Work among the fallen as seen in the prison cell

[seanr]

A letter to the Times, reprinted in the Londonderry Sentinel - Tuesday 09 October 1888 under the heading 'Unfortunates'.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I know you rightly responded to the offensive bit of Trevor's #101 post in #106, Herlock. It was this statement from Trevor in the same posts and something similar in #106 that made me suspect he didn't realise the specifics of the 'unfortunate' discussion.


It's along similar lines to Harry saying that not all unfortunate people were prostitutes, as I read it.

You’re right of course Debra. I think I’ve become ‘nonsense blind.’

[seanr]

It occurs to me the term 'unfortunate' is used to refer to someone who in the wording of S.G.O to the Times is thought to be engaged in 'a struggle for daily sustenance only to be purchased by the basest of physical abasement'. That is someone who may exchange sexual services for money out of desperation. Which would be different from a career sex worker, who may make their living from exchange of sexual services with some degree of choice in the matter.

The women who were labelled as 'unfortunates' were the women who lived in the lodging houses, needing to raise daily funds in order to pay for their bed or otherwise sleeping rough. The work which was available was 'piece work' where one was not an employee but was paid for delivery of a batch of items (such as being given 100 items to sew and being paid a fixed fee on return of the hundred sewn items) or seasonal, like the hop picking we know Kate Eddowes did. The 'respectable' work available could dry up at times and leave these women with no available income and so desperate and destitute, scrapping together a living as best as they can, perhaps engaging in petty crime or turning tricks - out of desperation.

As such, 'unfortunate' could be used as a euphemism for prostitution but similarly any destitute woman with no obvious means of income might similarly be labelled an 'unfortunate', without much reflection upon whether the person in question was a career sex worker or simply had no income at that particular time in their life.

[Debra A]

It occurs to me the term 'unfortunate' is used to refer to someone who in the wording of S.G.O to the Times is thought to be engaged in 'a struggle for daily sustenance only to be purchased by the basest of physical abasement'. That is someone who may exchange sexual services for money out of desperation. Which would be different from a career sex worker, who may make their living from exchange of sexual services with some degree of choice in the matter.

The women who were labelled as 'unfortunates' were the women who lived in the lodging houses, needing to raise daily funds in order to pay for their bed or otherwise sleeping rough. The work which was available was 'piece work' where one was not an employee but was paid for delivery of a batch of items (such as being given 100 items to sew and being paid a fixed fee on return of the hundred sewn items) or seasonal, like the hop picking we know Kate Eddowes did. The 'respectable' work available could dry up at times and leave these women with no available income and so desperate and destitute, scrapping together a living as best as they can, perhaps engaging in petty crime or turning tricks - out of desperation.

As such, 'unfortunate' could be used as a euphemism for prostitution but similarly any destitute woman with no obvious means of income might similarly be labelled an 'unfortunate', without much reflection upon whether the person in question was a career sex worker or simply had no income at that particular time in their life.

That's a very interesting interpretation seanr, thank you.

[PaulB]

It occurs to me the term 'unfortunate' is used to refer to someone who in the wording of S.G.O to the Times is thought to be engaged in 'a struggle for daily sustenance only to be purchased by the basest of physical abasement'. That is someone who may exchange sexual services for money out of desperation. Which would be different from a career sex worker, who may make their living from exchange of sexual services with some degree of choice in the matter.

The women who were labelled as 'unfortunates' were the women who lived in the lodging houses, needing to raise daily funds in order to pay for their bed or otherwise sleeping rough. The work which was available was 'piece work' where one was not an employee but was paid for delivery of a batch of items (such as being given 100 items to sew and being paid a fixed fee on return of the hundred sewn items) or seasonal, like the hop picking we know Kate Eddowes did. The 'respectable' work available could dry up at times and leave these women with no available income and so desperate and destitute, scrapping together a living as best as they can, perhaps engaging in petty crime or turning tricks - out of desperation.

As such, 'unfortunate' could be used as a euphemism for prostitution but similarly any destitute woman with no obvious means of income might similarly be labelled an 'unfortunate', without much reflection upon whether the person in question was a career sex worker or simply had no income at that particular time in their life.

That the term "unfortunate" was applied to any destitute and homeless woman is the argument advanced by Hallie Rubenhold and needs to be supported by evidence, which I don't recall her providing. It is irrelevant in any case because there is evidence that the victims were occasional sex workers.

[PaulB]

I am not saying that at all, what I have highlited in previous posts is the police procedures which were in operation in 1888 for dealing with prostitutes and the reasons why some of the victims had so many different aliases and could be an explantion for the police referring to each one as a prostitute.

I doubt the police would simply label anyone as a prostitue without some evidence to support that suggestion, if they had no idea as to what a victims occupation was they would have recorded it as "unknown" or "not known" to label someone as a prostitute would leave them open to a family memebr coming along, and taking exception to that entry and would be entitled to ask for proof.

Just to remind one an all extract from Sir Howard Vincents police codes in dealing with prostitutes

"Prostitutes cannot legally be taken into custody simply because they are prostitutes ; to justify their apprehension they must commit some distinct act which is an offence against the law"

1. There is frequently considerable difficulty in dealing with prostitutes in the absence of any private complaint or express statutory provision regarding them. The latter is not unfrequently found in some local enactment. The exercise of great tact and patience in the matter is in any case necessary. Prostitutes cannot legally be taken into custody simply because they are prostitutes ; to justify their apprehension they must commit some distinct act which is an offence against the law.

2. Under the Vagrancy Act, 1824, s. 3, every common prostitute wandering in the public streets or public highways, or in any place of public resort, and behaving in a riotous or indecent manner, is deemed an idle and disorderly person, and liable to one month's imprisonment with hard labour.
3. Police should observe if prostitutes, especially foreign women, are attended or watched by a souteneur or bully with a view to proceedings under the Vagrancy Act, 1898. (See ROGUES AND VAGABONDS.)

4. Under the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839, every common prostitute, or night-walker, loitering, or being in any thoroughfare, or public place, for the purpose of prostitution or solicitation, to the annoyance of the inhabitants or passengers, is liable to a penalty of 40s.

5. Under the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847, every common prostitute or night-walker loitering and importuning passengers, for the purpose of prostitution, is subject to a similar fine, or fourteen days' imprisonment in default.

( After a woman is cautioned for prostitution she is then known as a common prostitute)

6. A constable may arrest, without warrant, any person whom he sees committing one of these offences. It is, however, necessary to prove that the woman is a common prostitute, and therefore the usual practice is that she should be cautioned the first time she is seen committing the offence, a note being made of the fact of the caution having been given.

(This would have been on an official record which I have no doubt the police referred to when describing the victims as prostitutes)

7. The greatest care is necessary in dealing with prostitutes. Women arrested under the most compromising circumstances often stoutly protest their innocence, and any appearance of arbitrary action is rightly resented by the public. It is therefore essential for police to be quite sure of their facts—habitual frequentation night after night, passing and repassing, overt solicitation (especially of youths or elderly men), noisy or indecent behaviour—before arresting. Even although a gentleman accosted and complaining to the police may naturally refuse to charge the offender, he may possibly consent to give his name and address to the constable for the private information of the magistrate.

8. Police should carefully avoid being drawn into conversation with any prostitute, for unfounded charges and suspicions may easily arise therefrom. At the same time they should avoid bullying or unduly harassing these unfortunate persons if their conduct is orderly, and be acquainted with the address and way to any houses or shelters of refuge for them.

9. County and Borough Councils may make byelaws imposing a penalty upon every person who in any street or place to which the public have access commits or attempts to commit any act of indecency with any other person.

10. The police have no power to interfere with men and women talking together in the streets, so long as they behave themselves properly, and are not assembled together in such numbers as actually to cause obstruction in the thoroughfares; but if it is absolutely necessary to interfere, then it must be done civilly and firmly, without any offensive language or manners.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Unfortunately, Trevor, none of that is evidence that any of the five were prostitutes.

[PaulB]

I was more referring to when you posted a police document as proof of the victims being prostitutes. As Paul said at the time, it doesn't tell us why they were suspected by police, especially as some have highlighted the fact that there are a lack of convictions in the court records to prove a history of prostitution in the victims cases. The use of aliases may account for it but aliases were often picked up on and documented by police. RJ touched on something briefly in an earlier post, that it may be that the women were more likely to be picked up and charged for wandering the streets at night that soliciting and I do wonder if Catherine Eddowes and Alice McKenzies convictions for being drunk and/or disorderly in a thoroughfare were made in place of being charged with soliciting. Could that be the case?

That specific police code you posted from is not c 1888 is it?

The rule, particularly after the Cass case, was that a woman could only be arrested for soliciting if a person was prepared to give evidence that the woman was causing a nuisance. It is highly likely that was you have suggested is the case, namely that the woman was charged with being drunk and disorderly rather than soliciting, and that she may appear thus in the court records. The problem is exacerbated by the use of multiple names and soliciting out of their home area - I think Mary Kelly went off to Elephant and Castle, for example.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Debra’s suggestion does seem plausible. Less chance of possible repercussions if they happened to get it wrong and the woman in question wasn’t actually soliciting.

[Trevor Marriott]

Debra’s suggestion does seem plausible. Less chance of possible repercussions if they happened to get it wrong and the woman in question wasn’t actually soliciting.

In later years when a woman was cautioned there was an appeal process I am not sure wether that was the case back then

I would also imagine that in order to quell the voleume of prostitutes in specific areas plain clothes police officers would have been used, otherwise these women would see a uniform coming from a distance

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

Debra’s suggestion does seem plausible. Less chance of possible repercussions if they happened to get it wrong and the woman in question wasn’t actually soliciting.

There are tons of academic papers about soliciting in the Victorian era that present these arguments, mostly from a feminist viewpoint, and an overly expensive book by Julia Laitte which seems very good, albeit unaffordable.

When it comes to the Ripper's victims, however, it's all irrelevant because they were dead. They weren't seen to be soliciting (or rather, we have no record of them being seen doing so), there was nobody to complain that they were causing a nuisance, and there could be no charges brought against them because they were dead. The only evidence the police had was the word of witnesses like William Nichols.

[Trevor Marriott]

There are tons of academic papers about soliciting in the Victorian era that present these arguments, mostly from a feminist viewpoint, and an overly expensive book by Julia Laitte which seems very good, albeit unaffordable.

When it comes to the Ripper's victims, however, it's all irrelevant because they were dead. They weren't seen to be soliciting (or rather, we have no record of them being seen doing so), there was nobody to complain that they were causing a nuisance, and there could be no charges brought against them because they were dead. The only evidence the police had was the word of witnesses like William Nichols.

But the question has always been how did the police come to label them as prostitutes there must have been some police action against them, followed by a report to support any street caution that was given out. As I said before the police would not label someone as being a prostitute without good cause.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

But the question has always been how did the police come to label them as prostitutes there must have been some police action against them, followed by a report to support any street caution that was given out. As I said before the police would not label someone as being a prostitute without good cause.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,
The problem is that Rubenhold says the police did label a woman a prostitute without good cause - something along those lines had famously happened in 1887 with the Cass case - and argues that the police labelled all homeless and destitute women prostitutes. Also, there is no record of any police action taken against the victims, so what one believes the police would or wouldn't have done is irrelevant. Of course, what undermines Rubenhold's argument entirely is that there is evidence that the victims were prostitutes (William Nichols' comment for example) but Rubenhold omitted it.

[Ms Diddles]

Trevor,
The problem is that Rubenhold says the police did label a woman a prostitute without good cause - something along those lines had famously happened in 1887 with the Cass case - and argues that the police labelled all homeless and destitute women prostitutes. Also, there is no record of any police action taken against the victims, so what one believes the police would or wouldn't have done is irrelevant. Of course, what undermines Rubenhold's argument entirely is that there is evidence that the victims were prostitutes (William Nichols' comment for example) but Rubenhold omitted it.

Hi Paul,

Wasn't Stride prosecuted and sentenced to a weeks hard labour for being drunk and disorderly, as well as soliciting in 1884?

Unless this was a mis-fire, like in the Cass case, I'm assuming they had evidence to support the charge of soliciting.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I just started reading The Case Of The Murderous Dr Cream by Dean Jobb and just 4 pages in we get “Prostitutes were named as ‘unfortunates’ in the press.’”

Looks like everyone is making the same mistake and only Harry is getting it right.

[Herlock Sholmes]

From an the Online Etymology Dictionary:


mid-15c., "unlucky," from un- (1) "not" + fortunate (adj.). Infortunate in same sense is older. In late 18c.-early 19c., unfortunate woman was a polite way to say "prostitute." The noun meaning "one who is not fortunate" is recorded from 1630s

And this is from an Etymology ( the study of the origin of words and the way in which their meanings have changed throughout history.) Dictionary Harry.

Could this be any clearer?