Chapter XX: Appendix (10)

There appears to be little evidence on one side or the other in support of this last hypothesis, other than such as that cited from Dr. Davidson himself; but it is to be observed that the wet or bad seasons, which suspend agricultural industry and much labour in the towns, is usually of a character of itself to predispose to disease, if not to produce it; and that it does propagate it amongst all classes, high and low, in proportion to their exposure to it. It appears to be highly probable that the privation attendant on the stoppage of work, by diminishing the means for the purchase of fuel, of soap, &c., and in various ways by inducing lax habits of life, may increase the amount of exposure to and loss from the all-pervading cause.

The preponderant evidence given on this subject by the great majority of the medical officers in England who are accustomed to visit the labouring classes in their own dwellings, is however of the tenor of the following from the medical officer of the Whitechapel union acting in Spitalfields parish.

_Mr. Byles_, the medical officer of the Whitechapel union:—

“What is the number of cases you have had to visit during the year
1841 as a medical officer?—I think the number of cases I have had to
visit during each year since the commencement of the Union has been
upwards of 2,000 cases of various disease, of which 1,400 were cases
out of the workhouse.

“Has the present winter been unhealthy?—I do not think it has; there
has been an increase of fever cases during the last month. The number
of cases is, however, still below the average of 1838.

“Is there not, however, unusual distress in your district,
comprehending Spitalfields and a portion of Whitechapel?—Yes, there
is: I believe that more than half the looms are out of work.

“Do you not find that fever attacks in greatest number those who are
out of work?—On the contrary, the greatest number of the cases of
fever we have are those who fall ill during the time they are in
employment. I think they are more attacked when in work, when the
windows are closed, and there is no ventilation. Many of them are
obliged to work with closed windows, to keep out the moist air, and
prevent the dust blowing upon their work. When they are out of work,
they are more out of doors looking after work, more in the open air,
and that very exercise may be the means of keeping them in health.
This observation applies to the weavers. I find that they have
generally less fever when they are out of work. The reverse, I think,
holds as respects out-door labourers, such as those who work at the
docks. When they are out of work, they stand about waiting in the
cold, and when cold, they generally take cheap gin, and no food: they
catch cold, and on going to their close filthy habitations, their cold
is apt to generate fever.

“There was an unusual amount of fever prevalent in Spitalfields and
Whitechapel, was there not, in the year 1838?—Yes, there was; in the
proportion, perhaps, of more than two to one of the present amount. My
last account for the year ending Lady-day, 1842, was about 250 fever
cases; it has been as high as 800.

“Did it prevail proportionately amongst the weavers?—Yes, I believe it
did.

“Was there any marked or unusual distress at that period?—Not that I
remember.

“Do you find in the course of your experience that the diminution of
food is followed by fever?—Not as a general cause, I should say. If
these two persons, casually exposed to the contagion of fever, the one
in full vigour, and with a full stomach, the other with an empty
stomach, the person with the empty stomach would be the most obnoxious
to its influence. In my experience, however, intemperance is a much
more frequent antecedent to fever than destitution or want of food.

“Have you ever observed that habits of intemperance are created by
distress of mind?—Such cases may occur, but I have not observed them,
and I think it does not operate as a general cause.

“What are the chief remedies which your experience in this district
would lead you to recommend for the prevention of fever and contagious
diseases?—The promotion of cleanly habits amongst the poor; the
promotion of sewerage and drainage; having proper supplies of water
laid on in the houses; the removal of privies from improper
situations. I could point out in our neighbourhood many houses, and
some courts, that ought to be pulled down as wholly unfit for human
habitation.

“What is the personal state of the labouring classes in your
district?—Generally extremely filthy. I have said that I could almost
smell from what street a man came who came to my surgery: I do not
think the poor themselves are conscious of it, but the smell to other
persons must be extremely offensive. I certainly think that the want
of personal cleanliness, and of cleanliness in their rooms, and the
prevalence of fever, stand in the relation of cause and effect.

“Your colleague has pointed out that the want of proper and convenient
supplies of water is an antecedent to the filth and the fever. Does
your experience enable you to concur with him?—My experience entirely
agrees with his on that point.”

The late _Dr. Cowan_, of Glasgow, and the great majority of the medical officers, assign the foremost place to these physical agencies as antecedents to fever.

The medical controversy as to the causes of fever; as to whether it is caused by filth and vitiated atmosphere, or whether the state of the atmosphere is a predisposing cause to the reception of the fever, or the means of propagating that disease, which has really some other superior, independent, or specific cause, does not appear to be one that for practical purposes need be considered, except that its effect is prejudicial in diverting attention from the practical means of prevention.

_Dr. Bancroft_, one of the controversialists cited by Dr. Davidson, observes,—

“That fever often exists in them” (gaols) “cannot be denied; but this
circumstance can afford no evidence of its being generated therein,
any more than the multiplication of vermin in such places could
demonstrate the spontaneous generation of these and other insects by
the nastiness which favours the deposition and hatching of their
eggs.”

Taking the controversy at this point, and admitting the force of this statement, the decision upon it will not alter the practical value of cleanliness, or of its protective effects in prevention, whether it remove an original or only a predisposing cause.

Yet it cannot but be regretted that the enlightened force of the professional opinion should sustain any diminution from an apparent want of unanimity on so important a question as the necessity of removing these causes, whether original or predisposing: that, for example, whilst the fleets were ravaged by fever and disease, men of high standing should have occupied the attention of the public with speculations on contagion, and infection from the gaols as the original cause, and diverted attention from the means of prevention, cleansing and ventilation, the means by which, as will hereafter be shown, the pestilence was ultimately banished. The main error of those who have ascribed fever to destitution, appears to have been in adopting too hastily as evidence of the fact of destitution, such _primâ facie_ appearances as are noticed by Dr. Scott Alison, an error which non-professional experience may correct. In more than one instance where, in a district in which the demand for labour was still great, and the wages high, benevolent gentlemen have propounded similar doctrines, which, being at variance with the known state of the labour-market, I have requested that the names of these fever cases might be given, that their antecedent circumstances might be examined, and the accuracy of the conclusions tested, by officers of experience in such investigations; but I think it right to state the names or means of inquiry have never been forthcoming. In general, medical practitioners and benevolent individuals are extremely liable to deceive themselves and to deceive others, by what they call the evidence of their own eyes. The occurrence of severe destitution is denied as a general cause of fever, not as a consequence. The evidence shows that the best means of preventing the consequent destitution are those which prevent the attacks of fever and other epidemics upon all classes of the community.

By an extract from a report of the late Dr. Currie, of Liverpool, given in the Appendix, it will be seen that at the time he wrote, 1797, when only 9500 of the population are reported to have lived in cellars, the proportion of fever cases was nearly the same as at present, when the cellar population has risen to 40,000; the disease has been almost as constant as the surrounding physical circumstances of bad ventilation, filth, and damp then pointed out as removable, and the disease has continued in every period of the prosperity of the town in its progress from a population of 77,000 to 223,000 in 1841. So the late Dr. Ferriar, of Manchester, when writing between 30 and 40 years ago, of the state of the population in periods of great prosperity, especially for hand-loom weaving, described the effect of the bad economy of the habitations much as they were described in the year 1829 by Dr. Kay, and as they are described in 1840 by Dr. Baron Howard. _Dr. Ferriar_, when he wrote to warn the labouring classes as to the choice of their dwellings, stated that—

“The custom of inhabiting cellars also tends to promote both the
origin and preservation of febrile infection. But even in them the
action of filth and confined air is always apparent when fevers arise.
I have often observed that the cellar of a fever patient was to be
known by a shattered pane, patched with paper or stuffed with rags,
and by every external sign of complete dirtiness.”

The false opinions as to destitution being the general cause of fever, and as to its propagation, have had extensively the disastrous effect of preventing efforts being made for the removal of the circumstances which are proved to be followed by a diminution of the pestilence.

The opinion of the majority of the medical officers of the unions in England on this topic, acting in districts in every condition, might be expressed in the terms used by _Dr. Davidson_:—

“It has already been shown that filth and deficient ventilation tend
much to spread the contagion of typhus, being almost constant
concomitants; and that while it generally affects the whole members,
or the large proportion of a family among the lower orders, it rarely
spreads in this manner among the better classes of society, who attend
more to cleanliness and ventilation. It is quite obvious that an
amelioration of the physical condition of the lower orders, in these
particulars, would, in proportion as this was effected, diminish their
chances of catching the contagion, which would not only operate in
lessening directly its diffusion, but by reducing the number of its
sources, must tend to lessen the actual quantity of this principle
that might be generated in a given time.

“But can this amelioration be effected to any appreciable extent; or,
if effected, could it be maintained for any length of time? We fear
that little permanent amelioration could be effected without a
legislative enactment; for though our philanthropists are very active
in their charities during the prevalence of an epidemic, it no sooner
subsides than they relapse into a comparative quiescence, and our
working population into their former habits of filth and intemperance.
And the evil will continue to assail us so long as our cities contain
so many narrow and filthy lanes, so long as the houses situated there
are little better than dens or hovels, so long as dunghills and other
nuisances are allowed to accumulate in their vicinity, so long as
these hovels are crowded with inmates, and so long as there is so much
poverty and destitution. Why, then, should we not have a legislative
enactment that would level these hovels to the ground—that would
regulate the width of every street—that would regulate the ventilation
of every dwelling-house—that would prevent the lodging-houses of the
poor from being crowded with human beings, and that would provide for
their destitution? It may be said that this would interfere too much
with the liberty of the subject, and no doubt it would be vehemently
opposed by many interested persons. In place, however, of being an
infringement on the liberty of the subject, it might rather be
designated an attempt to prevent the improper liberties of the
subject; for what right, moral or constitutional, has any man to form
streets, construct houses, and crowd them with human beings, so as to
deteriorate health and shorten life, because he finds it profitable to
do so? As well ought the law to tolerate the sale of unwholesome food
because it might be profitable to the retailer of it.”

But the professional experience and weight of professional testimony on this subject is not confined to this country. In a report prepared under the superintendence of a commission of the Royal Academy of Medicine at Paris,[16] appointed to investigate the epidemics prevalent in France, similar general conclusions are announced upon similar evidence adduced, of which we select the following instance:—

“If an example,” says the report, “be necessary to justify this
placing of circumstances as cause and effect, we shall find one in the
terrible epidemic which desolated the commune of Prades, in the
department of Ariège, at the end of the year 1838. Out of 750 healthy
and vigorous inhabitants of this commune 310 were attacked with the
disease, and 95 died, thus the deaths were 1 in every 3¼ cases. The
cause of this epidemic, violent and sudden in its nature, and which
broke out in all points at once, is not less evident. It proceeded
from a sewer, the receptacle of all the water from the neighbourhood,
and of the filth which the water brought with it, and of the dead
animals of the district. The hot, damp weather which preceded it no
doubt augmented the activity of this focus of infection. The first
persons attacked were the women employed in washing linen in this
pestiferous pool, and the labourers working in the neighbourhood of
it. This terrible epidemic recurred three times, which the invalids in
their simplicity attributed to the influence of the moon, but which
mainly depended upon the wind at certain periods passing over the
infected pool, and bringing the miasma in the direction of their
dwellings. If for want of sufficient description it is not possible to
prove completely the similarity of the epidemic at Prades with the
typhus fever, yet it may be inferred from the symptoms, viz. that when
the skin was broken deep sores were formed, and that serous abscesses
showed themselves in the lymphatic ganglions, that this disease was
very similar to the ancient putrid and malignant fevers formerly
described by authors, and which are entirely replaced in our
_nosology_ by the typhoid affection. The physicians of Ariège, in
order to prove that the disease was not _contagious_, and to re-assure
the inhabitants, lay in the beds from which the invalids had been
removed.”

Adverting to the local reports they have received, the Commissioners state—“These reports have awakened in us the sad conviction that many localities are quite devoid of even the most simple ideas on public health; the inhabitants live surrounded by marshes, drains, stagnant pools, manure heaps, without having the slightest idea of the dangers they are incurring. Indeed, many of them blindly speculate in these heaps of infection, increasing the manure which is to enrich their fields at the expense of their health, and often of their lives.”

The Commissioners observe,—“Most of the improvements in public health have been brought about through the experience and science united in our large cities; so much so that now epidemics often come to us from the rural districts. These epidemics are generally much less fatal than formerly, but are still very prevalent even in the wealthiest and the most civilized departments. It would be an important problem to solve, what are the causes which produce these epidemics in the agricultural as well as in the manufacturing counties, as in ancient Normandy and Picardy. One cause is certainly the unhealthiness of the houses. The inhabitants of these districts are, in general, well fed, well clothed, but ill lodged. We are surprised to find in the midst of a fertile plain wide districts covered with luxuriant vegetation, villages buried in the ground, _smothered_ with large trees, and cottages constructed without any art or plan, and almost entirely without windows.” The Commissioners state, further,—“If you wish to have a robust and healthy people, you must have a care for their physical education, their houses, and their modes of living. Do not allow generation after generation to be depressed under the evil effects of recurring epidemics, which must eventually ruin the strongest constitutions, as is seen to be the case in marshy and ill-drained districts, where fevers, _goitres_, and scrofulas constantly prevail.”

In another report made on the proceedings of the Conseil de Salubrité, the diseases prevalent amongst the population in the towns is adverted to:—“We must be like the men so well painted by the Psalmist, to reject such evidence—_eyes have they, and see not_. How shall we explain, or rather to what shall we attribute the difference that is remarked between the mortality of one quarter and that of another quarter of the same town; of one street and that of another street of the same quarter or of the same village; or, lastly, the difference that is observed in this respect between the houses of the same street and those houses which are completely isolated? Misery, it is replied to us, is the cause. Yes, without doubt, misery is a powerful cause; but it is so especially when it is driven back into the most insalubrious quarters, streets, and houses; when it lives habitually in the midst of filth and dirt, that is to say, in the midst of an infected atmosphere; and when there is no misery, or when it exists in the same degree in the quarters, in the villages, in the streets, and in the houses with which the comparison is made; and, stronger still, when poverty is met with precisely there where there is the least mortality; in what is to be found the cause of this difference, if it is not in the insalubrity of the dwelling-places?”

The report on the local epidemics concludes by earnestly recommending to the government—“That sanitary measures be adopted by means of which the constitution of the people may be renewed, and their longevity increased. If this recommendation be fulfilled, we may then hope to see the condition of some of the departments ameliorated, in which now the population is so degenerated that the men seem to diminish in size each time they are measured for the conscriptions.”

Evidence on the mismanagement of expenditure in respect to supplies of food, on mismanagement also in respect to clothing and fuel by the labouring classes, might be added to complete the view of the principal causes of disease prevalent amongst them, but these do not come within the immediate scope of the present inquiry, which has been directed chiefly to the investigation of the evils affecting their sanitary condition, that come within the recognized provinces of legislation or local administration.

The information on the means for the prevention of epidemic disease arising in the common lodging-houses maintained for the accommodation of trampers and vagrants, might also have been considered in connexion with the subject of the effects of overcrowding and filth which they strongly exemplify; but it appeared most convenient to consider them apart, from the exposition of what may be termed the indigenous evils that afflict the settled inhabitants of the labouring class.

I would now submit for consideration, 1st, the total expense of the present state of things, so far as a proximate view of it can be obtained, on the health, strength, and life of the lower classes of the population. 2d, a proximate view of the pecuniary expense of such partial remedies as are at present applied or applicable to alleviate the consequences of these preventable diseases.

IV.—COMPARATIVE CHANCES OF LIFE IN DIFFERENT CLASSES OF THE COMMUNITY.

Very dangerous errors arise from statistical returns and insurance tables of the mean chances of life made up from gross returns of the mortality prevalent amongst large classes, who differ widely in their circumstances. Thus we find, on inquiry into the sanitary condition of the population of different districts, that the average chances of life of the people of one class in one street will be 15 years, and of another class in a street immediately adjacent, 60 years. In one district of the same town I find, on the examination of the registries, the mortality only 1 out of every 57 of the population; and in another district 1 out of every 28 dies annually. A return of the average or the mean of the chances of life, or the proportions of death in either instance, would and does lead to very dangerous errors, and amongst others to serious misapprehensions as to the condition of the inferior districts, and to false inferences as to the proper rates of insurance. With the view of arriving at some estimate of the comparative extent of the operation of the chief causes of sickness and mortality proved to be prevalent, amidst the different classes of society, in the towns where the sanitary inquiries have been made; I have obtained the following returns from the clerks of the several unions acting as superintendent registrars. These returns have, as far as practicable, been corrected by particular local inquiry, and are submitted as the best approximations that can readily be obtained. In all districts, and especially in the manufacturing districts, there is some migration of labourers which would, for the obtainment of perfect accuracy as to the chances of life in particular localities, have rendered necessary an examination of every individual case enumerated. This extent of labour has been considered unnecessary. In the returns from single towns, the numbers of deaths of persons of the first class are too small not to be affected by accidental disturbances, but when large numbers of the like class are taken, the uniform operation of the like circumstances are shown in the like results. It is at present a general defect of the important head of information, “the occupation of the deceased,” that the deaths of masters are not carefully distinguished from the deaths of journeymen. So far as this error prevails, it will tend to raise the apparent chances of life amongst the labouring classes. In some instances the occupations of the deceased, or of the parents of the deceased, in the case of children, are not described in the registries. With these and possibly with other defects that may have escaped notice, these returns will be received as corroborative of the reports of the medical officers and physicians who have attended and observed many of the individual cases themselves, though not enumerated by them. Had the mortality prevalent amongst workpeople of particular trades and their families been taken, instead of the mean chances of persons of all occupations deriving subsistence from weekly wages, the case of classes with still lower chances would have been presented; but these would have appeared to suggest particular remedies. Such returns of the effects of common evils were therefore taken as appeared applicable to the consideration of common or general means of prevention.

One of the first returns obtained is from _Dr. Barham_, as to the different rates of mortality in Truro:—

“The information derived from the registers of deaths and sickness has
been arranged in a series of tables.[17] The first gives a return of
the condition in life, average ages, and the causes of death, with
respect to all who died in Truro from July 1st, 1837, to December
31st, 1840. The occupation of the deceased not being stated in the
register, except in the case of adult males, the condition of others
has been inferred in the majority of cases from that of the parent or
husband, in many from my own knowledge of the parties, and in others
from the place of abode or other collateral evidence. Altogether I am
confident that the statement is not materially erroneous.”

The sum of these several returns was as follows:—

No. of TRURO. Average Deaths. Age of Deceased.

33 Professional persons or gentry, and their families 40 years.

138 Persons engaged in trade, or similarly circumstanced,
and their families 33

447 Labourers, artisans, and others similarly
circumstanced, and their families 28

In Derby the proportions appear to be as exhibited in the following table:—

No. of DERBY. Average Deaths. Age of Deceased.

10 Professional persons or gentry 49 years.

125 Tradesmen 38

752 Labourers and artisans 21

To compare the chances of life between a crowded manufacturing population and a less crowded rural population, I selected the county of Rutland, because it had been selected as an average agricultural district for a comparison as to its general condition by the members of the Statistical Society of Manchester, and they deputed their agent, _Mr. J. R. Wood_, to make inquiries on an examination from house to house. The following are portions of his examination:—

“Amidst what population have you inquired from house to house?—Amidst
a portion of the population of Manchester, viz. Pendleton, having a
population of about 10,000; I visited every house. In like manner I
went through Branstoun, Engleton, and Hambleton, in Rutlandshire,
being a rural population of upwards of 1,000, and Hull, having a
population of nearly 40,000, exclusive of Sculcoates, Ashton, and
Dukinfield. I also went over for the purpose of checking an inquiry
into the state of the population of those towns, which had been
previously made by another party. In Liverpool I did not go from house
to house; I went into a considerable number of the houses amidst the
poorer districts. In certain districts of Manchester, though not for
the Statistical Society, I did the same. In Birmingham I made many
memoranda, and, as far as my limited time would permit, I visited a
portion of the population. In York, containing a population of 26,000,
I went into every street and court, visiting occasionally, to obtain a
general idea of the condition of the inhabitants. York included 23
parishes of small extent, all which I visited.

“What did you find to be the condition of the tenements in the rural
districts as compared with the towns you examined?—In Branstoun,
Egleton, and Hambleton, being in a rural district, the houses are low,
never exceeding two stories; many of them are thatched, and nearly all
are built of stone. To each a garden is attached, which is generally
of sufficient dimensions to supply the family with vegetables. As
there are no cellars, most of the houses have a small dairy or
store-room attached, which, however, has not been counted in reckoning
the number of rooms in each house. Forty-one per cent. of the
dwellings in Branstoun, and 51 per cent. in Egleton and Hambleton I
found to be “_well furnished_.” In Manchester and Salford 52 per
cent., and in the Dukinfield district 61 per cent., had that
character. The proportion reported to be _comfortable_ in each
district were:—

“In Branstoun 50 per cent.
Egleton and Hambleton 65 per cent.
Manchester, &c. 72 per cent.
Dukinfield 95 per cent.

“The word ‘_comfortable_’ must always be a vague and varying epithet,
nor is it possible to attach any precise definition to it. In filling
up this column I was guided by observing the condition of the
dwelling, apart from any consideration of order, cleanliness, and
furniture. If I considered it capable of being made comfortable for
the tenant, I set it down accordingly; if it were damp, the flooring
bad, and the walls ill-conditioned, I reported it uncomfortable. The
general appearance of the interior of the houses (in Rutlandshire)
indicated thrifty poverty, and instances of the squalid misery so
frequent in large towns were here extremely rare. In comparing the
physical condition of the people in the three parishes, Egleton and
Hambleton appeared to have some slight advantage over Branstoun, while
31 per cent. of the houses in the former parishes contained four rooms
only; 17 per cent. in the latter had this advantage. In its amount of
sleeping accommodation, also Branstoun is inferior to the neighbouring
parishes.

“From a comparison of the tables with those in a former Report, it
appeared that in Egleton, &c., 14 per cent. of the families have more
than three persons to a bed; Branstoun, 19 ditto; Dukinfield, 33
ditto; and Bury, 35 ditto.

“The rents of the houses in Rutlandshire would appear to be very low
compared with those in large manufacturing towns. Not only is the
average cost of the former less than half of the latter, but for that
diminished cost the dimensions of the houses are double those in large
towns, with comforts and conveniences which the latter never can
possess.

£. _s._ _d._
“Egleton, &c., average yearly rent 2 17 3
Branstoun 3 0 0
Dukinfield, &c. 6 14 0
Manchester, &c. 7 11 8”

But moral causes, inducing habits of sobriety, appear from the report of the Manchester Society to contribute to the general result of the superior condition of the Rutland population, in which the duration of life amongst the lowest classes appears to be nearly as high as amongst the highest classes in Manchester. Wages in Lancashire, it must be premised, were then (in 1837), and, as I am well informed from the payers of several thousand labourers, are now at least double what they are in Rutlandshire. The Society state in their report that it appears—

“That the people do nearly as much for themselves in Rutlandshire as
they do in Manchester, notwithstanding the more extensive endowment of
their schools.

“In a separate examination of three parishes in Rutlandshire, carried
on from house to house, the larger attendance of children at school in
that county was confirmed, and it also appeared that the average time
of their remaining at day schools was greater than in Lancashire. In
Pendleton, near Manchester, one third only of the children appeared to
remain at school above five years, and one third remained less than
three years; while, in the three parishes of Rutlandshire which were
visited, it was found that, of the children who had left school, one
half had remained there above five years.

“The teachers generally bear irreproachable characters, which has
doubtless much influence on the character and deportment of the
population, whose manners appeared exceedingly orderly and respectful.

“In the dame schools it was very gratifying to observe the marked
difference in general appearance and order, as compared with schools
of a similar class in large towns. The mistresses are almost
invariably persons of good moral character, of quiet orderly habits,
cleanly in their habitations, decent in their personal appearance, and
of respectful deportment. The scholars, too, except in one or two
instances, were found clean and tidy, however mean their attire, and
generally remained orderly and quiet during the visit. The rod or cane
is much less in use than in the towns formerly examined, though it
usually forms part of the furniture of the school. The girls were
generally found sewing or knitting, and in many schools the boys learn
to knit.

“A society for the promotion of industry, supported by subscriptions,
exist in the county; and prizes are given to those children, who,
according to their age, have performed the most work during the year.
This excites a great competition as to which village shall produce the
queen of the knitters, or the queen of the sewers, and many ladies in
the county consider the Society to have great influence in inducing
habits of diligence and order. The moral effect is no doubt good, and
a greater interest in the lower class of schools is also thereby
created amongst the gentry.

“In conclusion, we may observe that the visitation of the houses of
the labouring poor in Rutlandshire, and the observation of their
language, manners, and habits, leave a favourable impression with
regard to their moral condition. Swearing and drunkenness are far from
common, and the general conduct of the people is marked by sobriety,
frugality, and industry.”

Mr. Wood was asked—

“You have seen the following returns of the average ages of death
amongst the different classes of people in Manchester and
Rutlandshire:—

Average Age of Death.

In Manchester. In Rutlandshire.
Years. Years.

“Professional persons and gentry, and
their families 38 52

Tradesmen and their families, (in
Rutlandshire, farmers and graziers
are included with shopkeepers) 20 41

Mechanics, labourers, and their
families 17 38

Bearing in mind the fact that wages are nearly double in Manchester to
the average of wages in Rutlandshire, though rents are higher in
Manchester: are the different chances of life amongst each class of
the population to the extent they are indicated by the returns,
conformable to what you would have anticipated from your personal
examinations of the houses and observation of the condition of the
inhabitants?—They are decidedly conformable to my anticipation in the
general results. I apprehend, however, that some allowance must
perhaps be made for the very high average age in Rutlandshire, from
the circumstance that many of the children or young people migrate
from thence to manufacturing neighbourhoods for employment. These
would certainly have passed the age at which the greatest mortality
takes place amongst children; but we may expect that their migration,
as it is a constant migration, might to some extent increase the
average age of death or apparent duration of life in Rutlandshire,
though not very materially. On the other hand, there is, perhaps, a
larger proportion of children in Manchester. The results certainly
correspond with my own impressions as to the relative condition of the
different classes in the different neighbourhoods.”

In the union comprehending the adjacent manufacturing district of Bolton, the proportions of deaths in the several classes as returned by the superintendent-registrar were as follows in the year 1839:—

No. of BOLTON UNION. Average Deaths. Age of Deceased.

103 Gentlemen and persons engaged in professions, and
their families 34 years.

381 Tradesmen and their families 23

2,232 Mechanics, servants, labourers, and their families 18

It is proper to observe, that so far as I was informed upon the evidence received in the Factory Inquiry, and more recently on the cases of children of migrant families, that opinion is erroneous which ascribes greater sickness and mortality to the children employed in factories than amongst the children who remain in such homes as these towns afford to the labouring classes. However defective the ventilation of many of the factories may yet be, they are all of them drier and more equably warm than the residence of the parent; and we had proof that weakly children have been put into the better-managed factories as healthier places for them than their own homes. It is an appalling fact that, of all who are born of the labouring classes in Manchester, more than 57 per cent. die before they attain five years of age; that is, before they can be engaged in factory labour, or in any other labour whatsoever.

Of 4,629 deaths of persons of the labouring classes who died in the year 1840 in Manchester, the numbers who died were at the several periods as follows:—

Under 5 years of age 2,649 or 1 in 1‑7/10
Above 5 and under 10 215 or 1 in 22
Above 10 and under 15 107 or 1 in 43
Above 15 and under 20 135 or 1 in 34

At seven, eight, or nine years of age the children of the working classes begin to enter into employment in the cotton and other factories. It appears that, at the period between 5 and 10 years of age the proportions of deaths which occur amongst the labouring classes, as indicated by these returns, are not so great as the proportions of deaths which occur amongst the children of the middle classes who are not so engaged. Allowing for the circumstance that some of the weakest of the labourers’ children will have been swept away in the first stage, the effect of employment is not shown to be injurious in any increase of the proportion who die in the second stage.

In a return obtained from a district differently situated (Bethnal Green, where the manufactory is chiefly domestic) it appears that of 1,268 deaths amongst the labouring classes in the year 1839, no less than 782, or 1 in 1‑4/7, died at their own residences under 5 years of age. One in 15 of the deaths occurred between 5 and 10, the age when employment commences. The proportion of deaths which occurred between 10 and 15, the period at which full employment usually takes place, is 1 in 60 only.

In that district the average age of deaths in the year 1839 was as follows, in the several classes, from a population of 62,018:—

No. of BETHNAL GREEN. Average Deaths. Age of Deceased.

101 Gentlemen and persons engaged in professions, and
their families 45 years.

273 Tradesmen and their families 26

1,258 Mechanics, servants, and labourers, and their
families 16

The mean chances of life amongst the several classes in Leeds appear from the returns to the Registrar-general generally to correspond with the anticipations raised by the descriptions given of the condition of the labouring population.

No. of LEEDS BOROUGH. Average Deaths. Age of Deceased.

79 Gentlemen and persons engaged in professions, and
their families 44 years.

824 Tradesmen, farmers, and their families 27

3,395 Operatives, labourers, and their families 19

But in Liverpool (which is a commercial and not a manufacturing town) where, however, the condition of the dwellings are reported to be the worst, where, according to the report of Dr. Duncan, 40,000 of the population live in cellars, where 1 in 25 of the population are annually attacked with fever,—there the mean chances of life appear from the returns to the Registrar-general to be still lower than in Manchester, Leeds, or amongst the silk weavers in Bethnal Green. During the year 1840, the deaths, distinguishable in classes, were as follows:—

No. of LIVERPOOL, 1840. Average Deaths. Age of Deceased.

137 Gentry and professional persons, &c. 35 years.

1,738 Tradesmen and their families 22

5,597 Labourers, mechanics, and servants, &c. 15

Of the deaths which occurred amongst the labouring classes, it appears that no less than 62 per cent. of the total number were deaths under five years of age. Even amongst those entered as shopkeepers and tradesmen, no less than 50 per cent. died before they attained that period. The proportion of mortality for Birmingham, where there are many insalubrious manufactories, but where the drainage of the town and the general condition of the inhabitants is comparatively good, was, in 1838, 1 in 40; whilst in Liverpool it was 1 in 31.

I have appended the copy of a map of Bethnal Green, made with the view of showing the proportions in which the mortality from epidemic diseases and diseases affected by localities, fell on different classes of tenements during the same year. The localities in which the marks of death (×) are most crowded are the poorest and the worst of the district; where the marks are few and widely spread, the houses and streets, and the whole condition of the population, is better. By the inspection of a map of Leeds, which Mr. Baker has prepared at my request, to show the localities of epidemic diseases, it will be perceived that they similarly fall on the uncleansed and close streets and wards occupied by the labouring classes; and that the track of the cholera is nearly identical with the tract of fever. It will also be observed that in the badly cleansed and badly drained wards to the right of the map, the proportional mortality is nearly double that which prevails in the better conditioned districts to the left.

To obtain the means of judging of the references to the localities in the sanitary returns from Aberdeen, the reporters were requested to mark on a map the places where the disease fell, and to distinguish with a deeper tint those places on which it fell with the greatest intensity. They were also requested to distinguish by different colours the streets inhabited by the higher, middle, and lower classes of society. They returned a map so marked as to disease, but stated that it had been thought unnecessary to distinguish the streets inhabited by the different orders of society, as that was done with sufficient accuracy by the different tints representing the degrees of intensity of the prevalence of fever.

In the Whitechapel union, in which the special investigation which led to the inquiry into the sanitary condition of the metropolis was first directed, the numbers were as follows in the year 1838:—

No. of WHITECHAPEL UNION. Average Deaths. Age of Deceased.

37 Gentlemen and persons engaged in professions, and
their families 45 years.

387 Tradesmen and their families 27

1,762 Mechanics, servants, and labourers, and their
families 22

To judge of the comparative mortality amongst the average of a town population, I obtained the following returns; the one from the clerk of the Strand union, the other from the clerk of the Kensington union:—

No. of STRAND UNION. Average Deaths. Age of Deceased.

86 Gentry and persons engaged in professions and their
families 43 years.

221 Tradesmen and their families 33

674 Mechanics, labourers, servants, and their families 24

No. of KENSINGTON UNION. Average Deaths. Age of Deceased.

331 Gentlemen and persons engaged in professions, and
families 44 years.

348 Tradesmen and their families 29

1,258 Labourers, artisans, and others similarly
circumstanced, and their families 26

The remarkable result obtained from the examination of the mortuary registries of the county of Rutland induced me to have them examined for different periods. They have accordingly been examined for three complete years, 1838, 1839, and 1840, and it is found that the same general law of mortality obtains with little variation for each period.

As the climate or soil of that county might possess some peculiarities, I caused an examination to be made of the average periods of death amongst the agricultural population of all the unions in the county of Wilts during 1840. In this examination the registries of deaths in the towns were excluded, and only those of persons included who were described as agricultural labourers, or as farmers and graziers, or as gentry and professional persons resident in the rural districts. The results of this examination are as follow:—

No. of UNIONS IN THE COUNTY OF WILTS. Average Deaths. Age of Deceased.

119 Gentlemen and persons engaged in professions, and
their families 50 years.

218 Farmers and their families 48

2,061 Agricultural labourers and their families 33

The following table exhibits the mortality prevalent amongst the different classes, partly mining and manufacturing, and partly agricultural, returned by the clerk of the Kendal union:—

No. of KENDAL UNION. Average Deaths. Age of Deceased.

52 Gentlemen and persons engaged in professions, and
their families 45 years.

138 Tradesmen and their families 39

413 Operatives, labourers, servants, and their families 34

The following tables exhibit the results of such returns of mortality as have been made for quinquennial and decennial periods, from an examination of upwards of 25,000 cases for this inquiry. They show in the mean ratios for large numbers of the like class the steady influence of the different circumstances under which each class is placed. The labouring classes, it is generally known, become old the soonest, and the effects of the unfavourable influences in the adolescent and adult stages is shown in the smaller proportions who attain extreme old age, and also in the periods of the deaths of heads of families of this class, by which widowhood is produced. These last will be shown in subsequent tables.

_Tabular Views of the Ages at which Deaths have occurred in Different
Classes of Society._[18]

┌───────────────────────────┬──────┬───────────────────────┬──────────┐ │ CLASSES. │Total │ │ │ │ │No. of│ │ │ │ │Deaths│ │Proportion│ │ │under │ │of Deaths │ │ │ 20 │ Proportion of Deaths │ under 20 │ │ │Years │ which occurred at the │ Years to │ │ │ of │under-mentioned periods│ Total │ │ │ Age. │ of Age. │ Deaths. │ ├───────────────────────────┼──────┼───────┬───────┬───────┼──────────┤ │ │ │Between│Between│Between│ │ │ │ │ 0–5 │ 5–10 │ 10–20 │ │ ├───────────────────────────┼──────┼───────┼───────┼───────┼──────────┤ │ _Gentry and Professional │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Persons, Children of._ │ │ │ │ │ │ │Manchester │ 21│1 in 3│1 in 24│1 in 54│ 1 in 3 │ │Leeds │ 20│1 in 5│1 in 26│1 in 40│ 1 in 4 │ │Liverpool │ 61│1 in 3│1 in 11│1 in 23│ 1 in 2½ │ │Bath │ 32│1 in 11│1 in 12│1 in 31│ 1 in 4½ │ │Bethnal Green │ 33│1 in 5│1 in 20│1 in 13│ 1 in 3 │ │Strand Union │ 21│1 in 6│1 in 29│1 in 29│ 1 in 4 │ │Kendal Union │ 15│1 in 7│1 in 26│1 in 9│ 1 in 3 │ │County of Wilts (Unions of)│ 25│1 in 9│1 in 40│1 in 13│ 1 in 5 │ │County of Rutland (Unions │ │ │ │ │ │ │ of) │ 4│1 in 4│ │ │ 1 in 7 │ ├───────────────────────────┼──────┼───────┼───────┼───────┼──────────┤ │ Total │ 232│1 in 5│1 in 19│1 in 19│ 1 in 3½ │ ├───────────────────────────┼──────┼───────┼───────┼───────┼──────────┤ │ _Farmers, Tradesmen, and │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Persons similarly │ │ │ │ │ │ │ circumstanced, Children │ │ │ │ │ │ │ of._ │ │ │ │ │ │ │Manchester │ 444│1 in 2│1 in 18│1 in 27│ 1 in 2 │ │Leeds │ 425│1 in 2│1 in 18│1 in 18│ 1 in 2 │ │Liverpool │ 1,033│1 in 2│1 in 19│1 in 33│ 1 in 1¾ │ │Bath │ 78│1 in 4│1 in 24│1 in 30│ 1 in 3 │ │Bethnal Green │ 142│1 in 2│1 in 20│1 in 28│ 1 in 2 │ │Strand Union │ 99│1 in 3│1 in 20│1 in 25│ 1 in 2 │ │Kendal Union │ 47│1 in 4│1 in 35│1 in 14│ 1 in 3 │ │County of Wilts (Unions of)│ 54│1 in 7│1 in 27│1 in 15│ 1 in 4 │ │County of Rutland (Unions │ │ │ │ │ │ │ of) │ 174│1 in 3│1 in 30│1 in 17│ 1 in 3 │ ├───────────────────────────┼──────┼───────┼───────┼───────┼──────────┤ │ Total │ 2,496│1 in 2¼│1 in 20│1 in 23│ 1 in 2 │ ├───────────────────────────┼──────┼───────┼───────┼───────┼──────────┤ │ _Agricultural and other │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Labourers, Artisans, and │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Servants, Children of._ │ │ │ │ │ │ │Manchester │ 3,106│1 in 2 │1 in 22│1 in 19│ 1 in 1½ │ │Leeds │ 2,245│1 in 2 │1 in 14│1 in 14│ 1 in 1½ │ │Liverpool │ 4,004│1 in 1½│1 in 15│1 in 33│ 1 in 1¼ │ │Bath │ 508│1 in 2 │1 in 19│1 in 18│ 1 in 1¾ │ │Bethnal Green │ 908│1 in 2 │1 in 15│1 in 30│ 1 in 1½ │ │Strand Union │ 367│1 in 2 │1 in 14│1 in 23│ 1 in 2 │ │Kendal Union │ 186│1 in 3 │1 in 19│1 in 11│ 1 in 2 │ │County of Wilts (Unions of)│ 954│1 in 3 │1 in 21│1 in 14│ 1 in 2 │ │County of Rutland (Unions │ │ │ │ │ │ │ of) │ 293│1 in 3 │1 in 18│1 in 18│ 1 in 2¼ │ ├───────────────────────────┼──────┼───────┼───────┼───────┼──────────┤ │ Total │12,571│1 in 2 │1 in 17│1 in 20│ 1 in 1½ │ └───────────────────────────┴──────┴───────┴───────┴───────┴──────────┘

┌──────────────┬────────┬──────────────────────────────────┬──────────┐ │ CLASSES. │ │ │Proportion│ │ │ Total │ │of Deaths │ │ │ No. of │ │ from 20 │ │ │ Deaths │ │ Years to │ │ │between │ Proportion of Deaths which │ 60 to │ │ │ 20 and │ occurred at the under-mentioned │ Total │ │ │ 60. │ periods of Age. │ Deaths. │ ├──────────────┼────────┼───────┬───────┬────────┬─────────┼──────────┤ │ │ │Between│Between│Between │ Between │ │ │ │ │ 20–30 │ 30–40 │ 40–50 │ 50–60 │ │ ├──────────────┼────────┼───────┼───────┼────────┼─────────┼──────────┤ │ _Gentry and │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Professional │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Persons and │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ their │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Families._ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │Manchester │ 13│1 in 18│1 in 14│1 in 18 │ 1 in 18 │ 1 in 4 │ │Leeds │ 28│1 in 11│1 in 10│1 in 16 │ 1 in 10 │ 1 in 3 │ │Liverpool │ 34│1 in 46│1 in 15│1 in 23 │ 1 in 9 │ 1 in 4 │ │Bath │ 29│1 in 29│1 in 24│1 in 24 │ 1 in 12 │ 1 in 5 │ │Bethnal Green │ 21│1 in 25│1 in 17│1 in 25 │ 1 in 14 │ 1 in 5 │ │Strand Union │ 37│1 in 9│1 in 9│1 in 10 │ 1 in 11 │ 1 in 2¼ │ │Kendal Union │ 18│1 in 13│1 in 13│1 in 7 │ 1 in 17 │ 1 in 3 │ │County of │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Wilts │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ (Unions of) │ 32│1 in 15│1 in 15│1 in 17 │ 1 in 13 │ 1 in 4 │ │County of │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Rutland │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ (Unions of) │ 7│1 in 14│1 in 14│1 in 14 │ 1 in 28 │ 1 in 4 │ ├──────────────┼────────┼───────┼───────┼────────┼─────────┼──────────┤ │ Total │ 219│1 in 17│1 in 14│1 in 16 │ 1 in 12 │ 1 in 4 │ ├──────────────┼────────┼───────┼───────┼────────┼─────────┼──────────┤ │ _Tradesmen, │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │Farmers, &c._ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │Manchester │ 220│1 in 14│1 in 11│1 in 13 │ 1 in 18 │ 1 in 3¼ │ │Leeds │ 238│1 in 12│1 in 14│1 in 14 │ 1 in 19 │ 1 in 3½ │ │Liverpool │ 481│1 in 22│1 in 13│1 in 14 │ 1 in 13 │ 1 in 3½ │ │Bath │ 109│1 in 11│1 in 7│1 in 9 │ 1 in 9 │ 1 in 2¼ │ │Bethnal Green │ 92│1 in 15│1 in 11│1 in 12 │ 1 in 11 │ 1 in 3 │ │Strand Union │ 71│1 in 16│1 in 22│1 in 10 │ 1 in 9 │ 1 in 3 │ │Kendal Union │ 43│1 in 8│1 in 14│1 in 17 │ 1 in 17 │ 1 in 3 │ │County of │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Wilts │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ (Unions of) │ 65│1 in 22│1 in 14│1 in 10 │ 1 in 12 │ 1 in 3½ │ │County of │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Rutland │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ (Unions of) │ 108│1 in 15│1 in 16│1 in 19 │ 1 in 19 │ 1 in 4 │ ├──────────────┼────────┼───────┼───────┼────────┼─────────┼──────────┤ │ Total │ 1,427│1 in 15│1 in 12│1 in 13 │ 1 in 14 │ 1 in 3½ │ ├──────────────┼────────┼───────┼───────┼────────┼─────────┼──────────┤ │_Agricultural │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Labourers, │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Operatives, │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │Servants, &c._│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │Manchester │ 1,149│1 in 16│1 in 14│1 in 18 │ 1 in 17 │ 1 in 4 │ │Leeds │ 773│1 in 14│1 in 16│1 in 20 │ 1 in 22 │ 1 in 4½ │ │Liverpool │ 1,205│1 in 17│1 in 18│1 in 17 │ 1 in 24 │ 1 in 4¼ │ │Bath │ 258│1 in 12│1 in 14│1 in 13 │ 1 in 17 │ 1 in 3 │ │Bethnal Green │ 228│1 in 18│1 in 23│1 in 21 │ 1 in 31 │ 1 in 5½ │ │Strand Union │ 212│1 in 13│1 in 12│1 in 13 │ 1 in 13 │ 1 in 3 │ │Kendal Union │ 113│1 in 13│1 in 14│1 in 18 │ 1 in 14 │ 1 in 3¾ │ │County of │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Wilts │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ (Unions of) │ 492│1 in 13│1 in 18│1 in 18 │ 1 in 19 │ 1 in 4 │ │County of │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Rutland │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ (Unions of) │ 157│1 in 12│1 in 18│1 in 18 │ 1 in 27 │ 1 in 4 │ ├──────────────┼────────┼───────┼───────┼────────┼─────────┼──────────┤ │ Total │ 4,587│1 in 15│1 in 17│1 in 18 │ 1 in 20 │ 1 in 4 │ └──────────────┴────────┴───────┴───────┴────────┴─────────┴──────────┘