The Real East End

ITS COLOUR

EAST END! . . . Visions in the public mind of slums, vice, crime, sin, and unnameable horrors.

East End! . . . Dregs of humanity. Beggars and thieves. Bare-footed waifs. Outcasts. Drunkards. Jack the Ripper. Crimping dens. Dangerous streets. Policemen walk in twos and threes. Something worse than Chicago. Sidney Street. Limehouse. Opium dens.

East End! . . . Hooligans. Diseased harlots. Public-houses at every corner. Thugs lurking in every alley. Sudden death.

Well, legends are like old soldiers. But old soldiers do eventually fade away, and that is more than legends do. Fact, set beside legend, is a poor, pale thing, apathetic and incompetent to hold its own. Facts fade away and die, but legends are invulnerable and immortal; and the East End legend, I suppose, will last as long as there is any East End. Because the East End did misbehave itself in the forties and fifties of last century, the decent and kindly East End of the twentieth must go on paying for misbehaviour with which it was never concerned. The People are like that; they will cherish their traditions against all truth and all disproof. They will speak of singers as great singers long after the singers’ voices have gone to rags. They will applaud once-fine actors who have lost all ability to act. If a man has once had a term of prison he is for ever after an ex-convict. If a man is once charged with a crime and proved innocent, he is remembered for ever as the man who was charged with—— They love labels and will keep their faith in them long after the print of the label has faded. They will give a politician a good name, or a dog a bad name, and no matter what politician or dog may afterwards do, the label is never changed. So with the East End. They have fastened on the legend and ignored the fact; and if my own early books have had anything to do with nourishing the legend among them, I make no apology. It is their own fault, as I have said elsewhere, for taking imaginative Arabian Nights fictions as though they were newspaper-reporting. I admit to using the East End for my own purposes, and dramatizing it to what I wanted it to be, as many authors have done before and since with the territories of their choice.

The public’s muddled notions on the social life of the East End are accompanied by equally muddled notions on its topography, and even on its location. Many people think that the whole of the East End consists in a district called Limehouse. To a still larger number it means, topographically, any part of London east of a line drawn from Islington to Camberwell, and, sociologically, any quarter where the poor live. You have only to say to these people slums and poor and Communism, and they think at once East End. They do not know that Vauxhall, Camden Town, North Kensington and Battersea are much more truly representative of what they think they mean by the term. Even the Press often goes astray in the matter. My friend, Ernest George, who wrote that moving play, Down Our Street, keeps a bookshop in Hackney. Every press paragraph that I have seen about him states that he keeps a bookshop in the East End. In the nineties Arthur Morrison published his Tales of Mean Streets, the scene of most of the tales being Hoxton. That book is still described as a book of East End stories. Some time ago I published a tale the scenes of which were Clerkenwell and Kingsland Road. That, too, was reviewed as a tale of East End life.

In truth, the East End is as definite a quarter as the West End. Hammersmith and Notting Hill are West but they are no part of the West End, nor are Edgware Road, or Bayswater, or Paddington, though they are more West than any part of the West End. The East End, then, is only one part of that half of the metropolis which is called East London. The East End itself is the vast Metropolitan Borough of Stepney. That borough begins at Aldgate Pump and ends at Poplar, with Bethnal Green as its northern boundary and the river as its southern. Within its lines you have all those districts which compose the East End, and their names are Aldgate, Whitechapel (the Ghetto), Spitalfields, Ratcliff, Shadwell, Wapping, Mile End and Limehouse; the Tower Hamlets, in short. This is the true East End, and these are the names which, to the uninformed ear, still carry an odour of misery and evil. But it is, as I say, an odour only, with no substantial source. The East End of Blanchard Jerrold and Doré and James Greenwood perished in their lifetime, and many courts and alleys near the City border, which once were nests of hovels and the haunts of desperadoes, now hold the solid buildings of commerce and industry. Warehouses, wholesale shops, factories, and the offices of small businesses may be found occupying the houses that once were crimping dens and gambling dives. The great god Business has accomplished in a few strokes all those reforms which the philanthropic groups spend many years and tons of other people’s money in talking about. If you think you will find here any fruity samples of what is called low life, I recommend you to look elsewhere—to look off City Road and around the minor streets of certain Midland and Northern and Scottish towns.

None the less, the East End is dramatic. It is peculiarly rich in atmospheres and in variety of human types. It is as respectable as Brixton, but it is not Brixton. It is as well-clothed as Pimlico, but it is not Pimlico. It is right on the edge of the City; in fact, the City merges into it; but it is not affected by the City. Independent of each other and without warfare, the bleak, brittle life of the City marches with the warm, casual life of the East End. London has many souls, and the East End is its dramatized soul, for it is built of all nations. Its townscapes, if not pleasing, are affecting. All have quick lines of character, for souls from all parts of Europe have wrought this quarter into what it is and have left their impress upon it. Its hundreds of rheumatic courts and alleys, blocked in and left as they were two centuries ago, are charged with exotic atmosphere. Its dusk and its night are apart from the dusk and night of other quarters. Its life may be ugly to those who see modern art as ugly, but, like that art, it is inspired by a gusty strength which comes out in later generations, full but mellow. Its young people are the common plants from which after long breeding our garden flowers come. They take what is; the general tone, though free, is respectable. It has the genuine spirit of Bohemia. It proves what the artists have not yet learnt—that one can lead the Bohemian life, if one wishes to, in strict decency, and that muddle and drunkenness are no necessary part of it. There is no deliberation about this. It does not spring from pose or from poverty. It is the East End’s natural way of living. As for poverty, though it can show much of this, you will find deeper poverty in North and South London; and as for drunkenness, you will see much more of that in Shaftesbury Avenue and Jermyn Street than here. If it is crime you want, then again you must look elsewhere. There is today no crime quarter. Crime has become a recognized industry, with depots in all parts of London, and if it flourishes a little more in some parts than in others, those parts are the West and the Far West. Scarcely any of The Boys belong to the East End. Study police-court reports for a few days and note the addresses of the smash-and-grabbers, the hold-up men, the car thieves, the burglars. You will note very few East End addresses. There is once in a way a little disorder, created mainly by one small gang, but no more than occurs in any other district. This gang seldom does anything worse than indulge in that kind of outrageous and irritating horseplay common to all spirited and half-grown creatures; and if that kind of thing is to be called Crime, then Oxford and Cambridge are dead-black centres of crime. Such mild disorder as happens is mainly traceable to overcrowding and lack of room-space, which leads to nervous tantrums and the desire to break out. The East End has always been, and I suppose always will be, overcrowded. It is the cheapest quarter of London for living, and it acts as a magnet to the poor of all places. Progress never succeeds in clearing it, for with progress of one class goes retrogression of another. As fast as the younger generation grows up, and makes material progress, and moves to the outer suburbs and rears its children to standards a shade more middle-class, a new host of peasantry from the counties, a new host from the impoverished plains of Europe, and a new set of drifters from other parts of town come in and take their place. And these marry when they are not financially fit for marriage, and set up in one room, and so the overcrowding goes on. But they bear it well, and the horse-play of the one small rough element is rather ebullient than corrosive.

Those comfortable folk who do not cherish the East End legend of violence and depravity cherish one equally unfounded. They link the East End with misery. Misery! There are numbers of places where this may be perceived, but the East End is not one of them. A straight face does not imply personal misery any more than an ever-smiling face implies personal happiness. Yet the legend persists. A week or so ago, a daily-paper gossip-writer, presumably just out of school, described to his readers his adventure of a bus-ride through the East End, and told them that from what he saw he felt that there could be joy in life even (even!) for those who lived in the East End. The acute observer! People of this sort must have got their minds clogged when they were young and never have cleaned them. This attitude to the East End is akin to that attitude which at the words artist’s model thinks immorality; which thinks of Paris as gay, and dull Antibes, that inferior Torquay, as delightful because the Right People go there; and a walk over the Pyrenees as romantic in comparison to a walk over the Pennines. I remember one of our sleekly prosperous West End novelists telling me with a sort of sad despair that after reading some London-byway sketches of mine he felt that it was useless to try to help These People. (He did not call them These People with any intent of sneering; he used the term instinctively as a zoologist naming an order.) He pointed his remark with a personal experience. He had, it appeared, with his natural kindness, ventured out of his West End, and had gone Down There to give assistance at some kind of entertainment, and had found that These People displayed no signs of misery or privation, and expressed no gratitude to him for the sacrifice of his time. When I smiled he seemed unable to perceive where the joke lay. There were actually three jokes.

Another legend is that of the ignorance and illiteracy of the East End people. A brilliant young Cambridge man lately wrote a newspaper article satirizing the working classes as our future rulers, and exposing their ignorance of current affairs. He took his example (of course) from the East End—a Council School boy of fourteen. The article held the usual patronizing tone of the University boy towards the Council School boy; yet this young man must know quite well that ignorance of general matters is not confined to East End boys of fourteen. This ignorance could have been equally well illustrated by scores of examples from among our other future rulers—boys of eighteen of his own social rank. If the author thinks all boys of good family are enlightened, and all working-boys dense, any employer can correct him. Again, one of our intellectual novelists recorded recently, with a note of wonder, that on his visiting a Whitechapel home the daughters of the house were reading Marcel Proust and a volume of Tchekov’s comedies. Why the wonder? Would he have expressed wonder if the same thing had happened in Hampstead? If not, why in this case? Was it due to that ignorance of actual life which is the cause and essence of the intellectuals? Or was it a virtuous presumption that all those who were not lucky enough to be born in nice quarters are necessarily witless; that grace and culture are to be expected only in the sons of Balliol? Last year an amiable Divine surprised all informed people by a similar attitude. He announced, with some show, that he had been Down to the East End, and had made a discovery. He had discovered that the East End girl washed herself and dressed neatly!

But there are plenty like these people, clotted with half-formed prejudice, and unable to see anything outside their preconceived notions as any part of the real world; always discovering things which other people have always known. While the amiable Divine was about his exploring, he might have ventured a little farther into the terrible jungle. He would not then have told the story he did tell of a young girl of to-day, which began