sign in sign up
<<
Home , Bethnal Green, East End of London

Poverty, Wealth and History in the East End of : Life and Work

Part 3 : Labour and Toil Assessment

2 : The Standard of Living

Author : Paul Johnson

How can we assess the standard of living in the East End and what kind of comparisons can we make? Using a variety of sources creatively and knowing what sources you need to solve a problem are among the essential skills of a historian. We have provided you with:

1. A table listing the average wage and expenditures in the 1880s and 2000 2. An article tha t appeared in The Builder periodical in 1871 about the dwellings of the poor in 3. Images from the Illustrated London News detailing life in the

Find out how well equipped you are to assess the standard of living in the East End of London by answering the questions below and comparing your answers to Paul's thoughts. “Homes in the East of London”, The Builder, 28th January 1871

The average income and expenditure in the 1880s and 2000. P. Wilser, The Pound in Your Pocket, 1870-1970, Peter Wilser 1970; J. McGinty and T. Williams (Eds.) National Statistics. Regional Trends, 2001 ed., London: The Stationery Office

We traversed several alleys and courts, dirty and dismal, the denizens of which told their own tales in their pallid faces and tattered raiment. Here and about, the pavement of the streets, the flagging of the paths, the condition of the side channels, and the general state of the entries and back-yards are unendurably bad.

Let us instance New and Old Nichols Streets, the latter particularly is miserable and melancholy to behold. A showery day gives a vividness to the repulsive features observable. Rags, millboard, an old hat, or newspaper, will be found in this quarter

- 2 - doing duty for a pane of glass. We noticed several sashes here altogether free of panes, but we had no doubt about the aches within. There are many houses in this quarter not in habitable condition, and the back-yards of several are full to overflowing with nastiness and filth. The lanes off Mount Street, formerly Rose Street, as an old sculptured tablet dating from 1723 informs us, are also in a filthy condition, and the channels are unable to discharge themselves, or the sinks to carry off the liquid matter, household slops, or rainpour.

At the end of this street, where it leads into Old Castle -street, and abuts against a blind street, the terrible conflagration which we noticed in the Builder last autumn occurred. It would appear that neither fire-warnings nor fore-warnings make much impression upon some people; and though they escape with difficulty once or twice, they are still ready for some petty advantage to risk their lives again. The houses that were here completely gutted of floors, windows, and roofs, are now being repaired, and are already occupied; and the large timber-yard, whose close proximity caused all this dreadful havoc, will be soon restocked.

The authorities of or Bethnal Green ought to see that the back wall of the timber-yard is built of sufficient height and thickness to prevent such another accident as the last. There will exist the same danger as before, and perhaps the next time there will be a greater loss of life, if timely precaution be not taken. To give the people at the back of this timber-yard a chance for their lives, a passage should be opened into Newcastle Street, and the street allowed to exist no longer as a blind street. A brick wall alone cuts off egress.

…

Opposite Columbia Market, on the Crabtree road, there are streets, lanes, waste spots, and back-yards in a most wretched condition, dilapidated, houses, whose shattered doors and windows bear all the appearance of having been once bombarded, and are now tumbling to unmistakable ruin. Passing through an old gateway here, where we had to pick our steps through 6 in. of heavy sludge, we found ourselves in a few moments among a number of old tenements, that no stranger could expect to find in such a place. Their homes are gloomy and bare, and the gravest concern of their lives is how they will be able to `make both ends meet,' by Saturday night.

Not long ago a new station was opened. In a crowd outside Bethnal Green Police Court, youth and old age, draggle -tail and drunkard, shameless Amazon and skulking vagabond, will be found congregated. Such a sight we encountered as would beggar all description. Talk of the type of humanity and roughness, Bethnal Green has no necessity to play second fiddle, so far as the elements that compose her street rabble may be analysed. This street exhibition of infamy of all kinds acts as a dangerous example to villainy in the bud. It is a living picture, on which the young mind gloats and hungers to see repeated. The neglected children in our streets thus grow to manhood reflecting all, and more than all, of what they hear and see, and which, unfortunately, they are not slow to imitate.

Crossing -- sacred to costers' barrows and street stalls -- we wind along John Street by the Goods Station of the , and thence, turning an angle, we reach Winchester Street. The property about this quarter is in ruinous

Poverty, Wealth and History in the East End of London: Life and Work - 3 - condition. The dwellings of the poor are low and mean, and the general character of the buildings as structures are of the `Jerry' type. If the rent can be screwed out of the tenants around here, the landlord ought to be thankful. These wretched tenements have been doctored to death, and they are now bursting asunder in sheer rottenness. Street and London Street have roadways and footways of the very worst type, and on the day of our visit they were almost impassable swamps. The footways were nearly as bad as the streets. The drainage here is no doubt very bad, and in rainy weather inundation in the street is the consequence; but here as elsewhere in the district, as we will show, no attempt is made at keeping the thoroughfare in repair.

Off Bethnal Green Road proper we found many streets and lanes in a similarly neglected condition. In the back and low places are choked drains, inundation, and heaps of unremoved refuse. In White Street and its offsets, and Derbyshire Street, there was no end of sludge, and not a scavenger or sweeper to be seen anywhere, Round about this quarter a great many poor are located, eking out a subsistence in making articles of household use for children, , wood-splitters, chair- carvers, pill-box makers, and several other shop and house articles for sundry uses, the profits from which enable them to keep body and soul together. The Bethnal Green vestry ought to take a walk round this quarter, and see whether its condition will have any effect on stirring them into action; but these last-named places are beauty itself compared with other unmentionable localities, where the `social evil' and the small-pox are killing bodies and damning souls together.

The epidemic is raging and increasing in virulence in many of the districts we passed through, hinging on one side to Hackney and on the other to Shoreditch, and we had great difficulty in obtaining information, from the reluctance of parties to allow any of their family to be sent to the hospital. In certain quarters we found the poor people entered into `a solemn league and covenant' to render no information to visiting officers, if they suspected them as such. They choose to nurse the small-pox at home, and in many instances they doggedly refuse to let their children be vaccinated. It is curious to hear their reasons and the foolish notions they entertain. In some instances, they have a show of reason upon their side; for we find that some few medical men have not taken particular care with the cases they have attended. The health and general constitution of the patient operated upon ought to be known. Fresh and healthy matter is a necessity, that the eruption may be perfect. If the poor are not properly vaccinated the rich will assuredly, through one channel or another, eventually suffer.

To sum up the general condition of the portion of Bethnal Green district we passed over would be to simply say, Bethnal Green is in a most disgraceful and neglectful condition, and has been so for years. Some of the predisposing causes of this state we have already shown, others are to be found in the long-protracted squabbles of its local boards.

Poverty, Wealth and History in the East End of London: Life and Work - 4 -

A woman and her child labour in their homes in . Illustrated London News

Distress in the East End of London: a soup kitchen for the poor. Illustrated London News

· What do the differences in expenditure tell us about the spending priorities of someone in the 1880s and in 2000? · How useful are these statistics for gaining an insight into the standard of living? · Does the article from The Builder cast any light upon the data on wages and expenditure? · What do the images tell us about the view of the Illustrated London News of the standard of living? · What are the problems with using periodicals such as The Builder and the Illustrated London News as an insight into the standard of living? · What extra information might you need to complete the picture?

Poverty, Wealth and History in the East End of London: Life and Work - 5 -

Paul Johnson’s Thoughts:

The most striking difference in expenditure between the 1880s and 2000 is the amount of income spent on housing and on food. In 2000 housing consumes about one -third of the weekly budget, whereas it accounts for half of it in the 1880s. The situation is the same when it comes to food. In the 1880s food took up 38 percent of the weekly wage, whereas someone in 2000 was wont to spend only 16 percent of their takings on food. This does not necessarily mean that food has become less important for an individual over the last century: incomes have increased and the proportion spent on food relative to income will have decreased, more people are buying their own property and have mortgages to pay off. These differences merely indicate that we live in a very different world to that of the 1880s. The spending pattern of the wage -earner in the 1880s was more evenly spread than that of the earner in 2000.

What does this tell us about the standard of living? Clearly, the fundamental difference is that the earner in 2000 has much more disposable income. So, the `Other' category occupies almost half of the 2000 earner's income, where it takes up just over one -third of the 1880s earner's income. There is now more money to spend on cars, travel, leisure and other disposable pursuits. In the 1880s, however, whether because of the level of income or because of relative costs, spending on the bare comforts of survival had to take priority, and so firing and light absorbed almost 10 percent of income while in 2000 it barely accounted for 3 percent. For whatever reason, it would appear that people earning in 2000 enjoy a better standard of living. They have a much greater level of disposable income to spend on enjoyable non-essentials.

But these figures mask a great deal. They are merely averages and averages will not tell us about the level of inequality in society. Although the earner in 2000 looks a great deal better off, it might be that those at the lower end of the socio-economic scale aren't in a vastly different position to their counterparts in 1880. Furthermore, it is almost certainly the case that East Enders in 1880 spent a considerably larger proportion on the bare essentials than West Enders: the `Other' in their list of expenditures will be strangled by expenditure on fixed costs such as fuel, insurance and rent. A look at the budgets provided in `The Family in Statistics' from Section 2 will cast more light upon this.

The description of the condition of living in Bethnal Green adds texture to the statistical evidence. The article in The Builder provides a richly detailed, almost macabre account of life and work in the East End. Such a vivid recreation of the situation could not be revealed through the data: ``Here and about, the pavement of the streets, the flagging of the paths, the condition of the side channels, and the general state of the entries and back-yards are unendurably bad.'' The details of such articles reveal some very important points, which statistics do not.

The writers' condemnation of the state of Bethnal Green is informed by a strong sense that the authorities responsible for the area are largely to blame: ``The authorities of Shoreditch or Bethnal Green ought to see that the back wall of the timber-yard is built of sufficient height and thickness to prevent such another accident as the last.'' Indeed the piece concludes with an indictment of the efficacy of the local board: ``Some of the predisposing causes of this state we have already shown, others are to be found in

Poverty, Wealth and History in the East End of London: Life and Work - 6 - the long protracted squabbles of its local boards.'' Standard of living is as much determined by those who administer living environs as by income and how it is spent.

Indeed, text and data interact in other ways. Firing and light accounts for almost 10 percent of the 1880s budget. The dangers contingent upon this dependence on fire and fuel is also detailed in this piece from The Builder. It describes a fire that devastated the impoverished area: the proximity of residence to a timber yard is cited as one cause of the conflagration. Throughout this section, we have seen how life in the East End was characterised by the proximity of residence to noxious and potentially dangerous industry and is borne out by the description of ``the terrible conflagration which we noticed in the Builder last autumn … It would appear that neither fire- warnings nor fore-warnings make much impression upon some people; and though they escape with difficulty once or twice, they are still ready for some petty advantage to risk their lives again. The houses that were here completely gutted of floors, windows, and roofs, are now being repaired, and are already occupied; and the large timber-yard, whose close proximity caused all this dreadful havoc, will be soon restocked.''

Indeed, the writers seem to think that the residents of this deprived corner can barely spend on anything, let alone fire and light: ``If the rent can be screwed out of the tenants around here, the land lord ought to be thankful.'' Work is of the very lowest, most unskilled kind, just enabling the residents to scrape by: ``Round about this quarter a great many poor are located, eking out a subsistence in making articles of household use for children, costermongers, wood-splitters, chair-carvers, pill-box makers, and several other shop and house articles for sundry uses, the profits from which enable them to keep body and soul together.''

The images from the Illustrated London News add to this general picture of despair and deprivation. The first image depicts a mother and daughter sweating in their small, cramped living space, no doubt for a meagre living. The second image, entitled `Distress in the East End of London: the Soup Kitchen' shows a crowded, steaming soup kitchen. Everyone is hunched, faces are drawn; it is a grey dismal picture of life in the East End. None of the benefits of having a soup kitchen distribute food to the needy are made explicit. Rather, this is an unhappy and distressed place.

But there are problems with using periodicals such as The Builder and the Illustrated London News as a source or insight into the standard of living for East Enders. These were periodicals read by the middle class and wealthy residents of the West End. The audience for whom The Builder article is written is made explicit when it states that ``If the poor are not properly vaccinated the rich will assuredly, through one channel or another, eventually suffer.'' Such grim pronouncements are entirely in keeping with the ominous tone of the piece: the author has clearly taken a number of walks through the most poverty-stricken part of the East End and from this evidence written a series entitled: `Homes in East London'. There is clearly an element of sensationalism: for many west Londoners, the East End would have been as exotic as the wilds of and such articles always took advantage of the exoticism. Poverty was writ large and a gripping account of dismal deterioration would always take precedence over a more prosaically balanced account. So the images from the Illustrated London News and the writings of The Builder have to be read with the knowledge that this was the East End through the eyes of the privileged West End.

Poverty, Wealth and History in the East End of London: Life and Work - 7 -

The article from The Builder had an added dimension. It was a trade magazine and was aimed at those in the building and property industry. Its virulent criticism of the local authorities and vestries upkeep of the neighbourhood is part of a very pointed agenda and may not be an accurate depiction of the situation. It may indeed be directed towards a housing act enacted in 1868, which entitled landlords to compensation by local authorities. As with the sources about the condition of the matchgirls, it is important to get a sense of the purpose behind each piece of evidence.

A number of things would redress the imbalance in this particular case. For example, accounts of life from people who actually lived and worked in the East End, such as those provided in Section 2 of this course where East Enders talk about their experiences, would be helpful. A sense of the cost of living and average income of the East End, relative to the rest of London; the number of people living below the breadline in relation to the rest of London; data about the level of investment by local authorities into the area would be even more useful. The standard of living cannot be ascertained by data alone, nor by images and text alone: part of the trick is to learn how to use a variety of sources, to know which parts of the evidence can be trusted and how to use it sensibly.

Poverty, Wealth and History in the East End of London: Life and Work