During the latter part of the Georgian period (1774-1810), Britain shifted from an agricultural society to an urban-based industrial one. Birmingham offers a notable illustration of that transformation. Initially a small market town with 23,286, It paralleled the growth of other major cities in the Country, with it's population rising to 182,991 in 1841 and 400,744 by 1881.
Overcrowding and poverty, what does it mean? When we casually say, “My family ancestors were poor,” it might come across as a bit nonchalant, but do we truly grasp the harsh reality of poverty in 19th Century Britain? In 1910, LG Chiozza wrote “Riches and Poverty,” he pointed out that England itself was not ‘overcrowded'. In 1901 there were 1.15 persons to an acre.
As the Industrial Revolution gained momentum, so did the great towns, the countryside was being depopulated. Farming did not allow the opportunity of any great increase in wages, large numbers of people migrated and left the countryside to seek employment in seemingly more prosperous towns. The Country was empty and the Towns were full. By 1881, Birmingham covering 8,400 acres, had a population density of 49 persons per acre. Comparatively less crowded than other towns like Liverpool (108), Glasgow (85) and Manchester (79). This however, does not disguise the fact that Birmingham experienced relentless expansion and development, exemplified by the National figure of 1.15 per acre in 1901. [2]
Wealth Distribution
Chiozza advocated for wealth redistribution. He highlighted that the UK’s total income of £1,710,000,000 was disproportionately claimed by a mere 1.25 million “rich” individuals (£585 million) and three-quarters of a million deemed “Comfortable” (£245 million. This Leaves £880 million to be shared among 38 million labelled as poor. A staggering 30% in "Poverty". Out of a total population of 43,000,000 [3]
In a striking contrast between affluence and extreme poverty, Chiozza's calculations reveal that if the Income were evenly distributed, each person would have on average £40 or £300 for a family of five. However the harsh reality paints a very different picture as the lions share of the pie remains firmly in the hand of affluent few.
Riches - £ 468 or a whopping £ 2,340 for a family of five
Comfortable - £ 65 per head or £325 for a family of five
Poverty - £ 23 per head or £ 115 for a family of five
In completing my research into for 12,000+ families, I used the 1881 census records. To calculate the salary income for various occupations and trades, I researched an extensive multitude of sources, including the 1886 and 1909 board of trade records, the Abstract of Labour Statistics from 1894/96, Cadbury’s ‘Sweating’ and his look into 'Womens work and Wages', Charles Booth substantial body of work, the History of the Corporation of Birmingham in 1902 by Bunce & Vince and Peter Shergold’s exploration of working-class life.
After factoring in salary reductions for irregular work, the mean weekly income was 28.57 shillings for an average family size of 4.53 persons per household. Using this data, a family of five in Birmingham North in the 1880s would have an income of £81.98, notably below Chiozza's poverty line of £115 in 1901.
However, the average household size of 4.53 persons can be deceptive, particularly in impoverished areas. Often, families and individuals were densely packed into single rooms or houses, challenging the notion of a typical household. Interestingly, Birmingham, when contrasted with the national average, appears to occupy the lower end of the poverty scale. This aligns with the broader UK income distribution, reflecting widespread poverty as observed by social researchers Booth and Rowntree.
The nation appeared to host a multitude of poor individuals, thinly overlaid with a layer of the comfortable and the rich. [4]
Birmingham’s relentless growth, resulted and led to a surge in housing demand, attracting profit-driven speculative builders bringing prosperity and development for some but subjected others to a life of pauperism and a notable absence of quality of life. Picture narrow streets filled with polluted air, tainted by decomposing animals and factory emissions. Back-to-back houses built so poorly that you could see the light from the front through to the rear of the property, of flimsy walls, dimly lit rooms and cramped courtyards resembling filthy cesspits. These homes were hidden behind high walls, fostering isolation, criminality and antisocial behaviour.
With an burgeoning urban population, the lower end of rental charges, a back-to-back was the only available option for many a family and even then, they could only just afford half a house and not a whole one. When they did find a property to rent it was “Jerry Built” of inadequate construction.
Jerry Building'' is a term that refers to the construction of buildings in a cheap, shoddy, or careless manner. It implies poor workmanship, the use of low-quality materials that often end in poorly built structures that are unsafe and prone to deterioration. It normally is confined to the cheaper class of dwellings, the houses of the poor who cannot pay much rent, who cannot choose their places of abode, and who, therefore, have to suffer from thin walls, gaping floors, ill-fitting windows, and foundations which ensure perpetual dam. of walls pot together with mortar no better than mud, which crumbled away when touched ; of stonework honeycombed with decay ;of roofs " sagging of dry rot under the floors, ventilation having been omitted ; and of various other defects, every one of them one of the special " notes " of the jerry-builder. [5]
The court facilities themselves present deplorable conditions, putrid odours and an overall unsanitary. The callous unscrupulous attitude of Slum Landlords stemmed from a profit mentality who was not concerned, where heightened rents took precedence over the well-being of tenants. To maximise their profits repairs were often neglected, the strategy being to densely pack in as many houses as possible on a specific plot, leading to the proliferation of core cost effective back-to-backs and tunnel back houses. Initially, these properties were perceived as affordable by tenants, with front houses facing the street and passages leading to courts. Owners selectively chose middle class tenants for the front houses.
However, with the high demand prompted landlords to sublet and subdivide properties. Many families struggled to afford rent, had to take in lodgers and for their children to be subjected to repetitive menial jobs. Further crowded in an already cramped space, devoid of ventilation, windows, toilets or clean water, this dire living situation resulted in rampant disease, high infant mortality and a tragic short life expectancy, a stark contrast to the conditions of the suburbs.
Health of Birmingham
Dr. Alfred Hill, serving as the Medical Officer of Health for Birmingham, presented a detailed report in 1893 of registered births and deaths between 1882 and 1883. What caught my attention was the average age of the 2,650 individuals who died in the first quarter, was just 31 years and 9 months.
An even more significant number was 649 deaths were under one years of age, a mortality rate of 25% which was attributed to Whooping Cough.
There were seven primary disease’s that caused 241 deaths:
Whooping Cough: 241
Diarrhoea: 39
Typhus, Typhoid: 39
Scarlet Fever:
Measles: 8
Smallpox: 0
In the thirty-three largest English towns the death-rate was slightly higher than in Birmingham, being 22.0 per 1,000- The average age attained by the 2,650 persons who died during the quarter was 31 years and 7 months, against 32 years and 6 months in the same quarter of 1892. The deaths under one year of age numbered 649, as compared with 583 in the corresponding quarter of 1892; and between one year and five years 395, as compared with 385, Commenting upon the large increase in the deaths of children under one year of age, Dr. Hill says a great part of this increase was caused by the heavier mortality from whooping-cough [6]
John Cuming Walters,
To understand the essential facts, historical books such as Robert K Dent "Old and New Birmingham" volumes from before 1760 all the way up to in 1880 provide a wealth of information. While these books are worthwhile reading and valuable. I find archived Newspapers offers a more comprehensive understanding, a truer and fuller picture. The journalist John Cuming Walters, wrote a series of articles for the Birmingham Daily Gazette entitled 'Scenes in Slumland'
Walking through the courts you can see grinding poverty, lawlessness, and often utter recklessness pervade this overcrowded parish. Four out of every hundred residents face the grim inevitability of succumbing to illnesses fuelled by poor air, inadequate food, and an unhealthy lifestyle. The evenings though are when the overcrowding is prevalent with drunkenness populated by y rag-pickers, salt-sellers, tatterers, hawkers, sneak-thieves, pimps, prostitutes, and bullies, alongside the factory workers. Destitution is an omnipresent reality, stemming from various causes but undeniably pervasive. [7]
The back houses are normally entered through a narrow tunnel into the courtyard. Air circulation is awful due to houses being back-to-back and remains stagnant. It does not help that smells from the toilet privy circulated into the air in the confined space of the courts.
All these front houses with front openings only are practically traps for bad air, their construction rendering the air stagnant and efficient ventilation impossible. The air of the courts is also greatly vitiated by the presence of large numbers of pan privies, the effluvia from which are not only serious nuisance but they are an unquestionable injury to health. In many cases the nuisance is aggravated by a number of privies being built in a block, sometimes in a closely confined position, where the offensive odours cannot be swept away by the movement of air.
The living conditions were undeniably unhealthy, and John Cummings Walters persistently brought attention to the hypocrisy and neglect of those in authority. Through his and the Birmingham Gazettes "Slumland" articles and his coverage of the 'Artisans Dwellings Committee' meetings, his continuous support and aimed to be a voice for the working classes [8]
Thomas Dutton a Gun Maker is a Widower, lives along with his 2 daughters and son lodges at No. 4 with The Ingrams. William Ingram himself is 35 years and their four children are all under 7 years of age. As Williams is the only person bringing Income of 17.21 shillings per week into the household, hence the need to sub-let to Thomas Duttonhis The Ingram Family at No.4 |
How does Birmingham compare with Liverpool and Manchester
The death rates of 1893, were still be discussed some seven years later in 1901, J Cumings Walters conjectured and compared Birmingham's approach to that of cities of similar size. Birmingham, with a population of 514,966, is smaller than Liverpool (634,212) and Manchester (543,902), both cities with comparable objectives. Despite Birmingham's smaller population, the widespread nature of slums you would think should warrant a reasonably comparable sanitary staff and payment salary rate.
Manchester employed a Sanitary Superintendent at £500 per annum and a Chief Inspector at £220, totalling £720. Liverpool, on the other hand, had a Chief Inspector at £275, an Assistant £170, and seven prosecuting Inspectors averaging £140, totalling £1,425. Birmingham's staff consists of a Chief Inspector at £400 and an Assistant at £117, totalling £517. Birmingham therefore paid £203 less than Manchester and a substantial £908 less than Liverpool. This raises questions about whether Liverpool and Manchester are excessively extravagant or if Birmingham's approach was overly economical. [9]
Councillor Lovesay aligned with Walters, and his reporting on the high death rates, overcrowding, and poverty. Lovesay publicly accused the Council and Health Department of negligence, asserting their guilt for allowing such conditions to persist without earnest efforts to rectify the situation. [11]
In scrutinising the newspaper archives from 1880-1901 and delving further into articles related to overcrowding, poverty and slumlife, the Health Committee, and Birmingham City Council, a regular theme emerges - a considerable amount of discussions but seemingly limited tangible action
The ‘Artisan Dwellings Committee’ was a municipal body established to address housing issues, particularly those of the working class and ‘Artisans’ or skilled workers. The following extracts are taken from the Birmingham Daily Gazette - 26th February 1884 [12]
Dr. Hill Evidence
Dr. Hill was further examined. He stated that in St. Paul's Ward there were 103 void houses, of which 50 were totally unfit for habitation, whose owners had closed them rather than put them in repair.
In Devonshire Street there were some houses built on swampy ground; the mortor containing one part of lime to fifty parts of sand, and the "sand" was simply road sweepings, containing a lot of organic matter. The colour was that of dry mud. and when touched it fell out of the walls
cases of two families living in one house where the husbands were skilled artisans, earning 30s a week. In many " furnished apartments" He had found more than one family in one room, the room being, sometimes divided by means of a partition running half-way up to the ceiling. He knew of five or ten such cases in his district. He had found also as many as four or five families living in one house. Such people paid from 2s. to 4s. 5d. per week for the accommodation, This sub-letting was sometimes done by the landlord, but more commonly by the tenant, who made as much as 10s. a week upon a house rented primarily for 3s. 6d.
WILLIAM JAMES RIDLEY, a relieving officer of No. 4 district in the parish of Birmingham, said that he had held his present office for twenty-two years-. The district was one in which there were a great many poor people. The houses were chiefly let out in rooms, a whole court being taken by one man, who charged from 3s. to 5s. a week for " furnished apartments."
School Board Officer Account of Overcrowding
Mayor Alderman Cook ventured an opinion as to what caused poverty:
Witness: I think it down to drunkenness, in a great measure. I don’t know whether I am right in saying that
Councillor Mr Fallows: You are right. That is the main cause.
This theme of alcohol was the culprit for the poor man's woes continued. George Gould, The school Board Officer
Very poor people were overcrowded, and people also who might, if they wished, he in better circumstances, His experience tended to show that it was intemperance which caused much of the poverty.
In 19th-century Birmingham, the relationship between work patterns, alcohol consumption, and living standards was a prominent discussion and continually scrutinised.. The belief lingered that piecework, with its intermittent nature, contributed to the cycle of labourers indulging in heavy drinking after periods of disproportion of work.
A stark correlation emerged between the prevalence of squalor, social discomfort, and indecent housing and the proximity of numerous public houses and beerhouses. The most unsanitary areas coincided with clusters of drinking establishments, suggesting a connection between the physical environment and social habits.
Mr. John Lou, a witness, acknowledged some overcrowding but asserted it was not a significant issue. However, certain wards, including Upper and Lower Tower Street, New Summer Street, Upper and Lower Hospital Street, and Cecil Street, displayed higher insanitary conditions. Pointing out, the most sanitary district had fewer licensed drinking establishments compared to the excessively poor district. William Gaul of the Birmingham Temperance Society noted a surge in drunkenness, particularly among married women.
In my view , attributing poverty solely to drunkenness appears to be a diversion, deflecting attention from the deeper issues that affected the actual living conditions of the poor. It seems a convenient way to be able to sidestep the more compelling factors that contributed to the challenges faced by the improvised who lived in Slumland. In allowing the issuing of alcohol licences to build more beer houses was a potential economic motive maybe?
It certainly raises scepticism as at the meeting, Mr. Eli Bloor shared insights from insurance agents, challenging the notion that a significant portion of families were plagued by drunkenness and untidiness. One agent, overseeing 600 families, reported only 30 as drunken and 30 as untidy. Another, with 710 families, had 16 cases of drunkenness and 30 of untidiness.
This continuous narrative should have raised questions that the root causes of poverty might extend beyond mere alcohol-related factors. [13]
Maybe the councillors should have listened more attentively to Mr James Thompson, in the previous Artisans Dwellings Committee on the 11th March just seven days before.
Birmingham Daily Post 11th Mar 1884
Mr. JAMES THOMPSON, house painter, said he had had twelve years experience in Birmingham, and his impression was that either the agents or landlords did not allow sufficient money for the repair of house property in a proper manner. They did not have the walls stripped and whitewashed, nor the ceilings cleansed. The tradesman had to give a limited price and not sufficient to do the work properly. The prices ranged as low as 8s. for whitewashing a three-roomed house-houses built with no back to them. The 8s. would pay for the whitewashing of the attic, staircase, ceiling, and pantry. In some instances a shilling or two more was given, and in others a little less. If the bed rooms and kitchen were papered the price would be about 15s. That was a fair average, but it did not include stripping the walls. There were, of course, some good landlords, who would pay a shilling or two more and have the walls stripped, but they were very few. He had in some cases stripped off the walls of a house twelve and fourteen pieces of paper which had been placed one on the top of the other instead of the walls being stripped. Here and there he found a nail or two used to fasten the paper on the mells. The cellars were scarcely ever whitewashed, although it was important they should be. He had not, as a rule, found the people dirty. In some cases he had found that the tenants had sat up all night to strip the paper off the walls, because the landlord would not pay for it to be done. If more encouragement were given the tenants, he was convinced they would keep their houses clean. He was alluding to artisans houses, which ranged from 3s. 6d. to 5s. a week, If each house was thoroughly stripped and limewashed once in three years he thought no more large hospitals would be required for cases of disease. (Laughter.) The stench in stripping off the paper was sometimes unbearable.
The Housing of the Working Classes
The Health Committee reported to Birmingham City Council small houses were of unsatisfactory condition and an inadequacy of supply. Dr Alfred Hill from the Medical Office for the Health Committee highlighted a significant increase in the death rate in certain areas of the city, specifically St Mary’s, St Bartholomew's, and St Stephens Wards. While the city's overall death rate was 20.5 per 1000 in 1889, it had surged to 29.7 in St Mary’s, 27.1 in St Bartholomew's, and 25.6 in St. Stephens per 1000 in 1900.
In the slumland streets within these Wards, the death rate could potentially be even higher. Despite these alarming figures, the Committee and the Council hesitated to recommend any changes, although acknowledging an existing shortage of accommodation as there were fewer houses available today than there were 10 years previous. They expressed concern that alterations might trigger an upheaval leading to overcrowding in a neighbouring ward, dismissing the feasibility of an immediate solution.
The committee itself conducted inquiries into acquiring a suitable site for workmen’s dwellings and a potential site situated between Bordesley Green Road and Yardley Road was identified and discussed. The committee estimated that 500 houses could be constructed, accommodating an average of five individuals per house, thereby providing housing for a population of 2,500. An agreed budget of £6,200 was proposed to cover purchase costs and charges and to obtain a loan for the longest period available.
Parliament though did not approve a change to the bill for local government to amend the extension of repayment loans. Causing a paradoxical situation where The Health Committee had been closing houses due to insanitary conditions, exacerbating therefore a shortage of available accommodation and in itself causing more overcrowding. The Birmingham Board of Guardians pressed the Council and the Committee to look at the urgent need to provide proper housing accommodation for a very large number of the poor but it was decided that on the whole, that while in a city like Birmingham cases of bad overcrowding will from time to time occur.
Health Committee Sues The Birmingham Gazette for libel
The numerous Slumland articles, and the accusations directed at the Council and the Health Department for purportedly failing to take adequate action to aid the residents in the impoverished districts of Birmingham, led to legal action. In May 1901 Alderman Cook, the Chairman of the Health Committee, served a writ to the Birmingham Gazette over alleged libel in the 'Scenes in Slumland' articles. The dispute culminated in a court hearing in July.
The Committee defended itself by highlighting the substantial demand for housing in Birmingham in 1897, where 40,000 back-to-back houses existed, with 13,000 rented at 3s 6d. They acknowledged many of these properties were unsatisfactory, but as new constructions were limited, they argued these homes served a crucial public need. There was incredulity from the Gazettes Solicitors as the newspapers articles had presented numerous instances of dangerous and poorly-maintained properties,
with repairs languishing for years. Issues included unpaved and dirty courts, overflowing waste tubs, neglected pan systems, and roofs leaking rain causing water damage to children's beds and damp sheets, of walls cracked, houses left for years without paint or whitewash, deplorably bad drainage, of rotten woodwork full of lice bugs, sanitary conditions in a shocking condition.
The list is endless and in reading these, a surprising revelation emerged – one of the worst-maintained properties was owned by Alderman Barratt, a member of the Health Committee, adding an ironic twist to the proceedings. [14]
Even though the Birmingham Gazette dealt with the main issues being. One, the state of the property in the slums. Two, the letting and letting and three, the morality of the residents. It was to no avail and Alderman Cook won his libel case against the Birmingham Gazette and the Judge awarded him £ 250 damages. [15]
And what of the unfortunate people who lived in Slumland, such as my great great grandfather, a file cutter who lived in Lower Tower Street and aged just 47 died during this period of time in 1889.