_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.
I now come to _the cost of cleansing the streets upon the
street-orderly system_, as compared with that of the ordinary modes
of payment to contractors, &c. It will have been observed, from what
has been previously stated, that the Council of the Association
contend that far higher amounts may be realized for street manure when
collected clean, according to the street-orderly plan. If, by a better
mode of collecting the street dirt, it be kept unmixed, its increase in
value and in price may be most positively affirmed.
Before presenting estimates and calculations of cost, I may remind the
reader that, under the street-orderly system, no watering carts are
required, and none are used where the system is carried out in its
integrity. To be able to dispense with the watering of the streets is
not merely to get rid of a great nuisance, but to effect a considerable
saving in the rates.