The Herne Hill Society blog

Jem Mace

The “noble art” of boxing has always held a special place in the history of sport. The sport today is linked to a set of rules, the Queensberry Rules introduced in 1867, that have come to stand for the ideal of fair play. Up to that time boxing was a much rougher business, often bare-knuckle fights with no limit to the number of rounds, not infrequently resulting in fatal injury. The law tried to distinguish between “sparring” which was thought “gentlemanly” and therefore lawful and “prizefighting” which was not, although much of the time the law turned a blind eye. Staging prizefights required careful organisation. They would be held well away from urban areas to avoid the police taking an interest. Special trains or Thames boats would be laid on to take punters – betting was the big attraction surrounding the sport – to some isolated field out of town. 

It was an event that occurred in Herne Hill that marked the beginning of the end of prizefighting, the same year the Queensberry Rules were introduced. Jem Mace was a Norwich-born prizefighter who became the Champion of England in 1861 and was due to defend his title with a prize of £400 to the winner, a huge sum at the time. He was staying overnight in the house of the station-master at Herne Hill. The plan was for him to join a special train that would leave from Ludgate Hill at 5 a.m. the next day carrying the fight spectators. But the police got wind of the plan.

The stationmaster’s wife tried to slam the door in their face but they pushed their way into the house to find Mace in bed. He tried to resist arrest with the aid of a chair and a washstand basin and attempted to exit by a window but five officers eventually restrained him. He was duly brought before the Bow Street magistrate. On substantial sureties being provided and on his undertaking to abandon the fight, Mace was released on bail. His prizefighting days in England were over, though he later found success in America, where the sport was not yet outlawed. Mace, who started life as an itinerant violinist, was married three times, twice bigamously, and was the father of 14 children. He got through a substantial fortune during his life and died penniless in 1910.

As for those hoping see the fight, the train from Ludgate Hill duly left, but there were a lot of very angry punters once it became clear they had paid 3 guineas for a trip to leafy Beckenham and back for nothing.

Laurence Marsh

Railway Outrage

“Outrage” was a popular word in Victorian headlines and the context where it probably appeared most often was railway travel – more particularly the dangers for what our male ancestors liked to call the “weaker sex”. Countless journeys were made by women without incident so it is a mistake to think that compartments without connecting corridors, as was normal for trains of that era, were the frequent scene of impropriety – or worse. But “Outrage” readily drew the attention of readers, particularly in an age where sex could not be openly discussed.

Of course there were times when the closed compartment presented a danger for women. In 1864 Harriet Marsh, a “very pretty young woman about 17 years of age in the service of a lady at Dulwich”, boarded a train at Blackfriars Station to return home. John Adlam, a “tall fine-looking man” also got into the compartment. He was wearing a uniform and Harriet observed the word “Inspector” on his collar. He was employed by the London, Chatham and Dover Railway Company. Once the train had started Adlam put a hand under Harriet’s crinoline. She moved away and said she would jump out of the train if he did that again (there were cases where women did precisely that, or opened the door and balanced precariously on the running board outside). He put her hands on her breast and she said she would cry “Murder!” if he did not desist. At that time there was a station at Camberwell Gate (later known as Walworth Road and closed for good in 1916). Here the Inspector got out. A very distressed Harriet returned to Dulwich where she reported the incident to her mistress. The inspector was convicted of indecent assault and given six months hard labour in Wandsworth prison. 

For some male passengers sharing a compartment with a female passenger could become a hazard. In 1859 the Reverend Robert Maguire was brought before the Lambeth Magistrate, accused of “grossly insulting” one Louisa Lettington by pushing a leg beneath her skirts during a journey from Kingston into town. Compartments were narrow and skirts could be voluminous. The Magistrate accepted that it was a genuine accident and one for which the reverend gentleman had apologised at the time.

“Outrage” reports in the press spurred calls for  ”Ladies Only” compartments – calls from men knowing what was best for the opposite sex. But where railway companies did introduce such compartments they were very underused. It seems most Victorian women preferred to rely on their own common sense than male condescension.

Laurence Marsh

Policing Report from Village Ward

The Safer Neighbourhood Panel for Village Ward welcomed Sergeant Ian Bartley, the new police representative on the panel. Sergeant Bartley was promoted from Westminster, where he had been working on intelligence and gang-related activity. A well-respected PCSO is leaving the ward, unfortunately, but on the flip-side the police will be gaining one and possibly two new PCs to carry out foot patrols.

The most recent crime figures for Village Ward show a significant decrease in criminal damage (29%), robbery (42%), and theft from the person (28%), although there is a seasonal element to the crime figures and there was a question mark over whether all reported crimes had been included in the figures (and these are not definitive in any event because 85% of crimes are not reported at all). Clarification is awaited on this point.

The current priorities in Village Ward are burglary (about 10 incidents every month), motor vehicle crime (also about 10 a month) and anti-social behaviour - in contrast with the current priorities in Lambeth (covering the rest of Herne Hill) of violence against the person and motor vehicle crime. Burglary was down 34% in July-August (a seasonal dip) but up 10% over the course of the year, and Herne Hill is still a relative hotspot. In terms of deterrence, it is intended to increase the visible police presence, but other measures are being considered. It was also envisaged that more use would be made of the mobile police station.

This difference in policing priorities is an example of the inconsistency in policing Herne Hill, due to it being divided not only across wards but also across boroughs. With a lot of police attention in Village Ward currently being directed towards East Dulwich, and police attention in Lambeth being directed often towards Brixton, there is a possibility that policing issues in Herne Hill may 'fall between the cracks' between the two wards and boroughs (and historically they have done). On the plus side, the issue with the ward/borough boundaries is an acknowledged problem, and arrangements are currently being revised for a higher-level coordination of police efforts. The Herne Hill Society will attempt to present a unified front to both neighbourhood panels on behalf of the local community -- and this is why it is so very useful for us to receive your feedback on policing matters.

In other business: the police were considering opening a new part-time base of operations, but no site had yet been chosen. The idea of a 'Safe Haven' scheme (whereby children who feel threatened can take shelter in advertised business premises) was floated and may be investigated further. A recent spate of graffiti in the area has been passed to the British Transport Police for investigation. Recent examples of fly-posting by paving firms; parking spaces being occupied en masse during film and television shoots on location; and terrible parking of cars (unless in a clearly dangerous position) were not, apparently, matters on which the police could act but needed to be taken up with the council instead.

Matthew Farrow

Policing Report from Herne Hill Ward

Since May 2014, Lambeth has been the 'top' borough in London for violence against the person crimes, overtaking Westminster. For the year to July 2014, 7,937 crimes of this kind took place in Lambeth, up 17% on the previous year. The figures for Southwark were 6,911 (up 9%).

Lambeth police have had success in tackling burglary and robbery, with the rates of both in Herne Hill decreasing significantly over the last year. Given the increasing problems with 'violence against the person' and 'theft of/from motor vehicle' offences, these have been adopted as new priorities for the police in Lambeth.

At the Herne Hill Safer Neighbourhood Panel on 9 September we raised the question of why Lambeth has such high levels of violent crime. The view of the police was that this is due to gangs and inter-gang conflict. This has been a long-term problem in the borough, and is an issue that cannot be solved only by the police: it is an area where Lambeth Council seems to have fallen behind other councils, including Southwark.

In other respects crime in Herne Hill tends to be lower than in other of the central Lambeth wards. There have been some incidents of burglary around Brockwell Park, and some nuisance offences in the park. There have been some incidents of robbery (particularly of mobile phones) in the area around Ruskin Park, and the importance of safety awareness was emphasised.

The police have recently carried out traps on Herne Hill Road with a speed gun, and will also be covering Milkwood Road.

Nicholas Edwards

Herne Hill and the 'people's piano'

This short documentary film was shown at the opening of the 2014 Herne Hill Free Film Festival. It was directed by Maureen Ni Fiann and filmed and edited by Tom Rochester.

Those who live in Herne Hill or use the station will know all about the public piano, which has been entertaining us for two years now.

There are some great human stories here. 

Policing and crime consultation in Southwark

The MOPAC (Mayor of London Office for Policing and Crime) is conducting consultations across London during the first quarter of 2013 to deliver its vision for changes in policing for London, against the backdrop of a significant drop in central funding.

Southwark’s consultation was held on 9 January at City Hall, and I attended on behalf of the Herne Hill Society. The evening was interesting and fast paced, but raised a lot of questions that were left unanswered. The panel comprised 2 Met, 1 Mayoral and 1 Council representatives, and the audience was primarily politicians and local councillors with representation from schools and societies such as Herne Hill’s too. The main presentation was of the MOPAC challenge to the Met to the following:

• -20% on 7 priority crimes
• +20% public confidence
• -20% reduce spend

Val Shawcross made a good point that putting a 20% cut in costs as a "challenge" alongside two positive challenges is misleading, as this is NOT something that is a benefit to Southwark. The Met currently has one of the lowest rates of public confidence, so a 20% increase may not be a particularly high target.

There were numerous statistics in the presentation, but of particular note was the fact that of 1200 additional officers for London, Southwark is being allocated only 2, despite having higher than average crime levels. This was queried by a member of public but, as with most awkward questions, was dodged by the panel.

The issue of closing East Dulwich station was discussed at length, with the panel repeatedly telling us that it was outdated and not needed. However a number of people in the audience raised the less tangible benefits of having a visible "counter" service, and also the huge area of southern Southwark that would be a considerable distance from a station if it closed.

Cllr Robin Crookshank Hilton asked a very direct question as to why they had not responded to her suggestion for relocation to the Dulwich Hospital site, and this generated a heated disagreement between the Mayoral and Council representatives about budgets which was just left hanging, again without a satisfactory response.

There is a follow-up consultation for Southwark at the end of February, the only borough to have a second consultation, which would suggest that they too saw that a lot of questions were not satisfactorily answered, and that a number of proposals did not meet with general approval.

Richard Hayes