As regards the influence of Free Trade upon the scavaging business, I
could gain little or no information from the body of street-sweepers,
because they have never noticed its operation, and the men, with
the exception of such as have sunk into street-sweeping from
better-informed conditions of life, know nothing about it. Among _all_,
however, I have heard statements of the blessing of cheap bread; always
cheap _bread_. “There’s nothing like bread,” say the men, “it’s not
all poor people can get meat; but they _must_ get bread.” Cheap food
all labouring men pronounce a blessing, as it unquestionably is, but
“somehow,” as a scavager’s carman said to me, “the thing ain’t working
as it should.”
In the course of the present and former inquiries among unskilled
labourers, street-sellers, and costermongers, I have found the great
majority of the more intelligent declare that Free Trade had not
worked well for them, because there were more labourers and more
street-sellers than were required, for each man to live by his toil and
traffic, and because the numbers increased yearly, and the demand for
their commodities did not increase in proportion. Among the ignorant, I
heard the continual answers of, “I can’t say, sir, what it’s owing to,
that I’m so bad off;” or, “Well, I can’t tell anything about that.”
It is difficult to state, however, without positive inquiry, whether
this extra number of hands be due to diminished employment in the
agricultural districts, since the repeal of the Corn Laws, or
whether it be due to the insufficiency of occupation generally for
the increasing population. One thing at least is evident, that the
increase of the trades alluded to cannot be said to arise directly
from diminished agricultural employment, for but few farm labourers
have entered these businesses since the change from Protection to Free
Trade. If, therefore, Free-Trade principles _have_ operated injuriously
in reducing the work of the unskilled labourers, street-sellers, and
the poorer classes generally, it can have done so only _indirectly_;
that is to say, by throwing a mass of displaced country labour into
the towns, and so displacing other labourers from their ordinary
occupations, as well as by decreasing the wages of working-men
generally. Hence it becomes almost impossible, I repeat, to tell
whether the increasing difficulty that the poor experience in living by
their labour, is a consequence or merely a concomitant of the repeal
of the Corn Laws; if it be a consequence, of course the poor are no
better for the alteration; if, however, it be a coincidence rather
than a necessary result of the measure, the circumstances of the poor
are, of course, as much improved as they would have been impoverished
provided that measure had never become law. I candidly confess I am as
yet without the means of coming to any conclusion on this part of the
subject.
Nor can it be said that in the scavagers’ trade wages have in any way
declined since the repeal of the Corn Laws; so that were it not for the
difficulty of obtaining employment among the _casual_ hands, this class
must be allowed to have been considerable gainers by the reduction in
the price of food, and even as it is, the _constant_ hands must be
acknowledged to be so.
I will now endeavour to reduce to a tabular form such information as I
could obtain as to the expenditure of the labourer in scavaging before
and after the establishment of Free Trade. I inquired, the better
to be assured of the accuracy of the representations and accounts I
received from labourers, the price of meat then and now. A butcher
who for many years has conducted a business in a populous part of
Westminster and in a populous suburb, supplying both private families
with the best joints, and the poor with their “little bits” their
“block ornaments” (meat in small pieces exposed on the chopping-block),
their purchases of liver, and of beasts’ heads. In 1845, the year I
take as sufficiently prior to the Free-Trade era, my informant from
his recollection of the state of his business and from consulting his
books, which of course were a correct guide, found that for a portion
of the year in question, mutton was as much as 7-1/2_d._ per lb.
(Smithfield prices), now the same quality of meat is but 5_d._ This,
however, was but a temporary matter, and from causes which sometimes
are not very ostensible or explicable. Taking the butcher’s trade that
year as a whole, it was found sufficiently conclusive, that meat was
generally 1_d._ per lb. higher then than at present. My informant,
however, was perfectly satisfied that, although situated in the same
way, and with the same class of customers, he did _not_ sell so much
meat to the poor and labouring classes as he did five or six years ago,
_he believed not by one-eighth_, although perhaps “pricers of his meat”
among the poor were more numerous. For this my informant accounted by
expressing his conviction that the labouring men spent their money in
drink more than ever, and were a longer time in recovering from the
effects of tippling. This supposition, from what I have observed in the
course of the present inquiry, is negatived by facts.
Another butcher, also supplying the poor, said they bought less of him;
but he could not say exactly to what extent, perhaps an eighth, and
he attributed it to less work, there being no railways about London,
fewer buildings, and less general employment. About the wages of the
labourers he could not speak as influencing the matter. From this
tradesmen also I received an account that meat generally was 1_d._ per
lb. higher at the time specified. Pickled Australian beef was four
or five years ago very low--3_d._ per lb.--salted and prepared, and
“swelling” in hot water, but the poor “couldn’t eat the stringy stuff,
for it was like pickled ropes.” “It’s better now,” he added, “but it
don’t sell, and there’s no nourishment in such beef.”
But these tradesmen agreed in the information that poor labourers
bought less meat, while one pronounced Free Trade a blessing, the other
declared it a curse. I suggested to each that cheaper fish might have
something to do with a smaller consumption of butcher’s meat, but both
said that cheap fish was the great thing for the Irish and the poor
needle-women and the like, who were never at any time meat eaters.
From respectable bakers I ascertained that bread might be considered
1_d._ a quartern loaf dearer in 1845 than at present. Perhaps the
following table may throw a fuller light on the matter. I give it from
what I learned from several men, who were without accounts to refer to,
but speaking positively from memory; I give the statement per week, as
for a single man, without charge for the support of a wife and family,
and without any help from other resources.
------------------+----------------------+----------------+------------
| | | Saving
| Before Free | After Free | since
| Trade. | Trade. | Free
| | | Trade.
------------------+----------------------+----------------+------------
Rent | 1_s._ 6_d._ | 1_s._ 6_d._ | ...
Bread (5 loaves) | 2_s._ 11_d._ | 2_s._ 6_d._ | 5_d._
Butter (1/2 lb.) | 5_d._ | 5_d._ | ...
Tea (2 oz.) | 8_d._ | 8_d._ | ...
Sugar (1/2 lb.) | 3_d._ | 2_d._ | 1_d._
Meat (3 lb.) | 1_s._ 6_d._ | 1_s._ 3_d._ | 3_d._
Bacon (1 lb.) | 5_d._ | 5_d._ | ...
Fish (a dinner |3_d._, or 1_s._ 6_d._ |2_d._, or 1_s._ |
a day, 6 days) | weekly. | weekly. | 6_d._
Potatoes or | | |
Vegetables | | |
(1/2_d._ a day) | 3-1/2_d._ | 3-1/2_d._ | ...
Beer (pot) | 3-1/2_d._ | 3-1/2_d._ | ...
------------------+----------------------+----------------+------------
Total saving, per week, since Free Trade | 1_s._ 3_d._
----------------------------------------------------------+------------
In butter, bacon, potatoes, &c., and beer, I could hear of no changes,
except that bacon might be a trifle cheaper, but instead of a good
quality selling better, although cheaper, there was a demand for an
inferior sort.
In the foregoing table the weekly consumption of several necessaries is
given, but it is not to be understood that one man consumes them all in
a week; they are what may generally be consumed when such things are in
demand by the poor, one week after another, or one day after another,
forming an aggregate of weeks.
Thus, Free Trade and cheap provisions are an unquestionable benefit, if
unaffected by drawbacks, to the labouring poor.
The above statement refers only to a fully employed hand.
The following table gives the change since Free Trade in the earnings
of casual hands, and relates to the past and the present expenditure of
a scavager. The man, who was formerly a house painter, said he could
bring me 50 men similarly circumstanced to himself.
--------------------------+-------------------------
In 1845, per Week. | In 1851, per Week.
--------------------------+-------------------------
_s._ _d._ | _s._ _d._
Rent 1 4 |Rent 1 8
5 loaves 2 11 |4 loaves 2 0
Butter 0 5 |Butter 0 5
Tea 0 6 |Tea 0 5
Meat (3 lbs.) 1 6 |Meat (3 lbs.) 1 0
Potatoes 0 3 |Potatoes 0 2
Beer (a pot) 0 4 |Beer (a pint) 0 2
--------------------------+-------------------------
7 3 | 5 10
--------------------------+-------------------------
Here, then, we find a positive saving in the expenditure of 1_s._ 5_d._
per week in this man’s wages, since the cheapening of food.
His earnings, however, tell a different story.
--------------------+------------+-------------
| 1845. | 1851.
--------------------+------------+-------------
| _s._ _d._ | _s._ _d._
Earnings of 6 days | 15 0 |
Ditto 3 days | | 7 6
+------------+-------------
Weekly Income | 15 0 | 7 6
Expenditure | 7 3 | 5 10
+------------+-------------
Difference | 7 9 | 1 8
--------------------+------------+------------
Thus we perceive that the beneficial effects of cheapness are defeated
by the dearth of employment among labourers.
It is impossible to come to _precise_ statistics in this matter, but
all concurrent evidence, as regards the unskilled work of which I now
treat, shows that labour is attainable at almost any rate.
Another drawback to the benefits of cheap food I heard of first in my
inquiries (for the Letters on Labour and the Poor, in the _Morning
Chronicle_) among the boot and shoemakers--their rents had been raised
in consequence of their landlords’ property having been subjected to
the income tax. Numbers of large houses are now let out in single
rooms, in the streets off Tottenham-court-road, and near Golden-square,
as well as in many other quarters--to men, who, working for West-end
tradesmen, must live, for economy of time, near the shops from which
they derive their work. Near and in Cunningham-street and other
streets, two men, father and son, rent upwards of 30 houses, the whole
of which they let out in one or two rooms, it is believed at a very
great profit; in fact they live by it.
The rent of these houses, among many others, was raised when the
income tax was imposed, the sub-lettors declaring, with what truth no
one knew, that the rents were raised to them. It is common enough for
capitalists to fling such imposts on the shoulders of the poor, and
I heard scavagers complain, that every time they had to change their
rooms, they had either to pay more rent by 2_d._ or 3_d._ a week, or
put up with a worse place. One man who lived at the time of the passing
of the Income Tax Bill in Shoe-lane, found his rent raised suddenly
3_d._ a week, a non-resident landlord or agent calling for it weekly.
He was told that the advance was to meet the income tax. “I know
nothing about what income tax means,” he said, “but it’s some ----
roguery as is put on the poor.” I heard complaints to the same purport
from several working scavagers, and the lettors of rooms are the most
exacting in places crowded with the poor, and where the poor think or
feel they must reside “to be handy for work.” What connection there may
be between the questions of Free Trade and the necessity of the income
tax, it is not my business now to dilate upon, but it is evident that
the circumstances of the country are not sufficiently prosperous to
enable parliament to repeal this “temporary” impost.
From a better informed class than the scavagers, I might have derived
data on which to form a calculation from account books, &c., but I
could hear of none being kept. I remember that a lady’s shoemaker told
me that the weekly rents of the ten rooms in the house in which he
lived were 4_s._ 3_d._ higher than before the income tax, which “came
to the same thing as an extra penny on over 50 loaves a week.” It is
certain that the great tax-payers of London are the labouring classes.
I have endeavoured to ascertain the facts in connection with this
complex subject in as calm and just a manner as possible, leaning
neither to the Protectionist nor the Free-Trade side of the question,
and I must again in honesty acknowledge, that to the _constant_ hands
among the scavagers and dustmen of the metropolis, the repeal of the
Corn Laws appears to have been an unquestionable benefit.
I shall conclude this exposition of the condition and earnings of the
working scavagers employed by the more honourable masters, with an
account of the average income and expenditure of the better-paid hands
(regular and casual, as well as single and married), and first, of the
unmarried regular hand.
The following is an estimate of the income and expenditure of an
_unmarried_ operative scavager _regularly_ employed, working for a
large contractor:--
WEEKLY INCOME. | WEEKLY EXPENDITURE.
£ _s._ _d._ | £ _s._ _d._
_Constant Wages._ | Rent 0 2 0
Nominal weekly wages 0 16 0 | Washing and mending 0 0 10
Perquisites 0 2 0 | Clothes, and repairing
------------ | ditto 0 0 10
Actual weekly wages 0 18 0 | Butcher’s meat 0 3 6
| Bacon 0 0 8
| Vegetables 0 0 4
| Cheese 0 0 4
| Beer 0 3 0
| Spirits 0 1 0
| Tobacco 0 0 10-1/2
| Butter 0 0 7-1/2
| Sugar 0 0 4
| Tea 0 0 3
| Coffee 0 0 3
| Fish 0 0 4
| Soap 0 0 2
| Shaving 0 0 1
| Fruit 0 0 4
| Keep of 2 dogs 0 0 6
| Amusements, as
| skittles, &c. 0 1 9
| -------------
| 0 18 0
The subjoined represents the income of an _unmarried_ operative
scavager _casually_ employed by a small master scavager six months
during the year, at 15_s._ a week, and 20 weeks at sand and rubbish
carting, at 12_s._ a week.
_Casual Wages._ £ _s._ _d._
Nominal weekly wages at scavaging, 16_s._ for
26 weeks during the year 20 16 0
Perquisites, 2_s._ for 26 weeks during the year 2 12 0
----------------
Actual weekly wages for 26 weeks during the
year 0 16 0
Nominal and actual weekly wages at rubbish
carting, 12_s._ for 20 weeks more during the
year 12 0 0
----------------
Average casual or constant weekly wages
throughout the year 0 15 4-1/2
The expenditure of this man when in work was nearly the same as that
of the regular hand; the main exceptions being that his rent was 1_s._
instead of 2_s._, and no dogs were kept. When in work he saved nothing,
and when out of work lived as he could.
The _married_ scavagers are differently circumstanced from the
_unmarried_; their earnings are generally increased by those of their
family.
The labour of the wives and children of the scavagers is not
unfrequently in the capacity of sifters in the dust-yards, where the
wives of the men employed by the contractors have the preference, and
in other but somewhat rude capacities. One of their wives I heard of
as a dresser of sheep’s trotters; two as being among the most skilful
dressers of tripe for a large shop; one as “a cat’s-meat seller” (her
father’s calling); but I still speak of the regular scavagers--I could
not meet with one woman “working a slop-needle.” One, indeed, I saw who
was described to me as a “feather dresser to an out-and-out negur,” but
the woman assured me she was neither badly paid nor badly off. Perhaps
by such labour, as an average on the part of the wives, 9_d._ a day is
cleared, and 1_s._ “on tripe and such like.” Among the “casual’s” wives
there are frequent instances of the working for slop shirt-makers, &c.,
upon the coarser sorts of work, and at “starvation wages,” but on such
matters I have often dwelt. I heard from some of these men that it
was looked upon as a great thing if the wife’s labour could clear the
week’s rent of 1_s._ 6_d._ to 2_s._
The following may be taken as an estimate of the income and outlay of a
_better paid and fully_ employed operative scavager, with his wife and
two children:--
WEEKLY INCOME OF THE FAMILY. | WEEKLY EXPENDITURE OF THE FAMILY.
£ _s._ _d._| £ _s._ _d._
Nominal weekly | Rent 0 3 0
wages of man, | Candle 0 0 3-1/2
16_s._ | Bread 0 2 1
Perquisites, 2_s._ | Butter 0 0 10
Actual weekly | Sugar 0 0 8
wages of man 0 18 0 | Tea 0 0 10
Nominal weekly | Coffee 0 0 4
wages of wife, | Butcher’s meat 0 3 6
6_s._ | Bacon 0 1 2
Perquisites in | Potatoes 0 0 10
coal and wood, | Raw fish 0 0 4
1_s._ 4_d._ | Herrings 0 0 4
Actual weekly | Beer (at home) 0 2 0
wages of wife. 0 7 4 | „ (at work) 0 1 6
Nominal weekly | Spirits 0 1 0
wages of boy. 0 3 0 | Cheese 0 0 6
----------- | Flour 0 0 3
1 8 4 | Suet 0 0 3
| Fruit 0 0 3
| Rice 0 0 0-1/2
| Soap 0 0 6
| Starch 0 0 0-1/2
| Soda and blue 0 0 1
| Dubbing 0 0 0-1/2
| Clothes for the
| whole family,
| and repairing
| ditto 0 2 0
| Boots and shoes
| for ditto, ditto 0 1 6
| Milk 0 0 7
| Salt, pepper, and
| mustard 0 0 1
| Tobacco 0 0 9
| Wear and tear of
| bedding, crocks,
| &c. 0 0 3
| Schooling for
| girl 0 0 3
| Baking Sunday’s
| dinner 0 0 2
| Mangling 0 0 3
| Amusements and
| sundries 0 1 0
| --------------
| 1 7 6
The subjoined, on the other hand, gives the income and outlay of a
_casually employed_ operative scavager (_better paid_) with his wife
and two boys in constant work:--
WEEKLY INCOME OF THE FAMILY. | WEEKLY EXPENDITURE OF THE FAMILY.
£ _s._ _d._ | £ _s._ _d._
Nominal wages | Rent 0 3 6
of man at scavaging | Candle 0 0 6
for six | Soap 0 0 4
months, at 16_s._ | Soda, starch, and
weekly. | blue 0 0 2-1/2
Ditto at rubbish | Bread 0 2 6
carting three | Butter 0 0 9
months, 12_s._ | Dripping 0 0 5
weekly. | Sugar 0 0 8
Average casual | Tea 0 0 8
wages throughout | Coffee 0 0 6
the year 0 15 0 | Butcher’s meat 0 3 6
Nominal weekly | Bacon 0 1 0
wages of wife, | Potatoes 0 1 0
6_s._ (constant). | Cheese 0 0 6
Perquisites in | Raw fish 0 0 4
wood and coal, | Herrings 0 0 3
1_s._ 4_d._ | Fried fish 0 0 3
Actual weekly | Flour 0 0 3
wages of wife 0 7 4 | Suet 0 0 2
Nominal weekly | Fruit 0 0 6
wages of two | Rice 0 0 1-1/2
boys, 7_s._ the | Beer (at home) 0 2 0
two. | „ (at work) 0 1 9
Perquisites for | Spirits 0 1 0
running on | Tobacco 0 0 9
messages, 1_s._ | Pepper, salt, and
the two | mustard 0 0 1
(constant). | Milk 0 0 7
Actual weekly | Clothes for man,
wages of the | wife, and family 0 2 0
two boys. 0 8 0 | Repairing ditto
----------- | for ditto 0 0 6
1 10 4 | Boots and shoes
| for ditto 0 1 6
| Repairing ditto
| for ditto 0 0 8
| Wear and tear of
| bedding, crocks,
| &c. 0 0 3
| Baking Sunday’s
| dinner 0 0 2
| Mangling 0 0 2
| Amusements,
| sundries, &c. 0 1 0
| ---------------
| 1 10 4