Part 71

“In their domicile in Ham Yard,” continues the Report, “the street-orderlies have invariably been encouraged to follow pursuits which were useful and improving, after their daily labours were at an end; for this, a small library of history, voyages, travels, and instructive and entertaining periodical works, was placed at their disposal; and it is truly gratifying to the Council to be able to state, that the men evinced great satisfaction, and even avidity, in availing themselves of this source of intellectual pleasure and improvement. Writing materials also were provided for them, for the purpose of practice and improvement, as well as for mutual instruction in this most necessary and useful art; and it must be gratifying to the members of the Association to be informed, that, in April last, 34 out of 40 men appended their signatures, distinctly and well written, to a document which was submitted to them. Such a fact will at least prove, that when poor persons are employed, well fed, and lodged, and cared for in the way of instruction, they do not always mis-spend their time, nor, from mere preference, run riot in pot-houses and scenes of low debauchery. It is to be borne in mind, however, that one-half of these men were persons of almost every trade and occupation, from the artizan to the shopman and clerk, and therefore previously educated; the other half consisted of labourers and persons forsaken and indigent from their birth, and formerly dependent on workhouse charity or chance employment for their scanty subsistence; consequently in a state of utter ignorance as to reading and writing.

“Every night, after supper, prayers were read by the superintendent; and it has frequently been a most edifying as well as gratifying sight to members of your Council, as well as to other persons of rank and station in society, who have visited the Hospice in Ham Yard at that interesting hour, to observe the decorum with which these poor men demeaned themselves; and the heartfelt solemnity with which they joined in the invocations and thanks to their Creator and Preserver!

“Each Sunday morning, at 8 o’clock, a portion of the church service was read, followed by an extemporaneous discourse or exhortation by the secretary to the Hospice. They were marshalled to church twice on the Sabbath, headed by the superintendent and foremen; and generally divided into two or three bodies, each taking a direction to St. James’s, St. Anne’s, or St. Paul’s, Covent Garden; in all of which places of worship they had sitting accommodation provided by the kindness of the clergy and churchwardens. On Tuesday evenings they had the benefit of receiving pastoral visits and instruction from several of the worthy clergymen of the surrounding parishes.”

This is all very benevolent, but still very wrong. There is but one way of benefiting the poor, viz., by developing their powers of self-reliance, and certainly not in treating them like children. Philanthropists always seek to do too much, and in this is to be found the main cause of their repeated failures. The poor are expected to become angels in an instant, and the consequence is, they are merely made _hypocrites_. Moreover, no men of any independence of character will submit to be washed, and dressed, and fed like schoolboys; hence none but the worst classes come to be experimented upon. It would seem, too, that this overweening disposition to play the part of _ped-agogues_ (I use the word in its literal sense) to the poor, proceeds rather from a love of power than from a sincere regard for the people. Let the rich become the advisers and assistants of the poor, giving them the benefit of their superior education and means--but _leaving the people to act for themselves_--and they will do a great good, developing in them a higher standard of comfort and moral excellence, and so, by improving their tastes, inducing a necessary change in their habits. But such as seek merely to _lord it_ over those whom distress has placed in their power, and strive to bring about the _villeinage_ of benevolence, making the people the philanthropic, instead of the feudal, serfs of our nobles, should be denounced as the arch-enemies of the country. Such persons may mean well, but assuredly they achieve the worst towards the poor. The curfew-bell, whether instituted by benevolence or tyranny, has the same degrading effect on the people--destroying their principle of self-action, without which we are all but as the beasts of the field.

Moreover, the laying out of the earnings of the poor is sure, after a time, to sink into “a job;” and I quote the above passage to show that, despite the kindest management, eleemosynary help is _not_ a fitting adjunct to the industrial toil of independent labourers.

_The residences of the street-orderlies_ are now in all quarters where unfurnished rooms are about 1_s._ 9_d._ or 2_s._ a week. The addresses I have cited show them residing in the outskirts and the heart of the metropolis. The following returns, however, will indicate the ages, the previous occupations, the education, church-going, the personal habits, diet, rent, &c., of the class constituting the street-orderlies, better than anything I can say on the matter.

Before any man is employed as a street-orderly, he is called upon to answer certain questions, and the replies from 67 men to these questions supply a fund of curious and important information--important to all but those who account the lot of the poor of _no_ importance. In presenting these details, I beg to express my obligations to Mr. Colin Mackenzie, the enlightened and kindly secretary of the Association.

I shall first show what is the order of the questioning, then what were the answers, and I shall afterwards recapitulate, with a few comments, the salient characteristics of the whole.

The questions are after this fashion; the one I adduce having been asked of a scavager to whom a preference was given:--

_The Parish of St. Mary, Paddington.--Questions asked of Parish Scavagers, applying for employment as Street-Orderlies, with the answers appended._

Name?--W---- C----.

Age?--35 years.

How long a scavenger?--Three months.

What occupation previously?--Gentleman’s footman.

Married or single?--Married.

Reading, writing, or other education?--Yes.

Any children?--One.

Their ages?--Three years.

Wages?--Nine shillings per week.

Any parish relief?--No.

_What and how much food the applicants have usually purchased in a week._

Meat?--2_s._ 6_d._

Bacon?--None.

Fish?--None.

Bread?---2_s._

Potatoes?--4_d._

Butter?--6_d._

Tea and sugar?--1_s._

Cocoa?--None.

What rent they pay?--2_s._

Furnished or unfurnished lodgings?--Unfurnished.

Any change of dress?--No.

Sunday clothing?--No.

How many shirts?--Two shirts.

Boots and shoes?--One pair.

How much do they lay out for clothes in a year?--I have nothing but what I stand upright in.

Do they go to church or chapel?--Sometimes.

If not, why not?--It is from want of clothes.

Do they ever bathe?--No.

Does the wife go out to, or take in work?--Yes.

What are her earnings?--Uncertain.

Do they have anything from charitable institutions or families?--No.

When ill; where do they resort to?--Hospitals, dispensaries, and the parish doctor.

Do their children go to any school; and what?--Paddington.

Do they ever save any money; how much, and where?--

How much do they spend per week in drink?

Do not passers by, as charitable ladies, &c., give them money; and how much per week?--No.

Such, are the questions asked, and I now give the answers of 67 individuals.

_Their ages were_:--

10 were from 20 to 30 13 „ 30 „ 40 24 „ 40 „ 50 15 „ 50 to 60 4 „ 60 „ 70. 1 „ 70

The greatest number of any age was 7 persons of 45 years respectively.

_Their previous occupations had been_:--

22 labourers. 3 at the business “all their lives.” 3 dustmen. 3 ostlers. 2 stablemen. 2 carmen. 2 porters. 2 gentlemen’s servants. 2 greengrocers. 1 following dust-cart. 1 excavator. 1 gravel digging. 1 stone breaking in yards. 1 at work in the brick-fields. 1 at work in the lime-works. 1 coal porter. 1 sweep. 1 haybinder. 1 gaslighter. 1 dairyman. 1 ploughman. 1 gardener. 1 errand boy. 1 fur dresser. 1 fur dyer. 1 skinner. 1 leather-dresser. 1 letter-press printer. 1 paper stainer. 1 glass blower. 1 farrier. 1 plasterer. 1 clerk. 1 vendor of goods. 1 licensed victualler.

Therefore, of 67 scavagers

12 had been artizans. 55 „ unskilled workmen.

Hence about five-sixths belong to the unskilled class of operatives.

_Time of having been at scavagering._

3 “all their lives” at the business. 1 about 27 years. 6 from 15 to 20 years. 6 „ 10 „ 15 „ 4 „ 5 „ 10 years. 34 „ 1 „ 5 „ 13 twelve months and less.

Hence it would appear, that few have been at the business a long time. The greater number have not been acting as scavagers more than five years.

_State of education.--Could they read and write?_

45 answered yes. 4 replied that they could read and write. 5 could read only. 12 could do neither. 1 was deaf and dumb.

Hence it would appear, that rather more than two-thirds of the scavagers have received _some little_ education.

_Did they go to church or chapel?_

22 answered yes. 9 went to church. 4 „ chapel. 4 „ the Catholic chapel. 1 „ both church and chapel. 5 went sometimes. 1 not often. 17 never went at all. 1 was ashamed to go. 1 went out of town to enjoy himself. 2 made no return (1 being deaf and dumb).

Thus it would seem, that not quite two-thirds regularly attend some place of worship; that about one-eleventh go occasionally; and that about one-fourth never go at all.

_Why did they not go to church?_

12 had no clothes. 55 returned no answer (1 being deaf and dumb).

Hence of those who never go (19 out of 67), very nearly two-thirds (say 12 in 19) have no clothes to appear in.

_Did they bathe?_

59 answered no. 3 replied yes. 2 said they did in the Thames. 2 returned “sometimes.” 1 was deaf and dumb.

Hence it appeared, that about seven-eighths never bathe, although following the filthiest occupation.

_Were they married or single?_

56 were married. 5 „ widowers. 6 „ single.

Thus it would seem, that about ten-elevenths are or have been married men.

_How many children had they?_

1 had 15. 1 „ 6. 2 „ 5 each. 11 „ 4 „ 19 „ 3 „ 9 „ 2 „ 6 „ 1 each. 16 „ none (6 of these being single men). 2 returned their family as grown up without stating the number.

Consequently 51 out of 61, or five-sixths, are married, and have families numbering altogether 165 children; the majority had only 3 children, and this was about the average family.

_What were the ages of their children?_

11 were grown up. 2 between 30 and 40. 9 „ 20 and 30. 49 „ 10 and 20. 80 „ 1 and 10. 8 were 1 year and under. 5 were returned at home. 1 returned as dead.

One-half of the scavagers’ children, therefore, are between 1 and 10 years of age; the majority would appear to be 8 years old.

Some were said to be grown up, but no number was given.

_Did their children go to school?_

13 answered yes. 13 to the National School. 5 to the Ragged School. 2 to Catholic. 2 to Parish. 6 to local schools. 1 replied that he went sometimes. 2 returned no. 1 replied that his children were “not with him.” 22 (of whom 16 had no children, and 1 was deaf and dumb) made no reply.

From this it would seem, that a large majority--41 out of 51, or four-fifths--of the parents who have children send them to school.

_Did their wives work?_

15 returned no. 6 said their wives were “unable.” 1 had lost the use of her limbs. 2 did, but “not often.” 4 did “when they could.” 10 worked “sometimes.” 12 answered yes. 1 sold cresses. 15 made no return (11 having no wives and 1 being deaf and dumb).

Hence two-fifths of the wives (22 out of 56) do no work, 16 do so occasionally, and 13, or one-fourth, are in the habit of working.

_What were wives’ earnings?_

10 returned them as “uncertain.” 1 “didn’t know.” 1 estimated them at 1_s._ 6_d._ per week. 1 at 1_s._ to 2_s._ „ 2 at 2_s._ „ 3 at 2_s._ or 3_s._ „ 2 at about 3_s._ „ 1 at 2_s._ to 4_s._ „ 1 at 3_s._ or 4_s._ „ 1 at 3_d._ or 4_d._ per day. 43 gave no returns (having either no wives, or their wives not working). 1 was deaf and dumb.

So that, out of 29 wives who were said to work, 16 occasionally and 13 regularly, there were returns for 23. Nearly half of their earnings were given as uncertain from their seldom doing work, while the remainder were stated to gain from 1_s._ to 4_s._ per week; about 2_s._ 6_d._ perhaps would be a fair average.

_What wages were they themselves in the habit of receiving?_

3 had 16_s._ 6_d._ per week. 2 „ 16_s._ „ 28 „ 15_s._ „ 3 „ 14_s._ 6_d._ „ 1 „ 14_s._ „ 2 „ 12_s._ „ 15 „ 9_s._ „ 4 „ 8_s._ „ 5 „ 7_s._ „ 4 „ 1_s._ 1-1/2_d._ a day and 2 loaves.

Hence it is evident, that one-half receive 15_s._ or more a week, and about a fourth 9_s._

It was not the parishes, however, but the contractors with the parishes, who paid the higher rates of wages: Mr. Dodd, for St. Luke’s; Mr. Westley, for St. Botolph’s, Bishopsgate; Mr. Parsons, for Whitechapel; Mr. Newman, for Bethnal-green, &c.

These wages the scavagers laid out in the following manner:--

_For rent, per week._

1 paid 4_s._ 1 „ 3_s._ 6_d._ 8 „ 3_s._ 14 „ 2_s._ 6_d._ 33 „ 2_s._ 4 „ 1_s._ 6_d._ 1 „ 1_s._ 3_d._ 2 „ 1_s._ 1 lived rent free. 1 paid for board and lodging. 1 lived with mother.

Hence it would appear, that near upon half the number paid 2_s._ rent. The usual rent paid seems to be between 2_s._ and 3_s._, five-sixths of the entire number paying one or other of those amounts. Only three lived in furnished lodgings, and the rents of these were, respectively, two at 2_s._ 6_d._ and the other at 2_s._

_For bread, per week._

1 expended 5_s._ 3_d._ 1 „ 5_s._ 1 „ 4_s._ 7_d._ 1 „ 4_s._ 6_d._ 1 „ 4_s._ 3_d._ 7 „ 4_s._ 13 „ 3_s._ 6_d._ 8 „ 3_s._ 3 „ 2_s._ 6_d._ 4 „ 2_s._ 3_d._ 13 „ 2_s._ 4 „ 1_s._ 6_d._ 1 „ 1_s._ 9_d._ 4 two loaves a day from parish. 3 gave a certain sum per week to their wives or mothers to lay out for them, and 1 boarded and lodged. 1 was deaf and dumb.

Thus it would seem, that the general sum expended weekly on bread varies between 2_s._ and 4_s._ The average saving from free-trade, therefore, would be between 4_d._ and 8_d._, or say 6_d._, per week.

_For meat, per week._

4 expended 4_s._ 5 „ 3_s._ 6_d._ 11 „ 3_s._ 12 „ 2_s._ 6_d._ 1 „ 2_s._ 4_d._ 5 „ 2_s._ 4 „ 1_s._ 6_d._ 1 „ 1_s._ 2_d._ 9 „ 1_s._ 2 „ 10_d._ 2 „ 6_d._ 1 „ 8_d._ 1 once a week. 4 had none. 5 no returns (3 of this number gave a weekly allowance to wives or mothers, 1 was deaf and dumb, and 1 paid for board and lodging).

By the above we see, that the sum usually expended on meat is between 2_s._ 6_d._ and 3_s._ per week, about one-third of the entire number expending that sum. All those who expended 1_s._ and less per week had 9_s._ and less for their week’s labour. The average saving from the cheapening of provisions would here appear to be between 5_d._ and 6_d._ per week at the outside.

_For tea and sugar, per week._

2 paid 2_s._ 6_d._ 1 „ 2_s._ 4_d._ 1 „ 2_s._ 3_d._ 19 „ 2_s._ 2 „ 1_s._ 9_d._ 4 „ 1_s._ 8_d._ 12 „ 1_s._ 6_d._ 5 „ 1_s._ 4_d._ 5 „ 1_s._ 3_d._ 5 „ 1_s._ 2_d._ 13 „ 1_s._ 2 „ 8_d._ 5 no returns: 1 deaf and dumb, 1 board and lodging, and 3 making allowances.

The sum usually expended on tea and sugar seems to be between 1_s._ 6_d._ and 2_s._ per week.

_For fish, per week._

3 expended 1_s._ 5 „ 8_d._ 23 „ 6_d._ 8 „ 4_d._ 23 „ nothing. 4 allowed so much per week to wives, or mother, or landlady. 1 deaf and dumb.

Hence one-third spent 6_d._ weekly in fish, and one-third nothing.

_For bacon, per week._

1 expended 1_s._ 2 „ 10_d._ 1 „ 9_d._ 5 „ 8_d._ 9 „ 6_d._ 1 „ 4_d._ 43 „ nothing. 4 allowances to wives, &c. 1 deaf and dumb.

The majority (two-thirds), therefore, do not have bacon. Of those that do eat bacon, the usual sum spent weekly is 6_d._ or 8_d._

_For butter, per week._

1 expended 1_s._ 8_d._ 24 „ 1_s._ 11 „ 10_d._ 12 „ 8_d._ 11 „ 6_d._ 1 „ 3_d._ 2 „ nothing. 4 made allowances. 1 deaf and dumb.

Thus one-third expended 1_s._, and about one-sixth spent 10_d._; another sixth, 8_d._; and another sixth, 6_d._ a week, for butter.

_For potatoes, per week._

1 spent 1_s._ 2 „ 10_d._ 6 „ 8_d._ 1 „ 7_d._ 18 „ 6_d._ 6 „ 4_d._ 28 spent nothing. 4 made allowances. 1 deaf and dumb.

About one-fourth spent 6_d._; the greater proportion, however (nearly one-half), expended nothing upon potatoes weekly.

_For clothes, yearly._

2 expended 2_l._ 2 „ 1_l._ 10_s._ 2 „ 1_l._ 5_s._ 3 „ 1_l._ 1 „ 18_s._ 1 „ 17_s._ 1 „ 15_s._ 4 „ 12_s._ 1 „ 10_s._ 34 couldn’t say. 1 had 2 pairs of boots a year, but no clothes. 2 expended “not much.” 2 got them as they could. 1 expended a few shillings. 1 said it “all depends.” 2 returned “nothing.” 1 was deaf and dumb. 6 made no return.

Hence 43 out of 67, or nearly two-thirds, spent little or nothing upon their clothes.

_Had they a change of dress?_

28 had a change of dress. 38 had not. 1 was deaf and dumb.

Above one-half, therefore, had no other clothes but those they worked in.

_Had they any Sunday clothing?_

20 had some. 45 had none. 21 made no return. 1 deaf and dumb.

More than two-thirds, then, had no Sunday clothes.

_How many shirts had they?_

10 had 3 shirts. 54 „ 2 „ 2 „ 1 shirt. 1 was deaf and dumb.

The greater number, therefore, had two shirts.

_How many shoes had they?_

27 had 2 pairs. 39 „ 1 „ 1 was deaf and dumb.

Thus the majority had only one pair of shoes.

_How much did then spend in drink?_

1 expended 2_s._ a week. 1 „ 1_s._ or 2_s._ „ 2 „ 1_s._ 6_d._ „ 4 „ 1_s._ „ 1 „ 6_d._ „ 1 „ 3_d._ or 5_d._ „ 7 said they “couldn’t say.” 1 said he “wouldn’t say.” 1 said “that all depends.” 2 said they “had none to spend.” 2 expended nothing. 44 gave no return (1 deaf and dumb).

Hence answers were given by one-third, of whom the greatest number “couldn’t say.” (?) Of the ten who acknowledged spending anything upon drink, the greater number, or 4, said they spent 1_s._ a week only. But?

_Did they save any money?_

36 answered no. 31 gave no reply (1 being deaf and dumb).

_What did they in case of illness coming upon themselves or families?_

28 went to the dispensary. 8 went to the hospital. 6 „ parish doctor. 3 wives went to the lying-in hospital. 1 went to the workhouse. 2 said “nothing.” 1 “never troubled any.” 8 made no reply (1 being deaf and dumb).

The greater number, then, go, when ill, to the dispensary.

_Were they in receipt of alms?_

56 answered no. 2 „ sometimes. 3 „ yes. 6 made no returns (1 being deaf and dumb).

_Did the passers-by give them anything?_

49 answered no. 2 „ sometimes beer. 1 „ never. 2 „ seldom. 1 „ very seldom. 12 no returns (1 being deaf and dumb).

_Did they receive any relief from their parishes?_

56 replied no. 4 had 2 loaves and 1_s._ a day as wages. 1 had 4 loaves a week. 1 „ a 4-lbs. loaf. 1 „ 15 lbs. of bread. 2 answered “not at present.” 2 made no returns.

Thus the greater proportion (five-sixths), it will be seen, had no relief; two of those who had relief received 9_s._ wages a week, and two others only 7_s._, while four received part of their wages from the parish in bread.

These analyses are not merely the characteristics of the applicant or existent street-orderlies; they are really the annals of the poor in all that relates to their domestic management in regard to meat and clothes, the care of their children, their church-going, education, previous callings, and parish relief. The inquiry is not discouraging as to the character of the poor, and I must call attention to the circumstance of how rarely it is that so large a collection of facts is placed at the command of a public writer. In many of the public offices the simplest information is as jealously withheld as if statistical knowledge were the first and last steps to high treason. I trust that Mr. Cochrane’s example in the skilful arrangement of the returns connected with the Association over which he presides, and his courteous readiness to supply the information, gained at no small care and cost, will be more freely followed, as such a course unquestionably tends to the public benefit.

It will be seen from these statements, how hard the struggle often is to obtain work in unskilled labour, and, when obtained, how bare the living. Every farthing earned by such workpeople is necessarily expended in the support of a family; and in the foregoing details we have another proof as to the diminution of the purchasing fund of the country, being in direct proportion to the diminution of the wages. If 100 men receive but 7_s._ a week each for their work, their yearly outlay, to “keep the bare life in them,” is 1820_l._ If they are paid 16_s._ a week, their outlay is 4160_l._; an expenditure of 2340_l._ more in the productions of our manufactures, in all textile, metal, or wooden fabrics; in bread, meat, fruit, or vegetables; and in the now necessaries, the grand staple of our foreign and colonial trade--tea, coffee, cocoa, sugar, rice, and tobacco. _Increase your wages, therefore, and you increase your markets._ For manufacturers to underpay their workmen is to cripple the demand for manufactures. To talk of the over-production of our cotton, linen, and woollen goods is idle, when thousands of men engaged in such productions are in rags. It is not that there are too many makers, but too few who, owing to the decrease of wages, are able to be buyers. Let it be remembered that, out of 67 labouring men, three-fourths could not afford to buy proper clothing, expending thereupon “little” or “nothing,” and, I may add, _because_ earning little or nothing, and so having scarcely anything to expend.