Chim chiminee

 If your only knowledge about chimney sweeps in Victorian and Edwardian Britain comes from Dick Van Dyke's performance in the original "Mary Poppins" - the world's most terrible cockney accent and all - then the truth would probably come as a shock. I made this painting, my first in a couple of weeks, based on a black and white Victorian photograph, and it piqued my interest to do a little research. This is another direct watercolour.

Although there had been Chimney sweeps in the UK since Tudor times, it was the Industrial Revolution which led to the change from being a mostly agricultural and rural population to a mostly industrial and urban one which created the conditions in which the chimney sweep became an essential worker. The number of dwellings with chimneys increased massively, and if chimneys were not swept at least 4 times a year, then they were at a great risk of a potentially disastrous chimney fire. The coal that had replaced wood as the primary fuel source left deposits of creosote within the flues, and if these were not cleared regularly, then they could ignite within the flue.

Building regulations instituted after the 1666 Great Fire of London meant that a narrower design of flue was used, which only young boys could climb. As early as the 1770s the English parliament, which rarely showed any sympathy towards the so-called working classes, passed laws trying to regulate the use of 'sweeping boys' and in some cases girls. The use of children to sweep chimneys was not actually banned until about 100 years later. The adult 'master sweep' was often portrayed as a cruel and vicious task master in contemporary literature. They were certainly taking advantage of their young 'apprentices'. Typically sweeps’ apprentices were children who had become the responsibility of the local parish, either orphans or children whose parents were in dire poverty. Making a child into a sweep’s apprentice relieved the parish of the responsibility of feeding, homing and clothing the child, at the same time as putting them in the position where they would learn a trade to support themselves in later years. In Dickens’ “Oliver Twist’ the orphaned Oliver is sold by the workhouse for asking for more food. Not to a sweep, but to an undertaker, but the principle is exactly the same.

A master sweep might buy an apprentice for as little as 7 shillings. For the most part apprentices would start at the age of 6, although some children started as young as four. Although it was illegal, sweeping boys were sometimes sent up chimneys to put out fires. Occupational hazards included asphyxiation and cancer from the carcinogenic soot and coal tar. In 1840, the UK parliament passed an act making it illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to sweep chimneys. It was a law without teeth and pretty much ignored. Another law of 1864 tightened up the regulations, but still did not stamp out the practice. Finally, after a master sweep was sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour when a 12 year old apprentice died after becoming stuck in a hospital chimney, under the dynamic leadership of Lord Shaftesbury the campaign to end the practice of using children to sweep chimneys saw a law passed in 1875 which required all chimney sweeps to be authorised by the local police.

The terrible irony of the situation was that as early as 1803 in response to a competition a man called George Smart invented the extendable brush which I remember the local sweep using a more modern version of in my grandmother’s house when I was growing up in the 1970s. It says a lot about how cheap life was in Victorian times that sweeps and householders ignored Smart’s equipment because they believed that a child risking his life was an altogether more effective way of cleaning chimneys and chimney flues.

This is not to say that adult sweeps had it easy even before regulation deprived them of their child apprentices. There was a huge amount of competition especially in big towns and cities. A master sweep, with a maximum of 6 apprentices, would be lucky to earn as much as ten shillings a week, from the sweeping but also from selling the soot they could collect from the chimneys. This was at a time when the average working wage was about 15 shillings a week. From this the master sweep would be expected to provide basic accommodation, food and clothing for his apprentices, even though he didn’t pay wages to them. In London, for example, the average rent for a basic accommodation was 6 shillings a week.

In addition to this, master sweeps were increasingly seen as social pariahs as the 19^th century progressed and the movement to prevent children from having to sweep chimneys gathered strength. Even when the practice of using children was ended it did little to improve the social standing of sweeps. Even though they didn’t have to face all of the dangers that the children had faced, being a chimney sweep remained a dangerous, dirty and poorly paid occupation into the 20^th century.

As a footnote, I did say that I remember my grandmother’s chimney being swept by Mr. Tuckwell, our local sweep. He was very professional and even had a van with his name on the side. This was the late 60s, long before we had central heating installed. I did wonder how many professional chimney sweeps are still plying their trade in the UK. A quick google took me to the website of the National Association of Chimney Sweeps. They currently have over 700 members!

More direct watercolours depicting yesteryear

I’ve made two – count ‘em – two direct watercolour paintings since last we met, dearly beloved. Both of them are based on old Victorian photographs.

The first one here which I painted across three evenings last week shows a group of British army recruiting officers – maybe rounding up some likely lads for the Boer War, maybe earlier than that. I like several things about this one. The soldier in the red in the background standing in front of the trees is well realised, and the blue one with his hand on his hip isn’t bad either. In the original photograph the church in the background is hazy, apart from the tower and I think I’ve caught that quite well. The wall of the building on the extreme left is a pub, and I’m afraid that I haven’t captured the soldiers leaning on the wall that well. I’m pleased with the way I have the pavement in the foreground half in the shadow of the pub, I think that works quite well.

Carrying on with the old black and white photo theme, this next painting from yesterday was one I came across when I googled Victorian street urchin. I liked the photo a lot, even though this isn’t London and the urchins are collecting in a park rather than the street.

I think the urchin on the left is better realised than the urchin on the right, although to be fair this one does have a much more woebegone look on his face. The park background hasn’t worked out too badly. Overall, it’s okay, but probably my least favourite of July 2023 so far.

Back to the Paintbox

If you followed my recent posts about the 30x30 Challenge during June, you may recall me mentioning that I developed tendonitis in my wrist and shoulder with about 10 days to go. Up until yesterday I didn’t even try painting anything. My wrist feels quite a lot better, although my shoulder and neck don’t seem to be getting much better att all. Maybe it’s my arthritis spreading. Since diagnosis about 13 years ago it’s only really affected the upper joint of the index finger on my right hand. The tip of the finger has developed a pronounced and slightly alarming lean to the left. It rarely hurts and hardly inconveniences me at all. But I do have to face the fact that it could spread sooner or later.

Okay, that’s the excuses done. Now, last year I was so pleased with the way my direct watercolours had improved by the time that I got to the end of the challenge that I started painting exclusively watercolours until I went away to Spain. Those were paintings where I lightly drew the design in pencil before starting. Well, this year I have been pleased again, this time with the overall quality of the whole set of 30. Yes, there are a couple that I don’t think are up to the standard of the rest, but as a whole set I think they’re a noticeable improvement on 2022. So when I picked up my brushes again yesterday, it was to do another direct watercolour.

The subject which is based on an old black and white postcard printed in the 1930’s. I’d earmarked it as a potential subject for one of the 30, but since I’d already painted the old Morris Minor post van I didn’t do it as part of the set. Yesterday though, the time was ripe. All of the 30x30 pictures are A4 sized. This is purely a commercial thing – it’s easier and cheaper to post A4 pictures and prints than A3 – a LOT cheaper. But I only had A3 available yesterday. The benefits of using A3 are that it’s a lot easier to paint in detail and features on a larger figure than a smaller one.

I’m pretty pleased with it. I think pillar box and postie are nicely done in the foreground, and the background to the left of the postie is nice too. I went for almost a sepia tone quality to it, which seems to have worked. I did some research on the ne, but couldn’t find which city the photograph was taken in. I’d like to think this is London, but in all honesty I just don’t know.