The Refractory Pupil

Here's a letter contributing to the debate on managing unruly school-children which continues to this very day. It's remarkble how - although we associate the Victorians with iron discipline - the same issues about teacher authority - about parents teaching their children not to respect teachers - are raised in this letter from 1901.

THE JUVENILE HOOLIGAN

To the Editor of THE OUTLOOK

Elementary schoolmasters - or, at any rate, a great number of them - have a deep-seated grievance which deserves careful and whole-hearted consideration - a grievance which affects nothing more nor less than the very system of compulsory education. It is all very well to talk about this reform and that reform; but, after all, a great deal lies in the hands off the men who come into actual contact with the class for whom the school board system is run - the hundreds of children of all descriptions whose parents will not or cannot have them educated anywhere else. Many of these are tractable children, anxxious to learn, and well-behaved withal; others - and they are many, very many - are juvenile hooligans of an advanced and virulent type. And here the grievance of the master may  be said to begin.
    His cry is for authority - a freer hand. At present he is between the devil and the deep sea. Should he inflict the slightest corporal punishment upon a refractory pupil - a highly necessary action in some cases - he is placed between the enraged parent, who is determined to pursue the matter, on the one side, and the possibility that he may be strongly censured, or even dismissed by the Board, on the other.
     Well, what can he do?
      Every parent seems to drum into his or her children the fact that their schoomaster is merely a paid servant, supported by the money that they themselves pay. Naturally, the result of such a view as this is the utter overthrow of real authority.
      How can a master hope to do any good at all if his class does pretty well what it likes with absolute impunity? But I can hear people saying, why not "keep them in," and give them impositions to do? Impositions are all very well for children of the cultured classes, who are sensitive to punishments of this kind; but with children of the hooligan persuasion impositions are a mere farce. The punishment loses half its value when it does not appeal to the sensitiveness of the punished. The avverage child of, say, the Borough does not mind mere "stopping in," or writing lines; he does not see anything degrading about it. But give him a sharp reminder that he will feel and the ethics of punishment at once strike him as a disagreeable reality.
     I once visitted a board school in the South of London, in a neighnourhood which has a particularly bad name for violence and general bad behaviour. Never shall I forget the scene. The master was a mild, middle-aged man of undoubted abilities for teaching - but he was mild. Thhat sufficient for the youthgful hooligans of whom his class mostly consisted. They jeered at him when he reprimanded them, and when I asked him why he permitted such a state of affairs, and did not administer a sound thrashing to some of them, he replied wearily that it would be quite a fatal thing from his point of view. And on questioning him further, I gathered that his predecessor had been severely censured for striking a boy; and he had therefore sent in his resignation. Still, censure or no censure, had I been the master I should have given one or two of those little savages a sharp lesson. Even when the unhappy master dismissed his class they filed out making audible insulting remarks; some of them even  placed their finger to their noses and "booed" him.  I only hope that this school was an exception to the general rule; for the amount of work done appeared to me to be infinitesimal - a fact not due so much to the fault of the master as his helplessness as regards the judicious infliction of corporal punishment. Without this power he was pitifully weak, and his pupils were not slow to recognise this.
      Let us hope that the school boards will give this matter their earnest consideration as soon as possible. Some small regulation dealing with the matter might easily be framed in such a manner that certain restrictions in the infliction of corporal punishment were made. This would, I feel sure, do a great deal to check the growth of hooliganism by striking at the root, as it were, instead of waiting until the disease has had time to develop.

RONALD L. PEARSE

The Outlook, January 12 1901

The Chapel Street Gang

A gang fight on the streets of North London; a 12-year-old girl shot in the cross-fire.

2010?

No. 1897.

Following two previous posts on teen crime and hooligans, here's the Chapel Street Gang in Victorian Islington:-

At CLERKENWELL, JOHN GOODEY, aged 17, a beer bottler, MICHAEL REED, 16, a capsule-maker WILLIAM SPIERS, 16, a bookbinder, and GEORGE ROBERT ROBSON, 17, a van-guard, were brought up and charged on remand before Mr. Horace Smith at Clerkenwell with riotous conduct and with disturbing the public peace at Margaret-street, Clerkenwell. Goodey and Robson were further charged with causing the death of Margaret Jane Smith, aged 12, by shooting her in the head of the 3rd inst. ELIZA WALTERS, aged 15, a factory girl, and JAMES BEAUMONT, 15, a machine boy, who were arrested and brought before the magistrate after the other prisoners were charged, were also charged on remand with riotous conduct and with being concerned in causing the death of the girl. Mr. Ricketts, solicitor, defended Spiers. Mr. Byron prosecuted on behalf of the Treasury, and said that the facts of the case disclosed a most extraordinary state of affairs in Clerkenwell, especially in the neighbourhood of Margaret-street. For some months past the streets in this part of London had been infested by two opposing gangs of young roughs, known as the "Chapel-street gang" and the "Lion gang." Since last Christmas there had been three pitched battles between these gangs, the lads fighting with sticks, belts, &c. Sometimes there would be girls in the gangs. Some of the boys in the Chapel-street faction were known to have possessed pistols and revolvers, which they fired at doors and other objects after the fights were over. On June 3, after the third fight, Robson, who was known as "Baker," fired a revolver in the direction of some of the lads in the "Lion gang." The unfortunate girl Smith, the daughter of a cabdriver, who was crossing Margaret-street at the moment, was shot in the head and died soon afterwards. The prisoner Eliza Walters, who was standing near Robson, cried out, "Fire, Baker," just before the shot was fired. The lad Spiers, when arrested, had a document in his possession, written in pencil, which was apparently a form of challenge to his gang from the "Lion gang." Fights had taken place between the girls of the opposing factions as well as between the boys. Alfred Smith, a van-guard of Wilmington-street, Clerkenwell, said he knew the deceased girl Smith, but was no relation of hers. He saw the shot fired, and heard Walters say, "Fire, Baker." Some of the lads in Robson's gang also cried out "Fire" before the girl was shot. He say a boy named Steadman, a member of the other gang, some distance down Margaret-street at the time. The "Lion gang" were in the habit of congregating outside the Lion and Lamb publichouse, in Margaret-street. Beaumont was a spy who used to bring intelligence to his comrades of the movements of the other gang. Cross-examined, the witness said he was a member of the "Lion gang," but had never taken any part in the fights. Further questioned, he said he only fought with his fists - "any one who interfered with him, he had a whack at 'em back." He did not see Spiers in Margaret-street when the girl Smith was shot. The prisoners were again remanded.

Times, 18 June, 1897

THE CLERKENWELL SHOOTING CASE
Dr. Danford Thomas held an inquiry on Saturday at St. Pancras into the death of Margaret Jane Smith . . . Alfred Smith, carman, deposed that while he was in Margaret-street, Clerkenwell, at nine on Thursday night, he noticed a gang of boys and girls - about 20 altogether - behaving in a very disorderly manner. A greengrocer's boy, named Joseph Steadman, was wheeling a barrow along the street when a lad named Mark quarrelled and fought with him. A girl shouted to a lad, "Baker, fire," and then the witness say Baker fire a revolver in the direction of the combatants. Witness's belief was that the shot was meant for Stedman. As soon as Baker fired witness saw the deceased girl fall. She was crossing the road between two gangs of boys.
Inspector Briggs said there were two gangs at feud. At Christmas the police arrested 28 of the lads, on some of whom revolvers were found. The fights between the gangs were renewed on Thursday night. The real name of the lad known as "Baker" was Robson. He knew that he carried a revolver. One of the gangs belonged to Chapel-street, and the other to Margaret-street, Clerkenwell. Whenever one of the former came across one of the latter a fight ensued. Most of the Chapel-street, gang carried revolvers. They discharged them when they entered Margaret-street to denote their approach. The fights generally originated in quarrels about girls.

The Morning Post, June 7, 1897

At CLERKENWELL, WALTHER SALINGER, 20, merchant, a native of Germany, residing in Newington-green-road, was charged, before Mr. Horace Smith with the murder of Charles Cooper on June 15, by shooting him with a revolver in Pentonville-road. Mr. Frayling prosecuted on behalf of the Treasury; the prisoner was defended by Mr. Biron. Since Salinger was taken into custody, Cooper has succumbed to the injury he received. Evidence at the first hearing of the case was given by a coffee-stall keeper named Buck, who said that Cooper and several companions interfered with a woman who was drinking coffee at his stall. He remonstrated with them, when they threw several cups and saucers at him. the prisoner rebuked the men for their behaviour, when Cooper made a blow at him. Salinger then took a revolver from his pocket and shot his assailant in the abdomen. Mr. Frayling remarked that the prisoner was a respectable man, whereas Cooper was a man of bad character, and had been frequently convicted in that Court. Salinger received a blow before he shot Cooper, and in reply to the charge that prisoner stated that one of his assailants had an open knife in his hand and that he presented the revolver with a view of frightening them. The Treasury proposed to prefer a charge of murder against Salinger. Mr. Horace Smith questioned whether the facts as related by the Treasury solicitor warranted a charge of murder being preferred against the prisoner. Mr. Biron asked the Treasury solicitor to consider seriously before he perferred a charge of wilful murder against Salinger, especially having regard to the evidence given before the coroner. At the inquest the suggestion of murder was at once put aside and the jury returned a verdict of manslaughter against the prisoner. After further discussion, Mr. Frayling said he would prefer a charge of manslaughter against Salinger. George Buck, the coffee-stall keeper, was recalled, and subjected to a long cross-examination by Mr. Biron. The witness said that he was pelted with cake, cups, and saucers by the deceased and his companions. After he had been thoroughly abused, Salinger took his part. The deceased aimed a terrific blow at Salinger, who stepped back and pulled a revolver from his pocket. One of the friends of the deceased at the same time flourished an open knife, and shouted, "I'll have a go." The deceased was a member of the "Chapel-street gang," who were a constant source of annoyance to him and other people. Mr. Biron - When the deceased was aiming a blow, did he look violent? The witness - He looked like murdering the prisoner. These gangs over-turn oyster-stalls and attack individuals. They would kick your brains out if they had the chance. They would think nothing of robbing you, and leaving you for dead. Walter Schroeder, deputy coroner, produced a sworn statement made by the prisoner at the inquest, in which the prisoner declared that he had been in this country since October last studying English, and was supplied with money from his father, who resided in Germany. He was attacked by Cooper, who struck him in the eye, and he took a revolver from his pocket to frighten his assailant. The weapon went off accidentally. The prisoner's father is a paper merchant in Berlin. A record of the convictions against the deceased man was handed to the magistrate. The accused was remanded, bail being allowed.

Times, July 1, 1898

CLERKENWELL
George Bliss, 22, described as a member of the Chapel-street gang, was committed for trial on a charge of stabbing Police-constable Stevens, 210 G, behind the right ear on 24th July. James Day, 19, labourer, of Rodney-street, Clerkenwell, was charged with being disorderly. - Police Constable Powell, 415 G, said at midnight on Friday he saw the Prisoner and a number of other lads fighting with sticks and belts in Pentonville-road. He dispersed them, and secured the Prisoner, who had in his hand a heavy buckle-ended belt. It appeared that Prisoner was a member of a gang of lads who arranged to meet another gang in the neighbourhood for the purpose of settling with sticks and belts a grievance which had arisen between them. - Mr. Horace Smith: Yes, I wish I had both gangs here. I must do what I can to stop this kind of thing. The prisoner will be fined 40s., in default a month's imprisonment.

The Standard, August 1, 1898

At CLERKENWELL, HENRY BROWN, 26, WILLIAM SEWELL, 23, and JOHN PHILO, 25, described as costermongers, were charged with assaulting Sophia Willsher. Mr. Ricketts prosecuted. The complainant is a fruit-seller, having a stall in Chapel-street, Clerkenwell, and for some time past she has been annoyed by the defendants. On Tuesday afternoon Philo walked up to the complainant and used offensive language to her. He was joined by the other two defendants, who also abused the complainant. Philo afterwards stooped down and getting his shoulders underneath the complainant's stall overturned it, shooting grapes, cherries, greengages, and other fruits to the value of £6 into the roadway. The other defendants stood by laughing. She seized Philo, when he kicked her in the stomach, and Brown struck her a heavy blow in the chest. Philo ran off, but she gave Brown into custody. He became violent, and Sewell made a determined attempt to rescue him. Sewell afterwards ran up to the complainant and dealt her two vicious blows in the face. almost rendering her unconscious. She gave him into custody. Mr. Ricketts added that the defendants were in the habit of levying blackmail on the complainant. They intimidated her, and for some time past Mrs. Willsher had paid Brown 5s. a week in other that he should not annoy her. Replying to the magistrate, police-constable 42 N R said the complainant was a most respectable, hard-working woman. The defendants were violent men and members of the Chapel-street gang. There was a long record of convictions against Philo, and alo convictions against the other defendants. Mr. Brow sent Philo to gaol for six months, and ordered the other two defendants to pay 40s. each or to go to gaol for one month.

Times, July 27, 1899

Gangs of Roughs

I've commented before on hooliganism, a topic which will feature in my next novel, but it's fascinating to note how vicious behaviour and teen gangs are not a modern phenomenon, whatever the media would have you believe (whether we have more incidents of such things, I genuinely don't know). Here's some examples ... I challenge you to read the articles below and not feel just a little bit less paranoid about modern London life.

Islington - always been a bit rough, innit?

At CLERKENWELL, JOHN GARVEY, 19, a rough-looking youth, was charged with feloniously cutting and wounding his father by stabbing him in the head and shoulder with a pocket knife. The father, William Garvey, living in Adelaide-square, New North-road, said that his son lived with him, but was very unruly. On Sunday night he was with a number of other lads outside the house, and witness, who was in bed, was disturbed by their whistling and singing. he called from the window of his bedroom to his son, telling him to be quiet or go away. Within a few minutes afterwards the prisoner rushed into his bedroom with an open knife in his hand and began abusing him for calling out of the window, and called him many bad names. Witness tried to put him out of the room. The prisoner then struck him, and witness felt the knife enter his left shoulder. A second blow was given, and the knife entered his head on the left side. They struggling for the knife, and witness got his hand cut, and lost so much blood that he became insensible. A constable was fetched, and the prisoner charged; witness afterwards finding him at the station, where his own wounds were dressed. Mr. F.J.Bucknell, M.D., of Upper-street, Islington, divisional surgeon, deposed to attending the prosecutor, who had received a stab in the left shoulder and a severe cut on the head, partially dividing the left ear. The prisoner, who when charged made no statement in defence, now said that he had nothing to say, and was fully committed for trial at the Middlesex Sessions.

The Times, 7th June, 1881

THE ISLINGTON ROUGHS. - Joseph Bonner, 19, labourer of Beaconsfield-buildings, York-road; and William Richards, 19, labourer, were charged with assaulting Constable Ross, 147 Y, while in the execution of his duty. It was stated by the police that the two prisoners belonged to a gang of roughs who were in the habit of parading the streets armed with sticks, stones, and knotted ropes, creating a disturbance by fighting among themselves, and molesting every person they met. On Sunday afternoon Police-constable Ross met a gang of about forty youths, behaving in this manner described in Charlotte-street, Islington, the two prisoners being among them. He took Richards, who was armed with a thick stick, into custody, and Bonner then struck him on the head with a knotted rope, damaging his helmet. He took the stick from Richards, but Bonner wrested it from him and struck him several violent blows on the back with it. Richards also struck him and kicked him in endeavouring to escape from custody. He let Richards go and took Bonner into custody, and Richards was apprehended on the following morning. Mr. Hosack sentenced Bonner to two months' and Richard to one month's hard labour.

Reynolds Newspaper, October 2, 1881

AT CLERKENWELL, WILLIAM BROWN, 16, schoolboy, of St. John's-square, Clerkenwell, and HENRY FOXCROFT, 18, of Mount Pleasant, Clerkenwell, were charged with having been concerned with others not in custody in discharging a loaded revolver at Arthur Hobbs with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. The prisoners were further charged with having been concerned in wounding James Page, of Milton-place, Holloway, by shooting him on the 31st ult., and also, in conjunction with others, in cutting and wounding John Agnes, by stabbing him with a knife on Sunday last. The first prosecutor, Hobbs, a sawyer, living at Southampton-street, Pentonville, stated that he was talking to a friend in Upper-street, Islington, on the evening of the 31st. ult. ,when Foxcroft assaulted him by giving him a blow on the face, knocking him down. Brown then, it was alleged, came up, stood over the prosecutor and drawing a revolver from his pocket fired one shot at the prosecutor's head. The shot appeared to have struck a man named Page, who was standing near, and who was wounded in the thigh. The injured man was attended by Dr. White, divisional surgeon, who extracted a bullet. The prisoners, after the shot was fired, ran away in the direction of Pentonville, and were not seen by the police until yesterday. The evidence of witnesses as to the first two charges was taken; but a remand was asked for to complete the cases, and for the medical evidence as to the condition of the wounded men. The prisoners were remanded for a week.

The Times, June 23rd, 1885

Hooliganism

HOOLIGANISM

'Hooligans' first appeared in the 1890s. Previously they were called 'roughs' or 'thugs' and 'Hooligan' was just an Irish surname; then the word somehow acquired the modern meaning.

Clarence Rook's The Hooligan Nights (1899), purporting to be a factual account of the London underworld, contemplates a sample 'hooligan' in Lambeth, by the name of Alf. His book doesn't quite read like a straight documentary account; and one suspects - simply because its so artfully done - that it's substantially fiction. Rook does, however, provide an explanation for the word's origin:

"There, was, but a few years ago, a man called Patrick Hooligan, who walked to and fro among his fellow-men, robbing them and occasionally bashing them. This much is certain. His existence in the flesh is a fact as well established as the existence of Buddha or of Mahomet. But with the life of Patrick Hooligan, as with the lives of Buddha and of Mahomet, legend has been at work, and probably many of the exploits associated with his name spring from the imagination of disciples. It is at least certain that he was born, that he lived in Irish Court, that he was employed as a chucker-out at various resorts in the neighbourhood."

I strongly suspect this also is pure fiction. I can't find this man in the press, certainly not in the early articles which use the word; and Rook's comparison to Buddha or Mahomet is protesting just a little too much. The next thing, of course, is to consult the OED:

"The word first appears in print in daily newspaper police-court reports in the summer of 1898. Several accounts of the rise of the word, purporting to be based on first-hand evidence, attribute it to a misunderstanding or perversion of Hooley or Hooley's gang, but no positive confirmation of this has been discovered. The name Hooligan figured in a music-hall song of the eighteen-nineties, which described the doings of a rowdy Irish family, and a comic Irish character of the name appeared in a series of adventures in Funny Folks."

The OED is not quite right, however - and I know this only because of the new British Library press database. I've put the articles here - what it shows is that the first 'hooligans' were a distinct gang in Lambeth in 1894 who called themselves the 'Hooligan boys'. This follows a music-hall song called the 'O'Hooligan Boys' which was being performed nearby in 1891; and one is inclined to think that is where they got the name. The phrase then got generalised - a 'masher' in Paddington (nowhere near Lambeth) is called a 'member of the Hooligan gang' in 1895 - until we have 'hooligan girls' who push and punch another girl in 1898.

In short, looking through the press reports, the phrase clearly describes a particular group of young men in 1894. The specificity to Lambeth, and that particular group is gradually lost, as more shocking stories of 'hooliganism' appear (often not much different from regular crimes, to tell the truth). There is, admittedly, a particular flare-up of violence in Lambeth in 1898, which attracts the 'hooligan' tag - and more press attention to the area. But soon it appears 'hooliganism' is everywhere, not just darkest South London.

Interestingly, some of the offences ascribed to 'hooligan gangs' are serious - murder and threatening witnesses - whilst some are trivial (knocking hats off people's heads, for instance) but the tag of 'hooligan' fits all. British residents can compare and contrast with the modern 'hoodie' paranoia, or any moral panic in the last two hundred years. There were, of course, plenty of criminals in Lambeth - but how many were 'hooligans'?

The moral, if any, is that the press - the media - the public - love neat labels?