menu_book Chapter 50

Section 50 of London Labour and the London Poor, Volume 2, by Henry Mayhew. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain. Recording by Gillian Hendry. Of the Street Orderlies. Continued. Such, then, is a brief account of the rise and progress of this new mode of street-sweeping,

and we now come to a description of the work itself. The orderlies, says the report of the association, keep the streets free from mud in winter and dust in summer, and that with the least possible personal drudgery, adhering to the principle of operation laid down,

namely that of cleansing and keeping clean. They have merely after each morning's sweeping and removal of dirt to keep a vigilant lookout over the surface of street allotted to them and to remove with the handbrush and dustpan from any particular spot, whatever dirt or rubbish may fall upon it at the moment of its deposit. Thus are the streets under

their care kept constantly clean. But sweeping and removing dirt, continues the report, is not the only occupation of the street orderly, whilst keeping up a careful inspection of the ground allotted to him. He is also the watchman of house property and shop goods, and guardian of reticules, pocketbooks, purses and watchpockets, the experienced observer and detector of pickpockets, the ever-ready, though unpaid, auxiliary to the police constable. Nay more, he is always at hand

to render assistance to both equestrian and pedestrian. If a horse slip, stumble or fall, if a carriage break down or vehicles come into collision, the street orderly darts forward to raise and rectify them. If foot passengers be run over or knocked down or incautiously loiter on a crossing, the street orderly rescues them from peril or death, or warns them of the approaching danger of carriages driving in opposite directions. If other accidents befall pedestrians, if they fall

on the pavement from sudden illness, faintness or apoplexy, the street orderly is at hand to render assistance, or convey them to the nearest surgery or hospital. If strangers are at fault as to the localities of London or the place of their destination, the orderly in a civil and respectful manner directs them on their way. If habitual or professional mendicants are importunate or troublesome, the street orderly warns them off, or hands them to the care of the policeman.

and if a really poor or starving fellow creature wanders in search of food or alms, he leads him to a workhouse or soup kitchen. Note, a street orderly in St. Martin's Lane recovered a piece of broadcloth from a man who had just stolen it from a warehouse. Others in Drury Lane detected several thefts from provision shops.

Two orderlies in Holborn saved the lives of the guard and driver of one of Her Majesty's mail carts, the horse having become unmanageable in consequence of the shafts being broken. In St. Mary's Church Lambeth, a gentleman having fallen down in apoplexy, the orderlies who were attending divine service, carried him out into the air and promptly procured him medical aid.

But, unhappily, life was extinct. Many instances have occurred, however, in which they have rendered essential service to the public and to individuals. End note. Should the system become general, of which there is now every good prospect,

it will be the means of rescuing no less than 10,000 persons and their families from destitution and distress in London alone, from the forlorn and wretched condition which tempts to criminality and outrage to that of comfort, independence and happiness, produced by their own industry, aided by the kind consideration

of those who are more the favourites of fortune than themselves. In conclusion, it may be stated that the street orderly system will keep the streets and pavements of London and Westminster as clean as the courtyard and hall of any gentleman's private dwelling. It will not only secure the general comfort and health of upwards of two millions of people, but save a vast annual amount to shopkeepers, housekeepers and others, with regard to the spoiling of their goods by dust and dirt,

in the wear and tear of clothes and furniture by an eternal round of brushing, dusting, scouring and scrubbing. The foregoing extract fully indicates the system pursued, and results of street orderly-ism. I will now deal with what may be considered the labour or trade part of the question. By the street orderly plan, a district is duly apportioned. To one man is assigned the care of a series of courts, a street,

or 500, 1,000, 1,200, 1,500, or 2,000 yards of a public way, according to its traffic, after the whole surface has been swept the first thing in the morning. In Oxford Street, for instance, it has been estimated that 500 yards can be kept clear of the dirt continually being deposited by one man. In the squares, where there is no great traffic, 2,000 yards. While in so busy a part as Cheapside, some nine men will be required to be hourly on the lookout.

These street orderlies are confined to their beats as strictly as our policemen, and as they soon become known to the inhabitants, it is a means of checking any disposition to loiter or to shirk the work, to say nothing of the corps of inspectors and superintendents. The division of labour among the street orderlies is as follows.

1. The foreman, whose duty is to look over the men, one such overlooker being employed to about every twenty men, and who receives fifteen shillings per week. 2. The barrowmen, or sweepers, consisting of men and boys, the former receiving 12 shillings, and the latter generally 7 shillings per week. The tools and implements used, and their cost, are as follows.

Wooden scoops, to throw up the slop, 1 shilling tuppence each. They used to be made of iron, weighing 8 pounds each, but the men then complained that the weight broke their arms. Shovel, 2 shillings threepence. In the amount of his receipts, the street orderly appears to a disadvantage, as many of the regular hands of the contractors receive 16 shillings weekly, and he but 12 shillings.

the reason for this circumscribed payment i have already alluded to the deficiency of funds to carry out the full purposes of the association contrasted with the remuneration of the great majority of the pauper scavengers the street orderly is in a state of comparative comfort for he receives nearly double as much as the guardians of the poor of chelsea and the liberty of the rolls pay their labourers, and full 25% more than is paid by Bermondsey, Detford, Marlebone, St James's Westminster,

St George's Hanover Square, and St Andrew's Holborn. And I am assured it is the intention of the council to pay the full rate of wages given by the more respectable scavengers, namely 16 shillings a week each man. If traders can do this, philanthropists, who require no profit, at least should be equally liberal. The labourer never can be benefited by depreciating the ordinary wages of his trade, and I must in justice confess that there are

scattered throughout the report repeated regrets that the funds of the association will not admit of a higher rate of wages being paid. The street orderly is not subjected to any fines or drawbacks, and is paid always in money, every Saturday evening, at the office of the Association. In this respect, however, he does not differ from other bodies of scavengers. The usual mode of obtaining employment among the street orderlies

is by personal application at the office of the Association in Leicester Square, but sometimes letters well penned and well worded are addressed to the President. The daily number of applicants for employment is far from demonstrative of that unbroken prosperity of the country of which we hear so much. On my inquiring into the number, I ascertained, towards the end of August,

that for the previous fortnight, during fine summer weather, London being still full of the visitors to the exhibition, on an average 30 men, of nearly all conditions of life, applied personally, each day, for work at street-sweeping, at 12 shillings a week. Certainly this labour is not connected with the feeling of pauper degradation,

but it does not look well for the country that in 12 days 360 men should apply for such work. On the year's average, I am assured, there are 30 applications daily, but only 10 new applicants, as men call to solicit an engagement again and again. Thus, in the year there are 9,390 applications and 3,130 individual applicants. In the course of one month last winter, there were applications from 300 boys in Spitalfields alone to be set to work,

and I am told that, had they been successful, 3,000 lads would have applied the next month. When an application is made by anyone recommended by subscribers and so on to the association, or where the case seems worthy of attention, the names and addresses are entered in a book, with a slight sketch of the circumstances

of the person wishing to become a street orderly, so that inquiries may be made. I give a few of the more recent of these entries and descriptions, which are really histories in little. Thomas McG, aged 50, W.L. Street, Chelsea Hospital, single man,

taught a French and English school in Lyon, France, driven out of France at the Revolution of 1848, penniless. Rich M, 13 C Street, H Garden, 42 years, married, can read and write, has been a seaman in the Royal Service 10 years, chairmaker by trade, has jobbed as a porter in Rochester, Kent. Phil S. 1 R. L. Street, High Holborn, from Killarney, County Kerry, bred a gardener, 15 years in constabulary force, for which he has a character from Colonel MacGregor,

and received the compensation of £50, which he bestowed on his father and mother to keep them at home, nine months in England, namely in Bristol, Bath and London, aged 35, can read and write. Edward C. 79 M Street, Hackney, aged 27, married, army pensioner, sixpence a day, can read and write, recommended by Reverend T. Gibson, Rector of Hackney. Charles J. 11 D Street, Chelsea, aged 38, gentleman's servant. In my account of the regular hands employed by the contracting scavengers, I have stated that the street orderlies were a more miscellaneous body, as they had not been reared in the same proportion to street work.

They are also, I may add, a better conducted and better informed class than the general run of unskilled labourers, as they know, before applying for street orderly work, that inquiries are made concerning them, and that men of reprobate character will not be employed. Many of those employed as orderlies have since returned to their original employments. Others have procured, and been recommended to, superior situations in life, to that of street orderlies, by the council of the association. But no instance has occurred of any street orderly having returned back to his parish workhouse or stoneyard. This certainly looks well.

One street orderly, I may add, is now a reputable schoolmaster, and has been so for some time. Another is a clerk under similar circumstances. Another is a good theoretical and practical musician, having officiated as organist in churches and at concerts. He is also a neat music copyist. Another tells of his correspondence with a bishop on theological topics. Another, with a long and well-cultured beard, has been a model for artists. One had £150 left to him

not long ago, which was soon spent. His wife spent it, he said, and then he quietly applied to be permitted to be again a street orderly. Several have got engagements as seamen, their original calling. Indeed, I am assured that a few months of street orderly labour is looked upon as an excellent ordeal of character, after which the association affirms good behaviour on the part of employed. The subscribers to the funds not unfrequently recommend destitute persons to

the good offices of the association, apart from their employment as street orderlies. Thus it is only a few weeks ago that 12 Spanish refugees, none of them speaking English, were recommended to the association. One of them it was ultimately enabled to establish as a waiter in a hotel resorted to by foreigners, another as an interpreter, another as a gentleman servant, and another with a little boy, his son, in shoe-blacking in Leicester Square. Thus among

street orderlies are to be found a great diversity of career in life, and what may be called adventures. One great advantage, however, which the orderly possesses over his better-paid brethren, is in the greater probability of his rising out of the street. This is very rarely the case with an ordinary scavenger. I now give the following account from one of the street orderlies,

a tall, soldierly-looking man. I'm forty-two now, he said, and when I was a boy and a young man I was employed in the Times machine office, but got into a bit of a row, a bit of a street quarrel and frolic, and was called on to pay three pounds, something about a street lamp.

that was out of the question and as i was taking a walk in the park not just knowing what i'd best do i met a recruiting sergeant and enlisted on a sudden all on a sudden in the sixteenth lancers When I came to the standard, though, I was found a little bit too short. Well, I was rather frolicsome in those days, I confess, and perhaps had rather a turn for a roving life. So when the sergeant said he'd take me to the East India Company's recruiting sergeant,

I consented and was accepted at once. I was taken to Calcutta and served under General Knott all through the Afghan war. I was in the East India Company's artillery, 4th Company and 2nd Battalion. Why, yes, sir, I saw a little bit of what you may call service. I was at the fighting at Kandahar, Bowling Glen, Bowling Pass, Clitiglesey, Kuzni and Kabul.

The first real warm work I was in was at Kandahar. I've heard young soldiers say that they've gone into action the first time, as merry as they would go to a play. Don't believe them, sir. Old soldiers will tell you quite different.

You must feel queer and serious the first time you're in action. It's not fear, it's nervousness. The crack of the muskets at the first fire you hear, in real hard earnest, is uncommon startling. You see the flash of the fire from the enemy's line, but very little else.

Indeed, oft enough, you see nothing but smoke, and hear nothing but balls whistling every side of you. And then you get excited, just as if you were at a hunt. But after a little service, I can speak for myself at any rate, you go into action as you go to your dinner.

I served during the time when there was the Afghanistan retreat, when the 44th was completely cut up, before any help could get up to them. We suffered a good deal from want of sufficient food, but it was nothing like so bad, at the very worst, as if you're suffering in London. In India, in that wartime, if you suffered, you were along with a number in just the same boat as yourself, and there's always something to hope for when you're an army. It's different if you're walking the streets of London by yourself. I felt it, sir, for a little bit after my return.

And if you haven't a penny, you feel as if there wasn't a hope. If you have friends, it may be different, but I had none. It's no comfort if you know hundreds are suffering as you are, for you can't help and cheer one another as soldiers can. Why, sir, as I've told you, I saw a good deal of service all through that war.

Indeed, I served thirteen years and four months, and was then discharged on account of ill health. If I'd served eight months longer, that would have been 14 years, and I should have been entitled to a pension. I believe my illness was caused by the hardships I went through in the campaigns, fighting and killing men that I never saw before, and until I was in India, had never heard of.

And that I had no ill will to. Certainly not. Why should I? They never did me any wrong. But when it comes to war, if you can't kill them, they'll kill you. When I got back to London, I applied at the East India House for a pension, but was refused. I hadn't served my time, though that wasn't my fault.

I then applied for work in the Times machine office, and they were kind enough to put me on. But I wasn't master of the work, for there was new machinery, wonderful machinery, and a many changes. So I couldn't be kept on, and was some time out of work and very badly off, as I've said before. And then I got work as a scavenger. Oh, I knew nothing about sweeping before that.

I've never swept anything except the snow in the north of India, which is quite a different sort of thing to London dirt. But I very soon got into the way of it. I found no difficulty about it, though some may pretend there is an art in it. I had 15 shillings a week, and when I was no longer wanted,

I got employment as a street orderly. I never was married, and have only myself to provide for. I'm satisfied that the street orderly is far the best plan for street cleaning. Nothing else can touch it, in my opinion, and I thought so before I was one of them, and I believe most working scavengers think so now,

though they mayn't like to say so for fear it might go against their interest. Oh yes, I'm sometimes questioned by gentlemen that may be passing in the streets while I'm at work, all about our system. They generally say, and a very good system too. One said once,

It shows that scavengers can be decent men. They weren't when I was first in London, above forty years ago. Well, I sometimes get the price of a pint of beer given to me by gentlemen making inquiries, but very seldom. Until about eighteen months ago, none but unmarried men were employed by the association,

and these all resided in one locality, and under one general superintendence or system. The boarding and lodging of the men has, however, been discontinued about 15 months, for I am told it was found difficult to encourage industrial and self-reliant pursuits in connection with public eleemosinary aid. Married men are now employed, and all the street orderlies reside at their own homes.

The adults, married or single, receiving 12 shillings a week, each. The boys, 6 shillings. while to each man is gratuitously supplied a blouse of blue serge, costing two shillings sixpence, and a glazed hat, costing the same amount. The system formerly adopted was as follows.

The men were formed into a distinct body and established in houses taken for them at Ham Yard, Great Windmill Street Haymarket. The wages of the men, states the report, were fixed at 12 shillings each per week, that is, nine shillings were charged for board and lodging, and three shillings were paid in money to each man on Saturday afternoon, out of which he was expected to pay for his clothing

and washing. The men had provided for them clean wholesome beds and bedding, a common sitting room, with every means of ablution and personal cleanliness, including a warm bath once a week. Their food was abundant and of the best quality, namely coffee and bread and butter for breakfast at eight o'clock. Round of beef, bread and vegetables four times a week for dinner at one o'clock. Nutrishes soup and bread, or bread and cheese, forming the afternoon repast of the other

three days. At six in the evening, when they returned from their labours, they were refreshed with tea or coffee, and bread and butter. Or for supper at nine, each had a large basin of soup with bread. Thus, three-fourths of their wages being laid out for them to advantage, the men were well lodged and fed, and they have always declared themselves satisfied, comfortable, and happy under the arrangements that were made for them. Under the charge of their intelligent

and active superintendent, the street orderlies soon fell into a state of the most exact discipline and order, and when old orderlies were drafted off, either to enter the service of parish boards, who adopted the system, or were recommended into service or some other superior position in life, and when new recruits came to supply their places, the latter found no difficulty in conforming to the rules laid down for the performance of their duties, as well as for their general conduct.

Military time regulated their hours of labour, refreshment and rest. Due attention was required from all, and each man, though a scavenger, was expected to be cleanly in his person and respectful in his demeanour. Indeed, nothing could be more gratifying than the conduct of these men, both at home and abroad. 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 misspend their time, nor from mere preference run riot in pothouses 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 artisan 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 Hamyard at that interesting hour, to observe the decorum with which these poor men demean themselves, and the heartfelt solemnity with which they joined in the invocations and thanks to their creator and preserver. Each Sunday morning at eight 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 marshaled to church twice on the Sabbath, headed by the superintendent and foreman, 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 church wardens.

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, namely 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 pedagogues,

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 advisors 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 villainage 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, illy-mossinary help is not a fitting adjunct to the industrial toil of independent labourers.

The residencies of the street orderlies are now in all quarters, where unfurnished rooms are about 1 shilling 9 pence or 2 shillings a week. The address 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, churchgoing, the personal habits, diet, rent and so on, 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 scavenger to whom a preference was given. The Parish of St Mary, Paddington. Questions asked of parish scavengers applying for employment as street orderlies, with the answers appended. Name? W.C. Age? 35 years. How long a scavenger? 3 months. What occupation previously? Gentleman's footman. Married or single? Married. Reading, writing or other education? Yes. Any children? 1. 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? Two shillings sixpence. Bacon? None. Fish? None. Bread? Two shillings. Potatoes? Four pence. Butter? Sixpence. Tea and sugar? One shilling. Cocoa? None. What rent they pay? Two shillings. 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? No answer. How much do they spend per week in drink? No answer. Do not passers-by as charitable ladies and so on 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 were from 30 to 40 24 were from 40 to 50 15 from 50 to 60 four from 60 to 70, one from 70. The greatest number of any age was seven persons of 45 years

respectively. Their previous occupations had been 22 labourers, three at the business all their lives, three dustmen, three ostlers, two stablemen, two carmen, two porters, two gentlemen servants, Two greengrocers. One following dustcart. One excavator.

One gravel digging. One stonebreaking in yards. One at work in the brickfields. One at work in the limeworks. One coal porter.

One sweep. One haybinder. One gaslighter. One dairyman. One ploughman.

One gardener. One errandboy. One furdresser. One furdier. One skinner.

one leather dresser, one letterpress printer, one paper stainer, one glass blower, one farrier, one plasterer, one clerk, one vendor of goods, one licensed victualer. Therefore, of 67 scavengers, 12 had been artisans, 55 had been unskilled workmen. Hence about five-sixths belong to the unskilled class of operatives. Time of having been at scavengering. 3. All their lives at the business. 1. About 27 years. 6. From 15 to 20 years. 6. From 10 to 15 years. 4. From 5 to 10 years.

34. From 1 to 5 years. 13. 12 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 scavengers 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 scavengers have received some little education. Did they go to

church or chapel? 22 answered yes. 9 went to church. 4 went to chapel. 4 went to the Catholic chapel. 1 went to 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? Twelve had no clothes. Fifty-five returned no answer, one being deaf and dumb. Hence of those who never go, nineteen out of sixty-seven, very nearly two-thirds, say twelve in nineteen, 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 7-8ths never bathe, although following the filthiest occupation. Were they married or single? Fifty-six were married. Five were widowers. Six were single.

Thus it would seem that about ten-elevenths are or have been married men. How many children had they? One had fifteen. One had six. Two had five each.

Eleven had four each. Nineteen had three each. Nine had two each. Six had one each. Sixteen had none.

six of these being single men. Two 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 three 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 between 20 and 30 49 between 10 and 20 80 between 1 and 10

8 were 1 year and under 5 were returned at home 1 returned as dead One half of the scavenger's 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? Thirteen answered yes. Thirteen to the national school. Five to the ragged school.

Two to Catholic. Two to parish. Six to local schools. One replied that he went sometimes. Two returned no.

One replied that his children were not with him. Twenty-two, of whom sixteen had no children, and one 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?

Fifteen returned no. Six said their wives were unable. One had lost the use of her limbs. Two did, but not often. Four did when they could.

Ten worked sometimes. Twelve answered yes. One sold cresses. 15 made no return, 11 having no wives and 1 being deaf and dumb. Hence 2 fifths of the wives, 22 out of 56, do no work, 16 do so occasionally,

and 13, or 1 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 shilling sixpence per week, 1 at 1 shilling to 2 shillings per week,

2 at 2 shillings per week 3 at 2 shillings or 3 shillings per week 2 at about 3 shillings per week 1 at 2 shillings to 4 shillings per week 1 at 3 shillings or 4 shillings per week

1 at 3 pence or 4 pence 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 shilling to 4 shillings per week. About 2 shillings sixpence, perhaps, would be a fair average. What wages were they themselves in the habit of receiving? 3 had 16 shillings sixpence per week.

2 had 16 shillings per week. 28 had 15 shillings per week 3 had 14 shillings sixpence per week 1 had 14 shillings per week 2 had 12 shillings per week

15 had 9 shillings per week 4 had 8 shillings per week 5 had 7 shillings per week 4 had 1 shilling a penny ha'penny a day and 2 loaves. Hence it is evident that 1 half receives 15 shillings or more a week

and about a fourth 9 shillings. 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 wesley for st botolph's bishopsgate mr parsons for whitechapel mr newman for bethnal green and so on These wages the scavengers laid out in the following manner. For rent per week. The usual rent paid seems to be between 2 shillings and 3 shillings,

5 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 shillings sixpence and the other at 2 shillings. For bread per week, one expended 5 shillings threepence, one expended 5 shillings, one expended 4 shillings sevenpence,

One expended four shillings sixpence One expended four shillings threepence Seven expended four shillings Thirteen expended three shillings sixpence Eight expended three shillings

Three expended two shillings sixpence Four expended two shillings threepence Thirteen expended two shillings Four expended one shilling sixpence One expended one shilling ninepence

Four had two loaves a day from parish three gave a certain sum per week to their wives or mothers to lay out for them, and one boarded and lodged. One was deaf and dumb. Thus it would seem that the general sum expended weekly on bread

varies between two shillings and four shillings. The average saving from free trade, therefore, would be between four pence and eight pence, or, say, six pence per week. For meat per week,

four expended four shillings, five expended three shilling six pence. eleven expended three shillings, twelve expended two shillings sixpence, one expended two shillings fourpence, five expended two shillings, four expended one shilling sixpence, one expended one shilling tuppence, nine expended one shilling, two expended tenpence, two expended sixpence,

1 expended 8pence 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 shillings 6pence and 3 shillings per week, about one-third of the entire number expending that sum. All those who expended 1 shilling and less per week

had nine shillings and less for their week's labour. The average saving from the cheapening of provisions would here appear to be between five pence and six pence per week at the outside. For tea and sugar per week, two paid two shillings six pence,

one paid two shillings four pence, one paid two shillings three pence, nineteen paid two shillings, two paid one shilling nine pence, four paid one shilling eight pence,

twelve paid one shilling six pence, five paid one shilling four pence five paid one shilling three pence five paid one shilling tuppence thirteen paid one shilling two paid eight pence five no returns one deaf and dumb one bored and lodging and three making allowances The sum usually expended on tea and sugar seems to be between 1.06 and 2.00 per week. For fish per week. 3 expended 1.00.

5 expended 8.00. 23 expended 6.00. 8 expended 4.00. 23 expended nothing. 4 allowed so much per week to wives or mother or landlady.

1 deaf and dumb. Hence, one third spent sixpence weekly in fish, and one third nothing. For bacon per week. One expended one shilling, two expended tenpence, one expended ninepence, five expended eightpence, nine expended sixpence, one expended fourpence, forty-three expended nothing, four allowances to wives, and so on, one deaf and dumb. The majority, two thirds therefore, do not have bacon.

Of those that do eat bacon, the usual sum spent weekly is sixpence or eightpence. For butter per week. 1 expended one shilling eightpence, 24 expended one shilling, 11 expended tenpence,

12 expended eightpence, 11 expended sixpence, 1 expended threepence, 2 expended nothing, 4 made allowances,

1 deaf and dumb. Thus one third expended one shilling, and about one sixth spent ten pence, another sixth, eight pence, and another sixth, six pence a week, for butter. Four potatoes per week. One spent one shilling.

Two spent ten pence. Six spent eight pence. One spent seven pence. Eighteen spent six pence. Six spent four pence.

Twenty-eight spent nothing. Four made allowances. 1 deaf and dumb. About 1 fourth spent sixpence. The greater proportion, however, nearly 1 half,

expended nothing upon potatoes weekly. For clothes yearly. 2 expended 2 pounds. 2 expended 1 pound 10 shillings. 2 expended 1 pound 5 shillings.

3 expended 1 pound. 1 expended 18 shillings. 1 expended 17 shillings. 1 expended 15 shillings. 4 expended 12 shillings.

1 expended 10 shillings. 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.

One deaf and dumb. More than two-thirds then had no Sunday clothes. How many shirts had they? Ten had three shirts. Fifty-four had two shirts.

Two had one shirt. One was deaf and dumb. The greater number, therefore, had two shirts. How many shoes had they? Twenty-seven had two pairs.

Thirty-nine had one pair. One was deaf and dumb. Thus the majority had only one pair of shoes. How much do they spend in drink? One expended two shillings a week.

One expended one shilling or two shillings a week. Two expended one shilling sixpence a week. Four expended one shilling a week. One expended sixpence a week. One expended threepence or fivepence a week.

Seven said they couldn't say. One said he wouldn't say. One said that all depends. Two said they had none to spend. spend. Two expended nothing. Forty-four gave no return, one 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 four, said they spent one shilling a week only. But... Did they save any money? Thirty-six answered no. Thirty-one gave no reply, one being deaf and dumb. What did they in case of illness coming upon themselves or families? Twenty-eight went to the dispensary.

Eight went to the hospital. Six went to the parish doctor. Three wives went to the lying-in hospital. One went to the workhouse. Two said nothing.

One never troubled any. Eight made no reply, one being deaf and dumb. The greater number, then, go when ill to the dispensary. Were they in receipt of alms? Fifty-six answered no.

Two answered sometimes. Three answered yes. Six made no returns, one being deaf and dumb. Did the passers-by give them anything? Forty-nine answered no.

Two answered sometimes beer. One answered never. Two answered seldom. One answered very seldom. Twelve no returns, one being deaf and dumb.

Did they receive any relief from their parishes? 56 replied, no. Four had two loaves and one shilling a day as wages. One had four loaves a week. One had a four pounds loaf.

One had 15 pounds of bread. Two answered, not at present. Two made no returns. Thus the greater proportion, five sixths, it will be seen, had no relief. Two of those who had relief received nine shillings wages a week and two others only seven shillings,

while four received part of their wages from the parish inbred. 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 one hundred men receive but seven shillings a week each for their work their yearly outlay to keep the bare life in them is one thousand eight hundred and twenty pounds if they are paid sixteen shillings a week their outlay is four thousand one hundred and sixty pounds

an expenditure of two thousand three hundred and forty pounds more in the productions of our manufacturers 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 manufacturers to talk of the overproduction 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 sixty-seven 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 end of section