Perceptions of sailors and social morality in Victorian London sailortown

¶ … permissive attitude towards London sailor-town exist during the 1850-1860, and how did it change during the 1900-1910?

The main Theories Fronted

Although the marine community came from diverse backgrounds, the seafarers ashore had acquired a debauched image long before the 16th Century. The seafarers have won the appraisal of researchers for their role since then. According to Lee[footnoteRef:1], seafarers had delinked themselves from the usual expected bonds and roles in society as otherwise expected of all humans. They were believed to be vulnerable to being misled and were believed to be strangers to the civilized, polite norms of contemporary human decorum. Once seafarers went ashore, they were inclined to being irresponsible beings. They could engage in drunkenness as of habit. They practiced little restraint in general. The seafarers most likely committed many other ills while at sea. The lack of societal control that normally provides a steadying influence meant that the sea-men easily fell to the temptations of alcoholism and prostitution[footnoteRef:2]. [1: Robert Lee, "The Seafarers' Urban World . . . " 23] [2: Ibid, 24]

In general terms Sailortown was a cosmopolitan zone with varying cultural diversity. It had a clear diaspora space, yet it was most renowned for the revelry. It had numerous dancehalls, theaters for the low class, music halls, and several other recreational spots. The docking locations were well known vice centers. 6 Other port towns such as Liverpool and Hull had a high number of licensed premises of similar nature in 1841. Most of these premises were located near the quays and docks. It has also been observed that as far as relationships on shore were concerned, they only survived as long as the money lasted[footnoteRef:3]. Prostitutes in bare chest and bare head in London sought to gain from the excesses of the sea farers. Girls as young as 14 years were involved in the vice. Indeed, Liverpool Sailortown was filled with marauding prostitutes. Cardiff visitors at Tiger Bay had the luxury and broad range of choice when it came to the selection of harlots. They could choose a prostitute from a race of their choice. Antwerp was the center of fetish encounters between women while even Klongtai, as small as it was, was a hub inhabited by numerous whores[footnoteRef:4]. Sea fairing was generally regarded as young man's activity. The entry age was relatively low. The wastage rate was significantly high; a trend that was attributed to the lack of life experience by the young men, coupled with lack of training in any specialized field[footnoteRef:5]. In the later years of the 17th and the 19th C, the crew aboard the sailing ships always had a significant number of apprentices. Even among whalers, it was agreed that sea fairing was a lifelong occupation that required elaborate training. The career was not attractive to sailors beyond their middle ages. In America, the median age for sea fairing in the early part of the 19th century was only 25 years. This area was dominated by young people. Most of these young people left the trade after an average of 10 years. Before 1870, in Denmark, the distribution of seafarers based on age was eye-catching. It is reported that three quarters of such sailors were below 30 years. In the port of Stavanger in 1876, the median seafarer age was reported to have been 26.2 years. In the ports of Germany, sea faring was largely seen to be a transition from youth and marriage. In such ports as Hamburg in Germany, the sailor group between 20 and 30 years constituted 53.8%[footnoteRef:6]. It followed expectation that since most of the sailor crew was still young and unmarried, they inevitably sought female company at the first opportunity. The irregular and deviant behavior observed among them including drunkenness, and bad temperament was just part of the behavior that could only be expected from a group like that. Generally, they were limited to the quayside spatial horizons. They could be spotted in the brothels close to the dock area, or other entertainment places within the proximity of sailor town. [3: Gordon Jackson, Hull in the Eighteenth Century: A Study in Economic and Social History (London, 1972), 187] [4: Supra, note 1, 25] [5: Leslie Hughes Powell, The Shipping Federation. (Shipping Federation, 1950), 56] [6: Supra, note 1, 26]

Seamen could only feel comfortable around fellow seamen. There are accounts that indicate the presence of sea men who may not have been part of the crew. They shared lodging, amenities, and even the other excesses while at sea. It was common for pirates to travel together in groups while at sea for protection purposes. English seafarers abroad also followed suit. Seamen also embraced the idea of hospitality towards others. It was also noted that during such situations, kinship and friendship were regarded highly. Some seamen formed fixed relations with those who provided boarding for them. Indeed, when and if such seamen enjoyed a cozy relationship with their hosts, they would return the same hostelry whenever they travelled. Indeed, it was observed that seamen often remembered their hosts in their wills. Those in main port cities such as London were more commonly seen on such documents.

Thus, despite the liberal nature of the seamen mentioned above; as viewed from one perspective, according to Lee[footnoteRef:7], owing to the fact that seafarers were mostly found in the central part of sailor town, the hardship that came with seafaring was not unknown to the local populace. Seafarers were not reported to have caused trouble within ports or other local residential locations. The seamen were largely embedded within their families and sea networks. The idea of being irresponsible young members of the crew was a lie that was mooted by the ship owners to easily transfer blame for any liability to the crewmembers, and effectively avoid or limit such liability to the families of the crewmembers or their dependants thereof. [7: Ibid, 27]

Commonly, the view of the urban life as led by sea farers was viewed from the perspective of studies done on large ports. Thus, smaller anchorage ports have been ignored. Consequently, the life of seafarers has not been analyzed from an accurate social, cultural, and familial perspective. Seafarers are commonly treated as a unique group with their own cultural face. It is assumed that the group's urban influence was expressed within restricted but self-sufficient maritime corners; with the view of their lives ashore shaped by consistent images of a masculine camaraderie. The gratification of physical prowess along with the persistent hold to the existence of a maritime life and world set in a distinct and unique cultural formation[footnoteRef:8]. [8: Ibid]

This essay examines the considerations stated above. As pointed out in the arguments above, the permissive view of sailor town in London between the 1850s and 1860s and the subsequent transformation that occurred in 1900 to 1910 is a subject worth examining in this paper.

Sailortowns: Composition of the Population

Maritime commerce greatly influenced European urbanization. Statistical reports show that by 1850, 40% of all major urban cities across the globe were seaports with an average of 100, 000 inhabitants. This scenario held true until mid-20th C. when port-based cities began to be eclipsed by industrial cities and rise of other commercial on large scale[footnoteRef:9]. While the port city demographic history can be accurately seen only through considering their regional locations and their distinct position in an urban hierarchy, the rise of the main business ports in the 19th century in Europe was significantly influenced by a marked overreliance on immigration. Indeed, the development of such major cities was a hallmark of prosperity, a buoyant economy full of employment opportunities and the chance of acquiring immense wealth. [9: Robert Lee, Configuring the city: 94]

The elites in such major cities as Liverpool, London, and Glasgow earned large incomes from even the early 18th century. It would be erroneous to imagine that the elite merchants always sought a unifying trade policy or even that internal difference s did not deter the adoption of specific interests. It has become evident that elite merchants frequently operated in a cohesive fashion. The urban elite from Bristol belonged to various denominations. There is no evidence of any discrimination against any religious minorities. A separate and distinct association represented the collective interest of the owners of the ships, irrespective of whether it was in Liverpool or Cardiff. After the issuance of a new charter in 1695, the main merchants demonstrated a united front[footnoteRef:10]. When the chamber of commerce was put up in Liverpool in 1851, there was a marked show of cooperation between the merchant groups. This was contrary to the popular belief that it was not possible for the groups to meet and agree on any common cause. [10: Ibid, 102]

There is a clear and urgent need to examine the role of the elite merchants in port cities. This is necessitated by factors such as the underlying uncertain nature of the trading activities, the failure risk, and the disproportionate influence on immigrant merchants. Such merchants often came from diverse communities from each individual port city. So far, along these lines, it seemed difficult to forge a form of unity under the circumstances. It was harder to unite in port cities as opposed to other urban entities owing to the high risk of failure of entrepreneurial ventures, and the overreliance on immigration.

The environment for doing business in the 19th century was one of distrust and moral deviance. Most of the firms only lived for a short while. Merchants were more prone to the risk of bankruptcy compared to other careers[footnoteRef:11]. Isolated firms operated under seamless information web including credit and contract that existed in a pronged string of favor and responsibility. The development of cohesive merchant elite was dependent on establishing a unifying business norm that demonstrated the common attitudes and a sense of goodwill and aspirations. Such congeniality and commonality of causes can be accrued only through interpersonal content efforts and friendship. A common culture in a business community helped to cut down on costs of business transactions and made it easier to make business decisions easily. Such an eventuality is made possible by better information flow. It also helped to build trust and motivate the merchants. [11: Mark Casson and Mary B. Rose. Institutions and the evolution of modern business . . ., 1-8.]

The Character of seafarers and mariner communities in sailortown London

Sailortown is an area of broad cultural contact and a clearly defined space in the diaspora. Sailortown was known for its uninhibited revelry practices and an array of dancehalls, music arenas, and theaters for the low class. Dock areas were widely seen and believed to be locations where all vice proliferated. The traditional worldview of seafarers has been influenced and reinforced by several factors. Indeed, most of the ports had a notorious if distinct Sailortown that served as the focal point of the life at sea. Prostitutes barely covering their breasts sought to relieve the seafarers of their money. It is recorded that even the 14-year-old girls were experienced in the immoral activities carried out[footnoteRef:12]. [12: Supra, note 1, 25]

Mariners lived a clearly distinctive life in identifiable communities. Waterfronts characterized smaller ports. The location settlement layout was concentrated around the sea harbors. However, larger settlement areas such as Newcastle and London also had identifiable maritime regions. The stained image of Wapping and Rotherthine [footnoteRef:13] that emphasized the difference that existed between mariners and the local populace in vicinity demonstrated that the mariners were not only physically separate but also differed culturally. It is observed that even in major cities like London, mariners were clearly distinguishable from the rest of the population of the city. It must be noted, though that, seamen and their kith and kin did not always dominate port towns. Shipping was widely influenced by a wide range of service trade and ancillary. [13: Andrew Gritt, "Representations of Mariners and Maritime Communities", 2]

Most of the negativity and the evidence against mariners therewith and their communities originates from the large ports; the Tyne ports and London, in particular. It has been reported that it was possible to pick out tiny enclaves of the unique and distinct mariner communities. Descriptions of the locations picked from the time's literature shows a real social and physical rift that widely served as both cause and effect of the mariner mentality and conduct. A guide to Newcastle provided by a "stranger" and published in 1828 seemed to desist from encouraging people from visiting the alleys and courts stretching along the quayside. It went on to warn that these places did not provide any attractive sights or activities for both the locals and foreigners[footnoteRef:14]. [14: Wm. Parson and Wm. White, History, directory and gazetteer of the Counties of Durham and Northumberland (2 vols, Newcastle, 1828), i. cxxxix.]

Generally, the public held mariners in low esteem. However, the perception changed for the better in 1830s on both sides of the Atlantic via a cultural reaction. Earlier on, the media and other public commentaries portrayed mariners as irresponsible people. They were also widely believed to be irreparable and a danger worth fearing. One of the commentators, Daniel remarked that Mariners had a way to be violent in all their disposition. He went on to remark that the mariners whored excessively, spend violently, drink violently and do all things violently. He concluded that they were violent fellows who did not deserve to stay on dry land with the rest of the people. Thus, they were meant to live at sea[footnoteRef:15]. Separately, such views are not objective observations of mariners. They are just as biased and prejudicial as the street views that had been crafted by persons with ulterior motives. Yet, it is possible for these views to be rationalized. However, there must be a clear distinction between the descriptions of the behaviors of the mariners and the perception of their useful input while at work. [15: Anthea Trodd, "Collaborating in Open Boats" 201-225]

The Family and the Next of Kin among Sea Farers

The sailors who returned to their home port were located to be found within an identifiable family framework. Many of the young sailors went back to rejoin their family once they completed each assignment at sea[footnoteRef:28]. It was assumed that he unmarried sailors would spend up to three months annually with their families. It was expected that these young people would align to the norms of their family or the relatives at whose homes they put up. The amount of time seafarers spent at home varied significantly irrespective of whether they were married, single, or widowed. [28: Peter H. Fricke, "Seafarer & Community" (Taylor & Francis, 1973) 98.]

Generally, the relationship between sailors and the seafaring occupation and family life has can only be termed as having been immersed in a sea of problems. Indeed, ballads composed in the 18th century frequently warned young beautiful maids from getting married to sailors. Indeed, the long absence of the head of the family only made family life lonely and abnormal. A sailor was relatively poorly skilled in heading their household. The irregular wage also rendered family life less fun and full of uncertainty. The worst came when the bread winner passed away. It only meant that the family was consigned to destitution[footnoteRef:29]. Coastal life was believed to offer many chances for steadying one's life and home but it was widely believed that seafaring allowed required ingredients to break homes. Many sailors abandoned the seafaring business with the intention of establishing normal families. The pharmaceutical industry is said to have recognized and targeted the wives of seafarers as potential substantial markets for anti-depression pills. It was widely believed that seafaring represented an act of severing family links, and causal to significant distress[footnoteRef:30]. In some circumstances, some ship owners allowed mariners to take their wives with them on voyages. [29: David Cordingly, Women Sailors and Sailors' Women (Random House, 2001) 182.] [30: Supra, note 1, 36]

However, it must be pointed out that such a favor was only preserved for masters and not the common mariner. Ethnographic and oral evidence reaffirms how the wives of mariners came to adopt independent lifestyles. These are the circumstances that bred a category of women that were commonly referred to as the 'no-nonsense' types. These women demonstrated a strong individual character and assertiveness. Even with these accounts, it is still not easy to assess the family life of seamen in a precise and clear historical context. It is still equally difficult to assess the validity of the common traditional interpretation of the role they played in kin and family networks[footnoteRef:31]. One of the main reasons for this tendency is that the family was largely the unit of production on the coastal community front. In this environment, young women were significant sources of labor. In port town on the other hand, a range of employment vacancies determined the role of family variously. Seafaring had an identifiable domestic cost to it. One such incurrence is the absence of husbands who were more occupied with their maritime activities. In fact, seafaring had never been a safe occupation for those with family raising prospects. The sea trips were also risky by their very nature. There was an increase in the competition for shipping on international routes that included the emigrant trade in North America. The working conditions were deteriorating. The losses at sea increased substantially and, indeed, became a major concern for stakeholders[footnoteRef:32]. The risks involved in seafaring were nothing new but the death of husbands at sea had profound negative effects on the affected families. Widows were to engage in income earning activities. This trend started in the informal sector before expanding to other sectors. Children were kept in orphanages while the women sought a means of livelihood. [31: Ibid, 37] [32: Kirby and Hinkkanen, Baltic and the North Seas, 235]

The wives of the seamen were forced to device means of independently surviving the long absence of their husbands. They took housework chores for pay including washing clothes, nursing children and other domestic work. Some of them even started begging on the streets. However, these women are noted to have maintained their pride in marital status. Reports also reveal that the kinship networks of such women provided them with a lot of support. Indeed, social networks have traditionally been a means of support through difficult situations and the port city families were not an exception; the tight bonds between the maritime families that experienced common problems further reinforced their role[footnoteRef:33]. Although maritime careers presented many challenges, evidence from letters, and other correspondence between the sailors and their wives shows that, they maintained a notable bond of love between them. It is further noted that seafarers took the responsibility to protect their families seriously. One cannot really draw conclusions on the intimacy levels in such families. no studies have focused on individual ports. However, the little data available suggests that their reproductive lives were not affected seriously by the constraints of maritime employment. Estimates show that the 4866 British sailors who died at sea left three children on average[footnoteRef:34]. Therefore, the family structure of the seamen was not different from the rest of the population. Consequently, the problems within families and the intra-family complications should be analyzed on a broader guideline that shows the trends for the long-term; in domestic and life at sea. [33: Jennine Hurl-Eamon, "The Fiction of Female Dependence and the Makeshift Economy of Soldiers", 485] [34: Richard Lawton, "The components of demographic change in a rapidly growing port-city:" 108.]

How Seafarers lived at Sea

In order to deconstruct the life of the seafarer in an urban place, critically, and to examine the validity of the known interpretations it is paramount to look at two attributes which have been consistently linked to the conduct of sailors ashore. One of them is the likelihood to engage in alcoholism, and the inclination and preference for short-term sexual relationships with prostitutes that have been termed as predatory. One indisputable fact is that many seafarers spend the time they got away from sailing to visit inns and brothels for recreational purposes. Therefore, the reputation of these seamen as heavy drinkers was a common perception even before the 16th C. Drinking excessively was widely known to be part of the seafarer's lifestyle. Brawls that emanated from heavy drinking by sailors were a common scene in Backs in Bristol in the 18th century. Such drunks were also commonly observed frequently staggering out of bars and dockland areas in London around the 1860s and 1870s[footnoteRef:35]. Heavy drinking was still considered an endemic problem; an occupational disease among sailors. [35: Supra, note 16]

Several scholars have already challenged the stereotype that sailors were heavy drinkers by default. The scholars point out that the view is misplaced, and, a vilification of the state of affairs[footnoteRef:36]. They also point out that the persistence of the view that sailors were drunks is a manifestation of the failure to analyze the state of affairs in the wider socio-political and cultural context, and report the facts. Such analysis of the realities and true patterns of alcoholism was lacking both in Britain and abroad. In fact, it is erroneous to assume that there was necessarily a relationship between drunkenness and seamen. Some of the mariners, including the fishermen in Aberdeen were what came to be known as compete teetotalers. Many homes owned by sailors enjoyed immense popularity. [36: Supra, note 23, 104 and 150]

However, drunkenness as reportedly perpetrated by seafarers was linked closely with crime. It was both an instigating agent and a reason to fall victim. Victims were often statistics of those robbed by women, referred to as the 'women of the gutter'. It is still debatable whether sailortown can be regarded as an urban center of world stature but it was, undoubtedly, a known spot for petty crime that is reminiscent of urban centers. This tendency was a known and recognized trend in ports worldwide including Liverpool where most of the arrests were because of assaults on partners and associates. Assaults were also common against the police and strangers using the public street. Most of them were directly linked to drunkenness[footnoteRef:37]. The traditional image of seafarers still needs to be examined from a wider context of urban crime. Indeed, the latter years of the 18th century were the prime period for opportunistic crime. Towns with a large number of casual employees were reported to experience high levels of such crime. These were not necessarily seafaring communities. [37: Supra, note 1, 57]

Lastly, it was assumed that sexual frustration was a function of the life at sea. This life encouraged homosexual tendencies and most importantly helped in creating a ready market for whores when at shore[footnoteRef:38]. Evidence collected at the time demonstrated a widespread presence of prostitutes at the dock areas and the sailortowns of most of the ports. Irish prostitutes in Liverpool served many Negroes in the 1870s. The "tailor girls" of Hamburg were always on the ready to relieve unsuspecting sailors of their money and whatever else could be stolen, including clothes. The buildings constructed in Rotterdam; in Schiedamschedigk were, essentially, brothels. Prostitutes roamed the dock areas in the ports of South Africa. Radcliff area of London even had middle-aged prostitutes. Some of them were children; by present day considerations. Prostitutes that were more successful lined up in heels, work stockings and red tasseled boots. They wore impressive evening dresses made of fine and expensive linen[footnoteRef:39]. [38: Stanley, Jo, and Paul Baker. Hello sailor! (Routledge, 2015).] [39: Frederick Walter Lowndes, Prostitution and Venereal Diseases in Liverpool, 3]

London sailortown 1900 -- 1910: status of the attitude

Naval sailortowns widely resisted attempts at changing the way they lived. Their way of life remained meaningful to those who lived there being the junction between urban space and maritime lifestyle. It is also important to highlight that the idea of resilience has been used to examine a wide range of relevant life phenomenon and urban trends[footnoteRef:40]. Sailortowns in the 20th C. experienced resilience to the hegemony of civic development and modernity forces. Communities in naval sailortowns were alienated from the cultural, economic and political power centers. The relationship between the naval and civic authorities oscillated between resistance and compromise. [40: Supra, note 13, 73]

The nature of naval authority has been examined by Jan Ruger and Mary Conley. They have examined the pageantry and the ritual of building ships and the emergence of the naval sailor as an imperial icon in the late 19th C. the essence of the subculture of a naval sailor has been studied by Jan. It exhibited a distinct dress code, language and even gait; comparable to the youth style observed in the 20th C[footnoteRef:41]. He points out that sailors became innovative to survive the intrusive risk of press gang and the demands of the custom officials. They evolved their unique communication to trade advice on tavern owners who were sympathetic. They made detours incognito through the safe houses and the countryside. [41: Don Leggett, Navy, nation and identity in the long nineteenth century, 152]

Alternative belief systems that had taken deep root among the seamen were observed even in the 20th century. War made thirst for the whereabouts on the loved ones at sea all the more burning[footnoteRef:42]. Prostitution seems to have made a distinction between dwellers of sailortown and other urban dwellers in the hinterland. Women were prohibited from visiting pubs. The rest of society shunned those who defied these societal limits and regarded them as outcasts[footnoteRef:43]. Sailortown operated almost conversely though. Women were commonly seen on streets and public houses. [42: Brad Beaven, The resilience of sailortown culture in English Naval Ports, 72-95.] [43: Robert Roberts, The classic slum (Penguin UK, 1990) 22.]

The Import of this review

Unfortunately, historians of maritime bias have for long ignored the need to examine the life of seafarers; although it was an integral part of the work activities of maritime business. Most maritime studies have focused energies on how work was organized on board, communication networks, culture, and behavior[footnoteRef:44]. Although there has been a reasonable attempt to examine the image of habitual drinking and an inclination for prostitutes in the mythology of Bachelor Jack, there is little interdisciplinary research focusing on seamen in the context of their actual cultural, social, and economic life ashore. This state of affairs is seriously delimiting and unfortunate. [44: Supra, note 1, 63]

Port cities are rarely treated as urban locations. Consequently, the chances of analyzing them comprehensively are slim. Researchers are by default inclined to stick to their scope of research. It is notable that even the urban or cultural historians that examine maritime trends have little interest in exploring shifting trade and shipping patterns and similar activities of maritime nature[footnoteRef:45]. In rare cases where maritime historians acknowledge the role of the connections between port cities and the wider neighboring socio-economic communities, they primarily concentrate on employment in these ports and the industries that were linked to these ports. There is still little interest or focus on the socio-cultural and ethnic diversity of the urban communities in these complex setups. There is also little interest paid to the factors that led to the creation of successful business and such culture that provided fertile ground for maritime operations. [45: Sarah Palmer, PORT ECONOMICS IN AN HISTORICAL CONTEXT, 133.]

At a point of convergence, dockers and seafarers originated from the same community that shared similar culture and values. However, it is erroneous to imagine that dockland sections were one homogenous place that was a self-contained enclave. Instead, they represented an essential junction point between the maritime life and urban dwelling. Further, it is not true that seafarers and their kith and kin dominated port towns. Following these deductions, the classic positing that there existed distinct maritime culture in port cities must be subjected to scrutiny with a view to correct the misrepresentation of the actual life of these port cities, sailortowns and the image of seafarers. The instability of urban life, coupled with the broader determinants of life at social level in such locations, the sectoral interlinkage between land-based labor markets and maritime pursuits provide further ground to decline subscribing to the skewed image of, maritime, sailortown, and port cities in general.

This review has variously sought to unveil the facts around wider issues around the life of seafarers ashore and the sailortown settings. It has explored such areas as family life, provision of welfare and the dynamics that surrounded maritime occupation at the time. Some of the issues still call for further research to show the attitude in and regarding sailortown and its inhabitants between the periods: 1850 and 1860, and to further explore the status of such attitude between the periods: 1900 and 1910. It is evident that sailors have never been a homogenous group. Just as ports were unique in size, population, economic activity, and trade, sailors differed in their socio-cultural, economic, and political standing. There is need for further research though if the classic and deeply embedded perception of the seafarer is to be replaced with accurate information based on empirical findings. The task of appraising the urban life of the seafarer is both a challenge and an opportunity for maritime historians. There are no case studies with sufficient detail on the life of seafarers in their communities and examine their shifting roles over time. The task can only succeed if it approached from a multidisciplinary approach. There is need to incorporate experts in such fields as ethnology, sociology, human geography, and history of medicine. Maritime historians also need to take their central seat in historical sciences.