"The Common Lodging Houses of Narrow Marsh, 1841 - 1931"
March 2008 Meeting Report
Speaker - Sarah Seaton
The March 2008 meeting of the Keyworth & District Local History Society was held in the Centenary Lounge on Friday 7th March. Once again the meeting was exceptionally well attended, perhaps because it was the night of the Annual General Meeting of the Society or, perhaps, because the subject for tonight’s presentation was ‘The Common Lodging Houses of Narrow Marsh, 1841 – 1931’ by Sarah Seaton. The business of the A.G.M. was presided over by our departing (and stalwart) Chairman, Alan Clark, and took approximately half an hour. Alan then handed over to the Society’s new Chairman, Howard Fisher, who introduced Sarah Seaton to the audience.
Sarah began her presentation by relating how her interest in the subject had been aroused. Whilst researching her own family history she had discovered that one of her predecessors had given their occupation as Lodging House Keeper in one of the census returns. Sarah was in the dark as to what, exactly, a common lodging house was and thus set about investigating the matter. She soon discovered that the term ‘common lodging house’ appeared to be a by-word for a slum dwelling, often occupied by undesirable characters engaged in all manner of unhealthy and unwholesome pursuits. However, was there any truth in the lodging houses’ poor reputation or have their names been unduly blackened?
The common lodging house was a by-product of the Industrial Revolution, the effects of which began to be felt more and more in Nottingham towards the middle of the 19th century. A major feature of the Industrial Revolution was the massive upheaval of the nation’s work force from the land, in rural areas, to the heavily expanding industrial towns and cities. This mass exodus from country to town resulted in a desperate shortage of suitable housing accommodation in the new, expanding, industrial centres. It was simply impossible to construct houses quickly enough to satisfy the expanding population. In Nottingham the population had been increasing rapidly throughout the previous century. In 1750 Nottingham’s population was around 10,000 inhabitants (not much larger than present day Keyworth). By 1801 that figure had increased to 29,000 and by 1841 it had grown to 51,000. By 1861 that figure had further increased to 75,000. Whilst the population of the city had burgeoned, the area of land that the city covered had hardly increased at all. This led to severe overcrowding of certain districts within Nottingham’s town boundaries.
In an effort to accommodate this vast influx of new inhabitants speculative entrepreneurs arranged for the hasty construction of high-density, cheap housing to be built wherever space permitted. This usually occurred in those parts of towns and cities where it had previously been unsuitable for building purposes. In Nottingham this was in the area, below St Mary’s church, adjacent to the River Leen, known as Narrow Marsh, or Red Lion Street as it was also known. As the name ‘Marsh’ implies the ground was very wet in winter and a breeding ground for disease during the summer months. The houses that were constructed there tended to be built of cheap materials, with only the most basic of amenities and often several stories high. This type of development was occurring in the expanding industrial towns and cities throughout England, Scotland and Wales.
By the middle of the 19th century the problems that had begun to be associated with these new common lodging house was causing sufficient concern for Parliament to order an enquiry into the conditions that existed there. James Martin, an Assistant Commissioner of the Government Enquiry stated in his report that conditions in Nottingham were; “ so very bad as hardly to be surpassed in misery by anything to be found within the entire range of our manufacturing cities”. Nottingham, by and large had a smaller percentage of common lodging houses for the size of its population that many other of the major industrial centres. In 1853 the Metropolitan District of London was recorded as having 3,300 common lodging houses that accommodated around 50,000 persons nightly. Chester, with a population in 1860 of only 31,000 had 143 lodging houses. Leeds, with a population in 1851 of 101,000 persons boasted over 220 lodging houses in the Irish quarter of the city alone. Nottingham, by contrast, with a population in 1861 of 75,000 had only 53 common lodging houses. There were never significantly more lodging houses than that figure of 53, though at one time the number had fallen to only 34. From James Martin’s comments it would seem that whilst the number of lodging houses in Nottingham may not have been large the conditions that existed within them was as bad as any to be found in the kingdom.
What made the conditions so bad in these lodging houses? Primarily it was the degree of overcrowding. All manner of people were thrown together in a very confined space. Initially it was the industrial workers and their families that were the new occupants of these lodging houses, where accommodation could be purchased on a daily basis. This accommodation however left much to be desired, even by the standards of the day. The more occupants that could be squeezed into a lodging house then the greater the profits that could be made. Common lodging houses did not provide food but there were supposed to be facilities on the premises where food could be prepared. Cooking utensils were also expected to be provided. Accomodation could be obtained for as little as one penny per night, though customers were often recommended to bring their own flea powder with them! Beds and bedding were also supposed to be provided, though at an extra cost. Likewise, it was expected that running water and sanitation were provided for the occupants. Sadly this was not the case for most of the lodging houses in Narrow Marsh. As an example Sarah quoted the dimensions of one room in a house on Red Lion Street which measured 18’x 10’, into this space over sixty people would sleep each night. Bedding, where people were ‘lucky’ enough to have it provided was hardly ever washed, resulting in sheets that had once been white being reported as being of ‘a deep umber colour’. One can only guess at what germs and creepie-crawlies infested this bed linen. Men, women and children of all ages bedded down together. It was not unknown for pet dogs to sleep in the rooms as well! Those that were lucky enough to be able to afford the price of a bed might find that they had to share that bed with one or two other persons, often total strangers. Many of the tenants only possessed the clothes that stood up in, so on the rare occasions that these were being washed they might be obliged to sleep naked (or very scantily dressed).
The supply of water to these lodging houses also posed considerable health risks. Most of the water supply in the area was in the form of a pump located in a communal courtyard. This water was ‘treated’ before it was piped to Narrow Marsh for public consumption. On the face of it this should not have presented any undue problems. However, all was not as it appeared. The supply of water to Narrow Marsh came from a water company situated on The Ropewalk. Tests conducted by the local authority revealed that each gallon of ‘treated’ water contained 31 grains of solid effluent! A secondary source of water for the residents was the Rivers Leen and Trent. This water was untreated and, consequently was even more heavily polluted. To further add to the resident’s problems there was no adequate system of sanitation in the area. A handful of ‘privies’ often had to cater for the more basic needs of over a hundred persons. In Narrow Marsh most of these ‘privies’ were not connected to any sewage system. The effluent from these toilets was disposed of by either collecting it into heaps for disposal by the ‘night soil’ collectors or, worse still, flushed down open gutters in the streets. Either method was totally unsanitary and a potential source of disease, particularly in hot weather. These conditions provided a fertile breeding ground for all manner of diseases; outbreaks of diseases such as cholera and typhoid were not uncommon.
By and large only persons with no other option lived in these lodging houses and those that were able left as soon as they could. Thus, as the 19th century progressed the families that had originally occupied the lodging houses drifted away, presumably finding more suitable accommodation for their needs. These families began to be replaced by an altogether different clientele. This new class of occupants contained many of the lowest classes in the community and it was these persons that began to give the houses their poor reputation. Many of the lodging houses provided double beds but there was no check as to the marital status of the boarders. Thus it was possible for the beds to be used for casual sexual purposes. Indeed, some lodging houses were used as brothels, whilst at others; prostitutes that were in residence used the premises to entertain their clients. All manner of sexual activity was to be found, often in full view of young children. Homosexuality appears to have been commonplace. In the very worst lodging houses all manner of depravity occurred. Thieves, vagrants, hawkers, itinerant travellers and unemployed persons began to be the most common users of the lodging houses. Alcohol also caused problems; many of the occupants were continually inebriated. Fights and disturbances were commonplace.
In an effort to regulate the conditions in the lodging houses various laws were enacted. The number of persons that could occupy a lodging house at any one time was laid down in these regulations. Each person was expected to have a minimum amount of space. It also became necessary for a permit to be obtained from the local council in order to operate a common lodging house. However, for the most part these regulations were hardly ever enforced. Since the lodging house occupants tended to have no voice politically their problems tended to be ignored. At various time the responsibility of these lodging houses fell under the jurisdiction of The Sanitary Health Department, the Police Force, and the Fire Department. An Inspector was appointed to oversee the activities at these lodging houses. However, whilst some of the inspectors were quite sympathetic towards the occupants of the houses and tried to enforce the law to improve conditions most simply viewed the clientele as the ‘undeserving’ poor and whatever their plight was it was no more than they deserved.
The common lodging houses continued to ply their trade until the area was declared a slum in the 1920’s and the area was extensively redeveloped. Most of the old lodging houses were demolished to make way for new council housing, though a few of the old premises did survive the redevelopement and they can still be seen to this day. In one or two places the advertisements painted on the external walls of the buildings can still be discerned. However, with the proposed extension of the Broadmarsh Shopping Centre it is expected that these too will soon disappear to be replaced by retail outlets. Overall it would seem that the infamous reputation that the common lodging house acquired was justified and that when they disappeared no one mourned their passing. The talk that Sarah gave was very enlightening and gave a wonderful insight into what life was like in inner city slum areas in Victorian Britain.