Morals on the Waterway

[Heartland]

This notice regarding the Bridgewater Canal deserves comment  as to why ?

 

 

[booke23]

Who knows. Although that is dated only a few months after Queen Victoria acceded to the throne so perhaps he thought morals on the canals should be dealt with for the sake of a female monarch, but I'm merely thinking out loud, probably nothing to do with that.

 

One things for sure, James Loch would be turning in his grave if he could see the change in morals today compared to 1837!  

[David Mack]

Perhaps because of fears that the ladies living on board with the Flatmen and Lightermen might not actually be their wives?

[MtB]

Curious typeface. There appears to be two different-sized sets of upper case letters.

 

 

 

 

 

More pertinently, would not a letter such as this sent in 1837 have been hand-written? Did they actually have typewriters in canal offices that early?

[booke23]

7 minutes ago, MtB said:

Curious typeface. There appears to be two different-sized sets of upper case letters.

 

 

 

 

 

More pertinently, would not a letter such as this sent in 1837 have been hand-written? Did they actually have typewriters in canal offices that early?

 

You're right. I assumed this is extracted from a book or article. Typewriters didn't come along until the 1870's.

[Hudds Lad]

2 hours ago, MtB said:

Curious typeface. There appears to be two different-sized sets of upper case letters.

Known in typography circles as "small caps", been around for a few hundred years, would suggest the above note is a typeset reproduction not the original letter  

[magpie patrick]

Moral codes of the time would not have encouraged a woman to be anywhere near the Bridgewater Canal - it wasn't so much being with their husbands, it was all the other men, some of who would have felt distinctly uncomfortable in the presence of a woman who was not their wife. Just not the done thing. Women and men didn't mix in pubs either (if the women went in a pub at all)

 

There would be many other social and moral conventions too, this was an era when women and men only mixed in a family setting. 

 

I'm not sure when families started living on narrow boats but that was a change of context, the woman was now with her family 

 

It's hard to think of a modern parallel for "not the done thing" 

 

15 hours ago, booke23 said:

 

One things for sure, James Loch would be turning in his grave if he could see the change in morals today compared to 1837!  

 

Indeed - although I'm rather glad I can go to the boat with Ness (or any other woman for that matter) without Mr Loch feeling moved to write a letter about it!  Can you imagine the pages of this forum... 😳

[Jen-in-Wellies]

The regulation doesn't prohibit women who are not the boatman's wife from living and sleeping on board. Curious morality! Perhaps the concept was so entirely alien it would have made the canal director's heads explode to even entertain it. 

[magnetman]

Is there a religious element to this? 

 

Some people even to this day regard women as different to men and require face coverings. It did not occur to me before but maybe the burkha is worn because males 'feel uncomfortable' with women about. 

 

 

I assumed it was because the woman is a chattel  but it may be something  else. 

 

I expect religion was more common in the days when this letter was written. 

[Pluto]

Some details here re women on board in the 1840s:

From: The Morning Chronicle, Dec 13^th 1849

Labour and the Poor; The Manufacturing districts, Leeds

I should devote a few words to the life and toil of the men, who, before the era of railroads, were chiefly concerned in the conveyance of heavy goods from place to place, and who still transport by water-carriage a very considerable portion of our manufactured and mineral wealth - I mean the bargemen engaged in navigating our inland canals. … The boats are long and narrow, and deeply laden. A tarpaulin covers the cargo stowed amidships, and sometimes in the bow, sometimes in the stern, sometimes in both bow and stern rise one or two funnels, the number being according to the size of the boat, smoking cheerily, and proclaiming that the cabins of captain and crew lie beneath. As a general rule, a single horse draws these boats along, the driver being frequently seated complacently upon its back, with both feet towards the water. This individual belongs to a class often talked of but seldom seen. In the slang of the canals he is called the Horse Marine. The marine is, indeed his regular trade appellation. Sometimes a man or a couple of men, lounge idly on the barge’s deck, occasionally a woman taking a trick at the helm is the only person visible.

Let us descend into the after cabin of one of the larger class of barges, one carrying from 40-50 tons. It is a hot, choky, little box, between 4 and 5 ft high, near the scuttle is a stove. On either side run berths made after the usual fashion afloat. One is generally constructed broad enough to contain a couple of persons, the other often only room for one. Beneath them are lockers which serve for seats, and at the stern, just forward of the rudder opens the little cupboard, wherein the, sea-stock is deposited. Even with the scuttle open you will often find the air close and oppressive, but the captain will generally tell you that two, some three people sleep there with the hatch on. ‘We move it so as to make a chink, if we feel it over hot.’

The larger boats are normally navigated by a captain and two mates, and helped, of course by the marine. The average wages of the captain amounts to about 22s, those of the mates and marine to 18s weekly. The captain has often his wife on board, but sometimes one of the mates gives his missus a trip, the skipper on these occasions gallantly giving up the use of the cabin and sleeping with the other mate in the forecastle. Only one lady, however, is allowed to be on board at a time. The usual speed of the barge is from 2-3miles and a half an hour. The fly barges, which are commonly the larger sort, proceed night and day, never stopping, except at the locks, and to deliver goods.

Each horse performs a stage of from 20 to 25 miles. The marine in charge of the relay knows when the barge will be up, ‘to an hour or two’, a latitude reminding one of the very old coaching days. The smaller barges have only a single horse, which goes the whole journey. These boats tie up at nights. The bargemen always sleep on board. The marine looks after his steed and sleeps ashore. There do not seem to be any regular watches on board these barges, as at sea. The turns of deputy depend upon the circumstances and varying arrangements. Three hours is reckoned a fair spell at the helm, and if there is a woman on board she always steers when the men are at their dinners. In passing a lock, however, all hands must be on deck, by day or night

[booke23]

3 hours ago, magnetman said:

Is there a religious element to this? 

 

Some people even to this day regard women as different to men and require face coverings. It did not occur to me before but maybe the burkha is worn because males 'feel uncomfortable' with women about. 

 

 

I assumed it was because the woman is a chattel  but it may be something  else. 

 

I expect religion was more common in the days when this letter was written. 

 

Certainly religion was a much bigger factor in peoples lives in those days. I remember reading about the construction of the Bell Rock Lighthouse (oldest surviving sea washed lighthouse in the world, built 1807-1810). Due to the fact the rock was underwater 20hrs each day and they only had a short summer season to work on it each year, the owners proposed they should work on Sundays. This went down like a lead balloon with the workers who felt for sure they'd go to hell for doing so. Although they did all eventually agree to work Sundays. 

 

 

6 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

Indeed - although I'm rather glad I can go to the boat with Ness (or any other woman for that matter) without Mr Loch feeling moved to write a letter about it!  Can you imagine the pages of this forum... 😳

 

It would be so interesting if something like this forum existed 200 years ago, to read it today. I imagine the bickering would have been probably more civilised, but no less common. Although I imagine most of the arguments would have had to be settled like gentlemen.......by a pistol duel at dawn. In fact the forum rules would have probably required it! Something like this:

 

• CWDF is governed by the laws of the British Empire and gentlemen. Any disputes are to be resolved forthwith in the manner of gentlemen by dueling at dawn. Sword fighting in lieu of duelling is strictly forbidden. 

[Jen-in-Wellies]

9 minutes ago, booke23 said:

CWDF is governed by the laws of the British Empire and gentlemen. Any disputes are to be resolved forthwith in the manner of gentlemen by dueling at dawn. Sword fighting in lieu of duelling is strictly forbidden. 

Forum moderators to act as seconds. 

[magnetman]

Not sure about the morals but I reckon crew morale would be pretty good if the captain gallantly gave up his bunk from time to time to allow a crew to have the wife aboard. Just occasionally. 

 

That does sound like a sensible move for a number of different reasons.

 

 

Possibly not quite so sensible to employ ladies of the night. That could be dodgy. 

 

So yes in a way it is odd because the letter suggest low morals if the wife is aboard but makes no mention of taking a prostitute. 

 

 

 

 

[booke23]

6 minutes ago, magnetman said:

So yes in a way it is odd because the letter suggest low morals if the wife is aboard but makes no mention of taking a prostitute. 

 

I did wonder this myself. Perhaps it was a topic that fell under the category of 'that of which must not be mentioned'. 

[gregich]

7 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

Moral codes of the time would not have encouraged a woman to be anywhere near the Bridgewater Canal - it wasn't so much being with their husbands, it was all the other men, some of who would have felt distinctly uncomfortable in the presence of a woman who was not their wife. Just not the done thing. Women and men didn't mix in pubs either (if the women went in a pub at all)

 

There would be many other social and moral conventions too, this was an era when women and men only mixed in a family setting. 

 

I'm not sure when families started living on narrow boats but that was a change of context, the woman was now with her family 

 

It's hard to think of a modern parallel for "not the done thing" 

 

 

Indeed - although I'm rather glad I can go to the boat with Ness (or any other woman for that matter) without Mr Loch feeling moved to write a letter about it!  Can you imagine the pages of this forum... 😳

Not so, working class women went into pubs but usually accompanied by a man. Some pubs had segrated areas like a 'snug' or the lounge. Middle class women did not though.

[TheBiscuits]

15 minutes ago, magnetman said:

So yes in a way it is odd because the letter suggest low morals if the wife is aboard but makes no mention of taking a prostitute. 

 

Maybe the writer didn't approve of wives ...

[Jen-in-Wellies]

5 minutes ago, booke23 said:

 

I did wonder this myself. Perhaps it was a topic that fell under the category of 'that of which must not be mentioned'. 

Given the number of women who were prostitutes in that society and therefore were providing a service to a clientele that probably included some of the higher ups in the canal company,  most likely the case. 

There were very few other options to live for women that fell out of the chaste daughter, or married woman paths that society offered. 

https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/80000-prostitutes-the-myth-of-victorian-londons-lo

[magnetman]

2 minutes ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

Given the number of women who were prostitutes in that society and therefore were providing a service to a clientele that probably included some of the higher ups in the canal company,  most likely the case. 

There were very few other options to live for women that fell out of the chaste daughter, or married woman paths that society offered. 

https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/80000-prostitutes-the-myth-of-victorian-londons-lo

This is one of the things which really annoys me about the museum of London docklands. 

 

They have marvellous galleries and a large area devoted to the slave trade but nowhere in the entire museum is there a reference to the prostitutes. 

 

Its outrageous. Like it is a taboo or something. Whinge and moan about the poor slaves but never speak or reference the girls and women selling sex to the sailors. 

 

 

 

 

It is still relatively common around Whitechapel. I was randomly walking around the area one evening out of interest and a young woman approached as if to as directions. She rather bluntly asked 'Do you fancy a blow job and sex?'. I politely declined her kind offer as was not sure if she could afford it. 

 

 

[1st ade]

3 hours ago, magnetman said:

They have marvellous galleries and a large area devoted to the slave trade but nowhere in the entire museum is there a reference to the prostitutes. 

I'm trying to work out which one to answer first but Magnetman has won!

 

Visit Pompeii! The guides delight in showing you the carved Penis's (quick check with Ofcom, it's alright, in context) which lead from the harbour to the "houses of negotiable affection" to guide the newly arrived sailer on his way...

9 hours ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

Curious morality! Perhaps the concept was so entirely alien it would have made the canal director's heads explode to even entertain it. 

This will merge!

 

A very sensible suggestion from @Jen-in-Wellies - bit like we never used to have double yellow lines around a junction as "who'd be so stupid to park there?", and now we do; because the unthinkable is now thinkable...

[Tony1]

8 hours ago, magnetman said:

 

It is still relatively common around Whitechapel. I was randomly walking around the area one evening out of interest and a young woman approached as if to as directions. She rather bluntly asked 'Do you fancy a blow job and sex?'. I politely declined her kind offer as was not sure if she could afford it. 

 

 

Not wanting to divulge any commercial secrets of course, but how much do you charge for intercourse with a person of the female persuasion? 

I'm about to start a new career as a waterways gigolo, so I need to get my pricing structure right.

For normal sex I'm planning to offer the standard 3 minute session at £200, but also a deluxe 5 minute service at £500.

No funny business, mind. 

Or they can pay me off by working 10 locks. 

 

Edited Tuesday at 20:56 by Tony1

[Mike Todd]

1839 Murder of Cristina Collins on T & M highlights that women did travel on their own, overnight and that it did not always end well.

 

BTW, I have long understood (perhaps incorrectly?) that sleeping on a canal boat came quite late in the history - for a long while most traffic was short distance and the men (!) returned home each night. The evolution into families on board was a lateish reaction to competition from railways and it was hard to make a living this way. Only became feasible when it came with accommodation. (Sort of like when long distance trucks began to have bunks built in but I have never heard of them carrying a family!)

[magnetman]

On 10/06/2025 at 21:55, Tony1 said:

 

Not wanting to divulge any commercial secrets of course, but how much do you charge for intercourse with a person of the female persuasion? 

I'm about to start a new career as a waterways gigolo, so I need to get my pricing structure right.

For normal sex I'm planning to offer the standard 3 minute session at £200, but also a deluxe 5 minute service at £500.

No funny business, mind. 

Or they can pay me off by working 10 locks. 

 

 

Apologies for coming late to this. 

 

Your rates seem ok but now and then one must do special offers. 

 

I generally do a one in ten offer for £50. 

[Jonny P]

On 12/06/2025 at 15:59, Mike Todd said:

1839 Murder of Cristina Collins on T & M highlights that women did travel on their own, overnight and that it did not always end well.

 

BTW, I have long understood (perhaps incorrectly?) that sleeping on a canal boat came quite late in the history - for a long while most traffic was short distance and the men (!) returned home each night. The evolution into families on board was a lateish reaction to competition from railways and it was hard to make a living this way. Only became feasible when it came with accommodation. (Sort of like when long distance trucks began to have bunks built in but I have never heard of them carrying a family!)

The majority of working boaters went home at night throughout the history of regular carrying, since most trade was local.

 

However I think there always was long distance trade that required the men that worked the boats to live aboard while in transit. The difference perhaps being that they also had a home.

 

Even once families lived aboard from the later 1800s onwards research has shown most retained a house on land, albeit sometimes shared with other members of an extended family.

 

Perhaps by the time most of the literature about working boat life was written the norm was that families lived aboard and this skews the perception of how boat families lived.

 

My great grandfather operated a pair of horse boats from the Midlands to London and always maintained a house for the family at Sutton Stop.

 

Edited Friday at 18:18 by Jonny P