|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Locations and Workings of Casual Wards
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Miscellaneous:
Locations and Workings of Casual Wards
Author: Guy Hatton
Wednesday, 05 June 2002 - 05:23 am |        | You could try Multimap for a searchable 'A-Z' style map of the UK
Cheers
Guy |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 05 June 2002 - 08:14 am | | And the fact that you instantly admit error instead of wittering on with self-defence or abuse of any critics, Viper, is a further reason why Jesse and I will continue to hold you up as probably the best and most reliable contributor known to us on the boards.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: The Viper
Thursday, 06 June 2002 - 01:54 pm | | OK, casual wards. Had a rummage around the Bishopsgate Institute yesterday afternoon and spoke to the librarians at the Bancroft Library’s local history department today.
First the bad news. It wasn’t possible to confirm 100% that the Mile End casual ward was in Bancroft Road, but I couldn’t find any documentary evidence of it being elsewhere. The chief librarian at the Bancroft believes it would have been located in Bancroft Road. He’s aware that the Union also had some houses on Mile End Road, but believes these to have been used to house children only. So unless and until somebody can visit the London Metropolitan archives, which will settle the issue, we should assume that the casual ward was in Bancroft Road.
In days gone by we could have phoned the workhouse and asked them. By 1899 anybody wealthy enough to have access to a telephone could have dialed their local exchange, been put through to the Mile End exchange, and connected to phone no.5 – the Union’s number!
The earliest named Superintendents of the Mile End casual ward I could find were Henry John Donald and his wife Ellen. They were there in 1890 so Donald might possibly have been the source of the quote that Kate Eddowes intended to claim the reward for naming the murderer.
It can be confirmed that St. George's-in-the-East workhouse was indeed down in the London docks, in Old Gravel Lane. The Union also had buildings in Princes Street and Raine Street. However, St. George’s casual ward was definitely located at Old Gravel Lane.
Once thing that was very noticeable was the strong Swedish presence in that area. I was aware of a big German community in the parish, traditionally associated with sugar refining, and obviously of the Russo-Polish Jews who had entered London through the docks after 1881, but knew nothing of a Swedish community. Rather interesting when we remember Liz Stride’s nationality and her associations with the Swedish Church, which was also in the district. Pubs around the area bore names like the Three Swedish Crowns and the Swedish Flag. The strong Swedish association with St. George’s was largely a maritime one, with ships from Scandinavia constantly entering the London docks bringing in timber.
The 1881 Census revealed a little gem – though it’s probably been found already by researchers who specialise in the lives of the victims, (people like Neil Sheldon for instance). The last names on the list of those staying in the Whitechapel workhouse casual ward at 35 Thomas Street on census night 1881 are a Martha Tabran, aged 30 and a flower hawker, born in Surrey and her two sons, Frederick and Charles, eight and seven years old respectively.
While scanning the microfiche Census another interesting point turned up, one which I have not had time to investigate yet. It may be of interest to D’Onston theorists.
Pages 153-154 of Melvin Harris’ The True Face of Jack the Ripper discuss a letter written in 1907 by one Ernest Crawford of Bath to the famous journalist, G. R. Sims. Part of the letter says:-
…“Mr. S. as I will call him, told me that he believed that the outrages were instigated by the Jesuits who had reasons for getting foreign detectives into the London service (you remember that the importation of foreign detectives was talked of at the time), the miscreant never passed through the cordon of police because in the centre of the district was a Jesuit college in which he took refuge after his deeds…”
The letter writer went on to say that he was unaware of a Jesuit college in the vicinity.
This topic was discussed on the message boards a couple of years ago but nobody could place any such religeous house. Well, it transpires that there was an institution described as a monastery in Albert Place, Charlotte Street in 1881, a number of brothers being listed. The building also doubled as a school, apparently with boarding pupils. Being a census return no other details were given. I’m assuming that this Charlotte Street is the one that later became known as Fieldgate Street. Though not at the epicentre of the canonical murders, it was not far south of Whitechapel Road and only a couple of minutes’ walk from the London Hospital. Unless anybody knows about this institution and can rule it out immediately, I feel this may be worth investigating further as a possible location for this alleged Jesuit college.
Regards, V. |
Author: The Viper
Tuesday, 11 June 2002 - 12:52 pm | | X-ref: last entry, final paragraph.
In actual fact the Albert Place referred to ran off Albert Street in Mile End New Town. Some maps show a Charlotte Place (not a Charlotte Street) adjacent.
Albert St. ran N-S between Pelham Street and Buxton Street, no more than a quarter of a mile from Brick Lane. If anybody has the OS map handy it was due East from where the Truman, Hanbury and Buxton brewery was sited.
Albert Place contained a St. Anne's Catholic chapel and a Marist Monastery. From what I can ascertain, Marists were an Order which had male and female religious houses. They were inspired by Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ (wasn't St. Anne the mother of Mary?). Marists could not therefore be described as Jesuits. If anybody here is an expert on the workings of Roman Catholic denominations, feel free to correct, comment and explain!
The chapel is still marked on the 1894 ordnance map, but the monastery does not appear in street directories after the 1883 editions. All this suggests that it was not the institution referred to in Ernest Crawford's letter, even though location-wise it isn't a bad fit.
Regards, V. |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Wednesday, 12 June 2002 - 07:29 am | | Hi Viper,
As always, you've been a guiding light when it comes to the darkness surrounding the case.
Thanks for the help. 
Sincerely,
Chris H. |
|
|
|
|
