“A poor woman had been obliged by sickness to go into an hospital,
and while she was there her child was stolen from her house, taken
into Staffordshire, and there apprenticed to a chimney-sweeper. By
some happy circumstance she learned his fate; she followed him, and
succeeded in rescuing him from his forlorn situation. Another child,
who was an orphan, was tricked into following the same wretched
employment by a chimney-sweeper, who gave him a shilling, and made him
believe that by receiving it he became his apprentice; the poor boy,
either discovering or suspecting that he had been deceived, anxiously
endeavoured to speak to a magistrate who happened to come to the house
in which he was sweeping chimneys, but his master watched him so
closely that he could not succeed. He at last contrived to tell his
story to a blind soldier, who determined to right the poor boy, and by
_great exertions_ succeeded in procuring him his liberty.”
It was in country places, however, that the stealing and kidnapping
of children was the most frequent, and the threat of “the sweeps will
get you” was often held out, to deter children from wandering. These
stolen infants, it is stated, were usually conveyed to some distance
by the vagrants who had secured them, and sold to some master sweeper,
being apprenticed as the child of the vendors, for it was difficult for
sweepers in thinly-peopled places to get a supply of climbing boys. It
was shown about the time of the Parliamentary inquiry, in the course of
a trial at the Lancaster assizes, that a boy had been apprenticed to a
sweeper by two travelling tinkers, man and woman, who informed him that
the child was stolen from another “traveller,” 80 miles away, who was
“too fond of it to make it a sweep.” The _price_ of the child was not
mentioned.
Respecting the sale of children to be apprentices to sweepers, Mr.
Tooke was able to state that, although in 1816, the practice had very
much diminished of late, parents in many instances still _sold their
children for three, four, or five guineas_. This sum was generally paid
under the guise of an apprentice fee, but it was known to be and was
called a “sale,” for the parents, real or nominal, never interfered
with the master subsequently, but left the infant to its fate.
2. I find the following account of the _means resorted to, in order to
induce, or more frequently compel, these wretched infants to work_.
The boy in the first instance went for a month, or any term agreed
upon, “on trial,” or “to see how he would suit for the business.”
During this period of probation he was usually well treated and well
fed (whatever the character of the master), with little to do beyond
running errands, and observing the mode of work of the experienced
climbers. When, however, he was “bound” as an apprentice, he was put
with another lad who had been for some time at the business. The new
boy was sent first up the chimney, and immediately followed by the
other, who instructed him how to ascend. This was accomplished by the
pressure of the knees and the elbows against the sides of the flue. By
pressing the knees tightly the child managed to raise his arms somewhat
higher, and then by pressing his elbows in like manner he contrived
to draw up his legs, and so on. The inside of the flue presented a
smooth surface, and there were no inequalities where the fingers or
toes could be inserted. Should the young beginner fall, he was sure to
light on the shoulders of the boy beneath him, who always kept himself
firmly fixed in expectation of such a mishap, and then the novice had
to commence anew; in this manner the twain reached the top by degrees,
sweeping down the soot, and descended by the same method. This practice
was very severe, especially on new boys, whose knees and elbows were
torn by the pressure and the slipping down continually--the skin being
stripped off, and frequently breaking out in frightful sores, from the
constant abrasions, and from the soot and dirt getting into them.
In his evidence before Parliament in 1817 (for there had been previous
inquiries), Mr. Cook gave an account of the training of these boys, and
on being asked:--“Do the elbows and knees of the boys, when they first
begin the business, become very sore, and afterwards get callous, and
are those boys employed in sweeping chimneys during the soreness of
those parts?” answered, “It depends upon the sort of master they have
got; some are obliged to put them to work sooner than others; you must
keep them a little at it, or they will never learn their business, even
during the sores.” He stated further, that the skin broke generally,
and that the boys could not ascend chimneys during the sores without
_very_ great pain. “The way that I learn boys is,” he continued, “to
put some cloths over their elbows and over their knees till they get
the nature of the chimney--till they get a little used to it: we call
it _padding_ them, and then we take them off, and they get very little
grazed indeed after they have got the art; but very few will take that
trouble. Some boys’ flesh is far worse than others, and it takes more
time to harden them.” He was then asked:--“Do those persons still
continue to employ them to climb chimneys?” and the answer was: “Some
do; it depends upon the character of the master. None of them of that
class keep them till they get well; none. They are obliged to climb
with those sores upon them. I never had one of my own apprentices do
that.” This system of padding, however, was but little practised;
but in what proportion it _was_ practised, unless by the respectable
masters, who were then but few in number, the Parliamentary papers,
the only information on the subject now attainable, do not state.
The inference is, that the majority, out of but 20 of these masters,
with some 80 or 100 apprentices, did treat them well, and what was so
accounted. The customary way of training these boys, then, was such as
I have described; some even of the better masters, whose boys were in
the comparison well lodged and fed, and “sent to the Sunday school”
(which seems to have comprised all needful education), considered
“padding and such like” to be “new-fangled nonsense.”
I may add also, that although the boy carried up a brush with him, it
was used but occasionally, only when there were “turns” or defects in
the chimney, the soot being brought down by the action of the shoulders
and limbs. The climber wore a cap to protect his eyes and mouth from
the soot, and a sort of flannel tunic, his feet, legs, and arms being
bare. Some of these lads were surprisingly quick. One man told me
that, when in his prime as a climbing boy, he could reach the top of a
chimney about as quickly as a person could go up stairs to the attics.
The following is from the evidence of Mr. Cook, frequently cited as an
excellent master:--
“What mode do you adopt to get the boy to go up the chimney in the
first instance?--We persuade him as well as we can; we generally
practise him in one of our own chimneys first; one of the boys
who knows the trade goes up behind him, and when he has practised
it perhaps ten times, though some will require twenty times, they
generally can manage it. The boy goes up with him to keep him from
falling; after that, the boy will manage to go up with himself, after
going up and down several times with one under him: we do this, because
if he happens to make a slip he will be caught by the other.
“Do you find many boys show repugnance to go up at first?--Yes, most of
them.
“And if they resist and reject, in what way do you force them up?--By
telling them we must take them back again to their father and mother,
and give them up again; and their parents are generally people who
cannot maintain them.
“So that they are afraid of going back to their parents for fear of
being starved?--Yes; they go through a deal of hardship before they
come to our trade.
“Did you use any more violent means?--Sometimes a rod.
“Did you ever hear of straw being lighted under them?--Never.
“You never heard of any means being made use of, except being beat and
being sent home?--No; no other.
“You are aware, of course, that those means being gentle or harsh must
depend very much upon the character of the individual master?--It does.
“Of course you must know that there are persons of harsh and cruel
disposition; have you not often heard of masters treating their
apprentices with great cruelty, particularly the little boys, in
forcing them to go up those small flues, which the boys were unwilling
to ascend?--Yes; I have forced up many a one myself.
“By what means?--By threatenings, and by giving them a kick or a slap.”
It was also stated that the journeymen used the boys with greater
cruelty than did the masters--indeed a delegated tyranny is often
the worst--that for very little faults they kicked and slapped the
children, and sometimes flogged them with a cat, “made of rope, hard at
each end, and as thick as your thumb.”
Mr. John Fisher, a master chimney-sweeper, said:--“Many masters, are
very severe with their children. To make them go up the chimneys I have
seen them make them strip themselves naked; I have been obliged myself
to go up a chimney naked.”
As respects the cruelties of driving boys up chimneys by kindling straw
beneath their feet, or thrusting pins into the soles of their feet, I
find the following statements given on the authority of B. M. Forster,
Esq., a private gentleman residing in Walthamstow:--
“A lad was ordered to sweep a chimney at Wandsworth; he came down
after endeavouring to ascend, and this occurred several times before
he gave up the point; at last the journeyman took some straw or hay,
and lighted it under him to drive him up: when he endeavoured to get
up the last time, he found there was a bar across the chimney, which
he could not pass; he was obliged in consequence to come down, and the
journeyman beat him so cruelly, to use his own expression, that he
could not stand for a fortnight.
“In the whole city of Norwich I could find only nine climbing boys,
two of whom I questioned on many particulars; one was with respect to
the manner in which they are taught to climb; they both agreed in that
particular, that a larger boy was sent up behind them to prick their
feet, if they did not climb properly. I purposely avoided mentioning
about pricking them with pins, but asked them how they did it; they
said that they thrust the pins into the soles of their feet. A third
instance occurred at Walthamstow; a man told me that some he knew had
been taught in the same way; I believe it to be common, but I cannot
state any more instances from authority.”
3. On the subject of the _sores, bruises, wounds, burns, and diseases_,
to which chimney-sweepers in their apprenticeships were not only
exposed, but, as it were, condemned, Mr. R. Wright, a surgeon, on being
examined before the Committee, said, “I shall begin with _Deformity_.
I am well persuaded that the deformity of the spine, legs, arms, &c.,
of chimney-sweepers, generally, if not wholly, proceeds from the
circumstance of their being obliged not only to go up chimneys at an
age when their bones are in a soft and growing state, but likewise from
their being compelled by their too merciless masters and mistresses
to carry bags of soot (and those very frequently for a great length
of distance and time) by far too heavy for their tender years and
limbs. The knees and ancle joints mostly become deformed, in the first
instance, from the position they are obliged to put them in, in order
to support themselves, not only while climbing up the chimney, but more
particularly so in that of coming down, when they rest solely on the
lower extremities.
“_Sore eyes and eyelids_, are the next to be considered.
Chimney-sweepers are very subject to inflammation of the eyelids,
and not unfrequently weakness of sight, in consequence of such
inflammation. This I attribute to the circumstance of the soot lodging
on the eyelids, which first produces irritability of the part, and the
constantly rubbing them with their dirty hands, instead of alleviating,
increases the disease; for I have observed in a number of cases, when
the patient has ceased for a time to follow the business, and of course
the original cause has been removed, that with washing and keeping
clean they were soon got well.
“_Sores_, for the same reasons, are generally a long time in healing.
“_Cancer_ is another and a most formidable disease, which
chimney-sweepers in particular are liable to, especially that of
the scrotum; from which circumstance, by way of distinction, it is
called the ‘chimney-sweeper’s cancer.’ Of this sort of cancer I have
seen several instances, some of which have been operated on; but,
in general, they are apt to let them go too far before they apply
for relief. Cancers of the lips are not so general as cancers of the
scrotum. I never saw but two instances of the former, and several of
the latter.”
The “chimney-sweep’s cancer” was always lectured upon as a separate
disease at Guy’s and Bartholomew’s Hospitals, and on the question
being put to Mr. Wright: “Do the physicians who are intrusted with
the care and management of those hospitals think that disease of such
common occurrence, that it is necessary to make it a part of surgical
education?”--he replied: “Most assuredly; I remember Mr. Cline and Mr.
Cooper were particular on that subject; and having one or two cases
of the kind in the hospital, it struck my mind very forcibly. With
the permission of the Committee I will relate a case that occurred
lately, which I had from one of the pupils of St. Thomas’s Hospital;
he informed me that they recently had a case of a chimney-sweeper’s
cancer, which was to have been operated on that week, but the man
‘brushed’ (to use their expression) or rather walked off; he would
not submit to the operation: similar instances of which I have known
myself. They dread so much the knife, in consequence of foolish persons
telling them it is so formidable an operation, and that they will die
under it. I conceive without the operation it is death; for cancers are
of that nature that unless you extricate them entirely they will never
be cured.”
Of the chimney-sweeper’s cancer, the following statement is given in
the Report: “Mr. Cline informed your Committee by letter, that this
disease is rarely seen in any other persons than chimney-sweepers,
and in them cannot be considered as frequent; for during his practice
in St. Thomas’s hospital, for more than 40 years, the number of those
could not exceed 20. But your Committee have been informed that the
dread of the operation which it is necessary to perform, deters many
from submitting to it; and from the evidence of persons engaged in the
trade, it appears to be much more common than Mr. Cline seems to be
aware of.
“_Cough and Asthma._--Chimney-sweepers are, from their being out at all
hours and in all weathers, very liable to cough and inflammation of the
chest.
“_Burns._--They are very subject to burns, from their being forced
up chimneys while on fire, or soon after they have been on fire, and
while over-heated; and however they may cry out, their inhuman masters
pay not the least attention, but compel them, too often with horrid
imprecations, to proceed.
“_Stunted growth_, in this unfortunate race of the community, is
attributed, in a great measure, to their being brought into the
business at a very early age.”
* * * * *
To _accidents_ they were frequently liable in the pursuit of their
callings, and sometimes these accidents were the being jammed or fixed,
or, as it was called in the trade, “stuck,” in narrow and heated flues,
sometimes for hours, and until death.
Among these hapless lads were indeed many deaths from accidents,
cruelty, privation, and exhaustion, but it does not appear that the
number was ever ascertained. There were also many narrow escapes from
dreadful deaths. I give instances of each:--
“On Monday morning, the 29th of March, 1813, a chimney-sweeper of the
name of Griggs, attended to sweep a small chimney in the brewhouse of
Messrs. Calvert and Co., in Upper Thames-street; he was accompanied
by one of his boys, a lad of about eight years of age, of the name of
Thomas Pitt. The fire had been lighted as early as two o’clock the
same morning, and was burning on the arrival of Griggs and his little
boy at eight; the fire-place was small, and an iron pipe projected
from the grate some little distance, into the flue; this the master
was acquainted with (having swept the chimneys in the brewhouse for
some years) and therefore had a tile or two taken from the roof,
in order that the boy might descend the chimney. He had no sooner
extinguished the fire than he suffered the lad to go down; and the
consequence, as might be expected, was his almost immediate death,
in a state, no doubt, of inexpressible agony. The flue was of the
narrowest description, and must have retained heat sufficient to have
prevented the child’s return to the top, even supposing he had not
approached the pipe belonging to the grate, which must have been nearly
red-hot; this, however, was not clearly ascertained on the inquest,
though the appearance of the body would induce an opinion that he had
been unavoidably pressed against the pipe. Soon after his descent, the
master, who remained on the top, was apprehensive that something had
happened, and therefore desired him to come up; the answer of the boy
was, ‘I cannot come up, master; I must die here.’ An alarm was given
in the brewhouse, immediately, that he had stuck in the chimney, and a
bricklayer who was at work near the spot attended, and after knocking
down part of the brickwork of the chimney, just above the fire-place,
made a hole sufficiently large to draw him through. A surgeon attended,
but all attempts to restore life were ineffectual. On inspecting the
body, various burns appeared; the fleshy part of the legs, and a great
part of the feet more particularly, were injured; those parts, too, by
which climbing boys most effectually ascend or descend chimneys, viz.,
the elbows and knees, seemed burnt to the bone; from which it must be
evident that the unhappy sufferer made some attempts to return as soon
as the horrors of his situation became apparent.”
“In the improvement made some years since by the Bank of England, in
Lothbury, a chimney, belonging to a Mr. Mildrum, a baker, was taken
down, but before he began to bake, in order to see that the rest of
the flue was clear, a boy was sent up, and after remaining some time,
and not answering to the call of his master, another boy was ordered
to descend from the top of the flue and to meet him half-way; but this
being found impracticable, they opened the brickwork in the lower
part of the flue, and found the first-mentioned boy dead. In the mean
time the boy in the upper part of the flue called out for relief,
saying, he was completely jammed in the rubbish and was unable to
extricate himself. Upon this a bricklayer was employed with the utmost
expedition, but he succeeded only in obtaining a lifeless body. The
bodies were sent to St. Margaret’s Church, Lothbury, and a coroner’s
inquest, which sat upon them, returned the verdict--Accidental Death.”
“In the beginning of the year 1808, a chimney-sweeper’s boy being
employed to sweep a chimney in Marsh-street, Walthamstow, in the house
of Mr. Jeffery, carpenter, unfortunately, in his attempt to get down,
stuck in the flue and was unable to extricate himself. Mr. Jeffery,
being within hearing of the boy, immediately procured assistance.
As the chimney was low, and the top of it easily accessible from
without, the boy was taken out in about ten minutes, the chimney-pot
and several rows of bricks having been previously removed; if he had
remained in that dreadful situation many minutes longer, he must have
died. His master was sent for, and he arrived soon after the boy had
been released; he abused him for the accident, and, after striking
him, sent him with a bag of soot to sweep another chimney. The child
appeared so very weak when taken out that he could scarcely stand, and
yet this wretched being, who had been up ever since three o’clock, had
before been sent by his master to Wanstead, which with his walk to
Marsh-street made about five miles.”
“In May, 1817, a boy employed in sweeping a chimney in Sheffield
got wedged fast in one of the flues, and remained in that situation
near two hours before he could be extricated, which was at length
accomplished by pulling down part of the chimney.”
On one occasion a child remained above two hours in some danger in a
chimney, rather than venture down and encounter his master’s anger.
The man was held to bail, which he could not procure.
As in the cases I have described (at Messrs. Calvert’s, and in
Lothbury), the verdict was usually “Accidental Death,” or something
equivalent.
It was otherwise, however, where wilful cruelty was proven.