through way passage in 1888?

This is all speculation and off the top of my head, and hinges on there actually being such a building code/access requirement (or was at the time the buildings were constructed). What becomes interesting, though, is if that's true, perhaps there are documents from the time of construction where that passage gets discussed, as they would probably have had to argue for shifting its location.

- Jeff

Rights of way were protected by law, but I’m not sure how far that went back.

You’ll remember Smith’s Buildings being described as having ‘no thoroughfare’. Whether that meant no legal right of way or no physical access isn’t clear.

[JeffHamm]

Rights of way were protected by law, but I’m not sure how far that went back.

You’ll remember Smith’s Buildings being described as having ‘no thoroughfare’. Whether that meant no legal right of way or no physical access isn’t clear.

Ah right.

My guess would be no legal right of way, as no physical access wouldn't require such a description as it means there's no passage to describe. That might mean it was gated, and the "no thoroughfare" description made locking it off legal I guess? If that's the case, the only ways for JtR to use it on the night would be either have some way of unlocking that passage (so ties him to that ability) or it was not locked on that night (which may or may not have been common at the time I suppose). Not sure what that might mean in terms of a legal requirement to maintain a passage though, which could be covered under different statutes or subsections. Laws are often strange that way, and well outside my area of knowledge.

Hmmm, it just occurred to me know, that "no thoroughfare" is sometimes just signposted these days, but otherwise doesn't prevent physical access. It may be something that allows police to question people found in that location if they choose? Anyway, for someone with legal expertise, these aspects of the passage might be the best bet today in terms of finding out the state of things as presumably the legal documents might still be available, in all their glorious detail.

- Jeff