Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-c9gpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T03:27:34.211Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Working-Class Standards of living in Three Lancashire Towns, 1890–1914

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Elizabeth Roberts
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This article examines some aspects of working-class standards of living in three Lancashire towns, Barrow-in-Furness, Lancaster and Preston, in the period 1890 to 1914. By looking on one hand at a number of externally determined factors, such as real wages and the cost of living, and on the other at the strategies with which the working-class families attempted to maximise their standards of living, an assessment is made of the relative success of these various strategies, particularly at periods when wages were on or below the poverty line. Particular stress is laid on evidence from Preston, in part because it has not previously been reported, but also because there appear to be a number of significant variations between Preston on the one hand, and Barrow and Lancaster on the other, when placed in apparently similar intrinsic conditions and in comparatively close geographical proximity to each other. These variations underline the extent to which generalisations derived principally from statistical data may be misleading, and also the importance of looking at individual discrete communities before relying on theoretical models of the relationship between, for example, income from primary employment and standards of living. If it is possible to demonstrate that working-class people in some towns were more successful than their near neighbours in combating poverty, we need to identify the reasons for these differences. Factors discussed include the economy of Preston compared with Barrow and Lancaster, comparisons of wage rates, the employment of women and its effects, and diets (including the use of allotments), the effects of drinking, as well as a look at possible negative factors, such as family size, and housing and hygiene.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Review of Social History , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , April 1982 , pp. 43 - 65
Copyright
Copyright © Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis 1982

References

1 Roberts, E., “Working-Class Standards of Living in Barrow and Lancaster, 1890–1914”, in: Economic History Review, Second Series, XXX (1977). This article placed particular emphasis on the importance of women's part-time casual earnings, the choice of an economical and nutritious diet, and the importance of the working-class habit of living off the land.Google Scholar

2 Some of the published studies are Family Budgets, Being the Income and Expenses of Twenty-Eight British Households 1891–4 (London, 1896); Paton, D. N., Dunlop, J. C. and Inglis, E., A Study of the Diet of the Labouring Classes in Edinburgh (Edinburgh, 1902); J. Oliver, “The Diet of Toil”, in: Lancet, 29 06 1895.Google Scholar

3 Inter-departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration [Cd 2175] (1904), p. 224.

4 Rowntree, B. S., Poverty: A Study of Town Life (London, 1901)Google Scholar; Reeves, M. P., Round About a Pound a Week (London, 1913).Google Scholar

5 The need for regional and local studies of standards of living has been suggested by, inter alia, Ashton, T. S., “The Standard of Life of the Workers in England, 1790–1830”, in: Capitalism and the Historians, ed. by Hayek, F. A. (Chicago, 1954);Google ScholarNeale, R. S., “The Standard of Living 1780–1844: A Regional and Class Study”, in: Economic History Review, Second Series, XIX (1966);Google ScholarBarns, G. J., by “The Standard of Living in the Black Country During the Nineteenth Century”Google Scholar, ibid., XXIV (1971); and Flinn, M. W.Google Scholar, “Trends in Real Wages, 1750–1850”, ibid., XXVII (1974).

6 Rowntree, , Poverty, op. cit., p. 296.Google Scholar

7 Research into working-class family and social life in Barrow and Lancaster was supported by an SSRC grant in the period 1974–1976. Similar research in Preston was supported by an SSRC grant in the period 1978–1981. The research has used both documentary and oral evidence. In the three towns, 156 old people were interviewed in depth and the indexed transcriptions are available for use in the University of Lancaster library. The work has been carried out under the aegis of the Centre for North-West Regional Studies in the University of Lancaster and with considerable help from the staff especially Marion McClintock, without whom this article would not have been written.

8 Census of 1911, County of Lancaster, table 23. The Census does not of course mention Vickers, but in Barrow it can be safely assumed that those enumerated under General Engineering and Ships and Boats worked for the company.

9 Ibid., table 13.

10 Ibid., table 24.

11 It can be sensibly argued that textile weavers were highly skilled workers. They did not, however, serve a recognised apprenticeship, nor were they paid at a skilled man's rate.

12 Board of Trade Enquiry into Working-Class Rents, Housing and Retail Prices (1908), Town Reports [Cd 3864], p. 381.

13 Preston and District Power-Loom Weavers, Winders and Warpers Association, Cases and Complaints Book, 1904–1909, Preston Record Office DDX 1089 811.

14 Preston and District Power-Loom Weavers, Winders and Warpers Association, Wages Calculation Book, 1900–1945, Preston Record Office DDX 1089 1411.

15 Mrs H.2.P., born 1898, claimed that her father, as a piecer, earned 16/l0d. This was increased to £2 when he became a minder in about 1903.

16 Mr T.2.P., born 1902, p. 4.

17 Mrs T.3.P., born 1912, 3/– per child c. 1916; Mr T.3.P., born 1886, 10/– per child c. 1912 for his own children. There are many other examples.

18 Mr W.3.P., p. 19.

19 Mr F.l.P., p. 61.

20 Miss A.3.P., p. 10. This lady did cook when she gave up full-time work.

21 Mr B.9.P., p. 8.

22 Barratt's Directory of Preston and District, 1892 and 1907.

23 Roberts, , “Working-Class Standards of Living”, bc. cit., p. 314.Google Scholar

24 Mr G.1.P., p. 69.

25 Mrs B.2.P., pp. 26–27.

26 Mrs W.1.P., p. 8.

27 Hunt, E. H., British Labour History 1815–1914 (London, 1981), p. 103.Google Scholar

28 Men Without Work. A Report made to the Pilgrim Trust (Cambridge, 1938), pp. 85, 235.Google Scholar

29 Schofield, E., “Food and Cooking of the Working-Class about 1900”, in: Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, CXXIII (1971). pp. 106, 152;Google ScholarHewitt, M., Wives & Mothers in Victorian Industry (London, 1958), pp. 74. 78–90;Google ScholarRoberts, R., The Classic Slum (Manchester, 1971), pp. 109–10.Google Scholar

30 Mrs M.3.P., p. 6.

31 When the previous article was written, the Barrow and Lancaster data were not completed, and the towns were in any case examined together; at that point one half of the total respondents had allotments. The differential developed when the completed data were examined.

32 Lancaster also had a large estate, “The Freehold”, built in the mid nineteenth century with gardens attached to the houses. Although this area had very prosperous houses and occupants, it also had worki-class streets and it would be a mistake to presume that only the wealthy lived there. Two of my respondents whose family income was under £1 a week lived there. One used the garden for growing vegetables for sale in the neighbourhood; the other was a widow who was a washer-woman and used the ground as a drying area. See Constantine, S., “Amateur Gardening and Popular Recreation in the 19th and 20th Centuries”, in: Journal of Social History, XIV (1980–1981).Google Scholar

33 Three of the allotment holders technically lived outside the borough boundaries, although they regarded themselves as Prestonians.

34 Because of the lack of continuity in the records it is not possible to cross-check each year, but the average death rate for five random years for St John (1902–1904, 1910–1911) was 20.65. A random five-year average for Hindpool (1898, 1900, 1904, 1906, 1908) was 14.92. Annual Reports of the Medical Officer of Health, Borough Accounts of Barrow-in-Fur- ness, 1898, 1900, 1904, 1906, 1908; Annual Reports of the Medical Officer of Health for Preston, 1902–1904, 1910-l1. The Annual Reports of the Medical Officer of Health for Barrow were printed in the Borough Accounts of Barrow-in-Furness and a complete set kept in the Barrow Town Library. The Annual Reports of the Medical Officer of Health for Preston were printed separately from other reports. There is an incomplete set of them in Preston Harris Library. The Annual Reports of the Medical Officer of Health for Lancaster are in both manuscript form and in a printed version. An incomplete set is divided between the offices of the Lancaster District Community Physician and the Lancaster City Library.

35 Barrow News, 25 July 1909.

36 Annual Reports of the Medical Officer of Health Borough Accounts of Barrow-in Furness, 1908–1909; Annual Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Preston, 1910.

37 Harrison, B., “Drink and Sobriety in England 1815–1872”, in: International Review of Social History, XIII (1967), pp. 208–09, for a critical examination of the weaknesses of using figures for prosecutions for drunkenness.Google Scholar

38 The average annual convictions for drunkenness in the years 1906–1914 (inclusive) per 1,000 of the population were Barrow 6.6, Lancaster 1.5, Preston 2.8. Figures are taken from the Annual Licensing Statistics,1906–1914.

39 The population figures were Barrow 1891 – 27,273 males, 24,439 females; 1901 – 31,494 males, 26,092 females; 1911 – 33,344 males, 30,396 females; Preston 1891 – 49,305 males, 58,268 females; 1901– 51,686 males,61,303 females; 1911 – 53,915 males, 63,173 females.

40 MacKenzie, W. A., “Changes in the Standard of Living in the United Kingdom, 1800–1914”, in: Economica, No 3 (1921);Google ScholarDingle, A. E., “Drink and Working-Class Standards of Living in Britain 1870–1914”, in: The Making of the Modern British Diet, ed. by D. J.Oddy and D. S.Miller (London, 1976), PP. 122–23.Google Scholar

41 Census of 1891, I, table 7: Lancaster – 5.6 persons; Barrow – 6.9 persons; Preston –4.8 persons; Census of 1901, County of Lancaster, tables 9 and 12: Lancaster – 5.3 persons; Barrow – 5.5 persons; Preston – 4.6 persons; Census of 1911, County of Lancaster, table 27: Lancaster – 4.4 persons; Barrow – 4.9 persons; Preston – 4.5 persons. The figures for 1891 should be taken to refer more accurately to household than to family size.

42 Census of 1911, County of Lancaster, table 16: Barrow – 3.7; Lancaster –4.8; Preston– 5.6. DrWalton, J. K., of the University of Lancaster, in his extensive studies of sea-side resorts which had very high percentages of people aged over 65 in their population, has discovered in fact that there towns had lower than average death rates. This might well suggest that high death rates were not so much affected by the demographic structure of the population as by income levels, those who retired to the sea-side being generally prosperous.Google Scholar

43 Board of Trade Enquiry, op. cit., p. 66.

44 Annual Reports of the Medical Officer of Health for Preston, 1889, 1891–1892, 1902–1904,1910.

45 Board of Trade Enquiry, p.383.Google Scholar

46 Census of 1901, County of Lancaster, table 7: number of persons per inhabited dwelling, Barrow – 6.7; Lancaster – 5.4; Preston – 4.7; Census of 1911, County of Lancaster, table 29: Barrow – 5.5; Lancaster – 5.1; Preston – 4.5; ibid., tables 27, 27a, 29: percentages of total population living more than 2 to a room, Barrow – 8.7; Lancaster –3.5; Preston – 5.6.

47 The only three years when direct comparisons can be made are 1902, 1903 and 1904. The average diarrhoea death rate in Barrow was 0,29, while the rate for Preston was 1.28.

48 Roberts, , “Working-Class Standards of Living”, p. 310.Google Scholar

49 These figures are taken from the local Medical Officers of Health Annual Reports, the Registrar General Annual Reports, and the Registrar General Decennial Reports [Cd 2619 and 8002] (1905 and 1914–1916). There are in fact considerable discrepancies between the death rates given by the local Medical Officer of Health for Lancaster and those given by the Registrar General. The Medical Officer of Health's average annual death rate for the years 1900–1909 is 13.77 (1910 Annual Report), whilst the Registrar General's for the same period is 17.2. Although some slight variations can always be found depending on how the inter-censal population is calculated on an annual basis, these substantial differences cannot be so explained. The explanation is to be found in the Lancaster Medical Officer of Health's Report for 1910. It is clear that although there is no discrepancy in the total numbers of deaths recorded by him and by the Registrar General, there is a significant discrepancy in both the annual and the ten-year average death rates. The Medical Officer of Health refused to include in Lancaster's death rate those who had died in one of the local institutions and who was not normally a Lancaster resident: “The question of the transference of deaths for non-residents has always been the subject of much trouble in a town which contains large numbers of persons brought into it for treatment”.The deaths of Lancaster residents in 1910, for example, was 555, but there were another 254 deaths of non-residents.

50 For the years 1902–1904 in Preston the average death rate for the St John's ward, one of the poorest and roughest areas, was 23.69, whilst that for the neighbouring Avenham ward, which was predominantly middle-class, was 14.93. Annual Reports of the Medical Officer of Health for Preston, 1902–1904.

51 Hewitt, Wives & Mothers in Victorian Industry, op. cit., chs VIII-X.

52 Dyhouse, C., “Working-Class Mothers and Infant Mortality in England 1895–1914”, in: Journal of Social History XII (1978–1979).Google Scholar

53 From the occupation tables the men listed as being employed by national and local government (but excluding defence of the realm), or occupied in a professional and commercial capacity, or as living on their own means, were enumerated and these totals calculated as a percentage of the total number of occupied males. Census of 1891, III, table 7: Barrow – 6.4; Preston – 9.3; Census of 1901, County of Lancaster, table 35: Barrow – 5.6; Preston – 9.3; Census of 1911, County of Lancaster, tables 13 and 23: Barrow – 7.3; Preston – 9.4.

54 Roberts, , “Working-Class Standards of Living”, pp. 307–08.Google Scholar

55 Winter, J. M., “The Decline of Mortality in Britain 1870–1930”, in: Population and Society in Britain 1850–1980, ed. by Drake, M. and Barker, T. (London, 1982).Google Scholar