Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Booth’s Survey of Dorset Street and Miller’s Court, 1887.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Booth’s Survey of Dorset Street and Miller’s Court, 1887.


    Survey Notebook 18 (BOOTH/B/25) covering Whitechapel and Stepney, has now been digitised by the LSE. It’s full of interest, particularly in respect of Dorset Street and Miller’s Court.

    Let’s start with Miller’s Court.

    The Whitechapel/Spitalfields survey was carried out by a Mr Pointer in February and March, 1887. What a pity he didn’t do so a year or so later, we might then have had a record of Mary Kelly and Joe Barnett to mull over. As it is, only 5 houses were recorded in Millers Court, nos 1 - 5, and only 1, 2, 3 and 4 seem to have been inhabited. No. 1 contained 2 rooms and Mr Pointer, probably with input from a police minder, came to the conclusion that its occupants were ‘probably prostitutes’. There were three children, two of school age and one under 3 living in the household of a labourer at no. 2. The rent for two rooms in the court was 4/- per week.

    The court was classified as black - Lowest class. Vicious, semi criminal.

    Attached Files

  • #2


    If I’m reading it correctly, Dorset Street itself was classified as L Blue and Black and described as being inhabited by ‘Poor and low class of people. A few Jews.’ Pointer adds, ‘The girls are at any rate not open prostitutes and possibly are not so at all. They make no display of it.’



    The businesses recorded in the street included:


    3 - Furnished rooms for females.

    4 - Furnished rooms.

    8&9 - Lodging house.

    16, 17, 18 & 19 - Lodging house.

    20 - Prop[ietor] lod[ging] ho[use].

    21, 22, 23 - Pub.

    24, 25, 26 - Over stables.

    27 - Grocer sh[op] (more about this later).

    28, 29, 30 - Back of Lodging ho[use].

    32 - Pub

    33, 34, 35, 36 - Lodging house. New.

    38 - Furnished rooms for females.

    39 - Coal shed












    Attached Files

    Comment


    • #3
      It’s seems odd that Dorset Street was L[ight] Blue and Black.

      The classifications were:
      Lowest class. Vicious, semi-criminal. Black
      Very poor, casual. Chronic want. Dark blue
      Poor. 18s. to 21s. a week for a moderate family. Light blue
      Mixed. Some comfortable others poor. Purple
      Fairly comfortable. Good ordinary earnings. Pink
      Middle class. Well-to-do. Red
      Upper-middle and upper classes. Wealthy. Yellow

      Comment


      • #4
        OK, no. 27.

        A grocers shop. The R[espectable] grocer had 2 children of school age. His wife and 1 s[on] assisted him in the shop. There was also a poor bootmaker living at the address. The bootmaker also had 2 children of school age.

        I’m assuming the son who helped out in his father’s shop was ‘Steve’ McCarthy.

        Comment


        • #5
          As I mentioned above, nos 24-26 were ‘above stables’. And at the time the survey was conducted 25 & 26 were unoccupied, which presumably partly explains the low number of residences with a Millers Court address.

          Comment


          • #6
            Paternoster Row was recorded as Dorset Court. It was classified as D Blue and it’s condition was summarised thus: ‘Very poor class of Jews except for the lodging houses’.

            Two notable residents:

            A lodging house keeper with 5 kids at no 3. Who might that have been? No. 4 was a lodging house.

            A grocers’s assistant at no. 9. McCarthy’s ‘shopman’ (muscle)?




            Attached Files

            Comment


            • #7
              For reference:

              From the 1890s?




              Attached Files

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
                Paternoster Row was recorded as Dorset Court. It was classified as D Blue and it’s condition was summarised thus: ‘Very poor class of Jews except for the lodging houses’.

                Two notable residents:

                A lodging house keeper with 5 kids at no 3. Who might that have been? No. 4 was a lodging house.

                A grocers’s assistant at no. 9. McCarthy’s ‘shopman’ (muscle)?



                Mary Ann Kennedy was described as a lodging house keeper at number 4 in 1881. By 1891 she had moved to number 3 but was described as a laundress deputy (wash) so a combination of right address and right occupation but at different times!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Thanks for posting those interesting details.

                  Regarding the odd classification of light blue/black, the division between the two is shown on the 1889 version of the Booth map. The copy I have, from here, doesn't have brilliant resolution unfortunately; no doubt someone has a clearer version:

                  Click image for larger version

Name:	Booth1889Dorset.jpg
Views:	35
Size:	52.5 KB
ID:	591360

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Thanks, Debs and Chris.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I wonder if the grocer’s assistant was Henry Buckley or Daniel McCarthy.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        This is from the Charles Booth London website
                        https://booth.lse.ac.uk/map/14/-0.1174/51.5064/100/0

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Rob Clack View Post
                          This is from the Charles Booth London website
                          https://booth.lse.ac.uk/map/14/-0.1174/51.5064/100/0
                          Thanks. That is the 1898-9 version, I think, which is a bit different from the 1889 one I posted earlier. I don't think there is any light blue on Dorset Street in 1898-9.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Ah, didn't realise. Looking at it, it's quite different.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              This one isn't much better. It's a large detail from a reproduction.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X