Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

[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

[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]

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]

Gary.

Apparently in medieval times there was a passage from an entrance between 39 and 40 Mitre Street to 72 and 73 Leadenhall.

Archway Between Numbers 39 and 40 Mitre Street and at Rear of Numbers 72 and 73 Leadenhall Street, City of London, London (britishlistedbuildings.co.uk)

I would guess numbering changed a bit over the years but in the current google maps of #40 Mitre Street it does show an archway to the left of the current #40.

(#40 directly to right in this street view)

It looks like you found the right location, Jerry.

https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1359201?section=comments-and-photos

[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.

[JeffHamm]

This is interesting. It’s from a book of aerial photos I have dating from from 2004.

The gap appears to be there.

The location seems different, though. I've rotated and scaled the map to the photo (by eye) and I've sketched out in black where the photo passage and yard sort of looks to be?

And the Mitre Square end in the photo is far wider than the Leadenhall end, but there's no clear indication of it. I would think something that wide would show up as a visible gap between the buildings on the maps?

- Jeff

[MrBarnett]

This is interesting. It’s from a book of aerial photos I have dating from from 2004.

The gap appears to be there.

[jerryd]

I’ve ordered another copy of the ‘yard to the mile’ scale OS map. That may help out. When it arrives next week I’ll share it on here.

Although I’m very doubtful there was a passageway in 1888, I like the idea that there might have been because it leads in the direction of Haydon Square, about which I have a ‘theory’.

Good deal and thanks. I'm interested to hear your Haydon Square theory. Lechmere related, I assume? Bachert lived that way also.

[MrBarnett]

Probably Gary. The 36.5 does seem to indicate there is more to the structure. I didn't think of that. Nice catch!

My lingering question is, how did one get into the Ivory Warehouse and other properties in the middle of these two streets? I know No. 75 Leadenhall shows a passage back there but would that be the only way in?

Also, in the main property at No. 36 there is a white square which almost seems to be a part of the bigger courtyard. What is that?

I’ve ordered another copy of the ‘yard to the mile’ scale OS map. That may help out. When it arrives next week I’ll share it on here.

Although I’m very doubtful there was a passageway in 1888, I like the idea that there might have been because it leads in the direction of Haydon Square, about which I have a ‘theory’.

[jerryd]

Should that be house ‘and’ vaults rather than ‘7’?

The 36/36.5 numbering suggests that a gap next to 36 had been filled in?

Probably Gary. The 36.5 does seem to indicate there is more to the structure. I didn't think of that. Nice catch!

My lingering question is, how did one get into the Ivory Warehouse and other properties in the middle of these two streets? I know No. 75 Leadenhall shows a passage back there but would that be the only way in?

Also, in the main property at No. 36 there is a white square which almost seems to be a part of the bigger courtyard. What is that?

[MrBarnett]

Well, I think i figured part of the mystery out.

Again, thanks to Debs in finding the owners and occupiers in 1888. 36.5 Mitre Street was vaults. Thus the brick arched. On a brighter note, look at No. 39 Mitre Street. It included 73 Leadenhall.


Corporation of London, Esther Lyon, 34, House & shop
" , A Hart, 35, "
" , Robert johnson, 36, 36.5 House 7 vaults
" , Henry Lovell, 37, House & shop
" , James Thorogood, 38, House & shop
" , Saml. J Robinson, 39, included in 73 Leadenhall St page 16
" , Andrew lawson, 40, warehouse

Should that be house ‘and’ vaults rather than ‘7’?

The 36/36.5 numbering suggests that a gap next to 36 had been filled in?

[JeffHamm]

They are extended from walls and supposedly indicate how high above the roof level the wall extends.

Thanks!

- Jeff

[jerryd]

Well, I think i figured part of the mystery out.

Again, thanks to Debs in finding the owners and occupiers in 1888. 36.5 Mitre Street was vaults. Thus the brick arched. On a brighter note, look at No. 39 Mitre Street. It included 73 Leadenhall.


Corporation of London, Esther Lyon, 34, House & shop
" , A Hart, 35, "
" , Robert johnson, 36, 36.5 House 7 vaults
" , Henry Lovell, 37, House & shop
" , James Thorogood, 38, House & shop
" , Saml. J Robinson, 39, included in 73 Leadenhall St page 16
" , Andrew lawson, 40, warehouse

[MrBarnett]

I believe it doesn't show the typical "archway curves" at No. 36 (indicating a passage under) as it was only one story? Does that make sense?

A passage ‘through’ rather than ‘under’?

But then why would there not be a gap to show that?

I think I mentioned the roof material and that it was just one storey earlier. The wooden structure (yellow), whatever it was, went right across the plot.

We’ll have to keep searching.

[jerryd]

I believe it doesn't show the typical "archway curves" at No. 36 (indicating a passage under) as it was only one story? Does that make sense?