Chapter XIV: Appendix (4)

“I would mention another case, amongst many more in St. Giles’s
parish: I was requested to survey the dilapidations to several houses
in the immediate neighbourhood of High-street, upon passing through
the passage of the first house, I found the yard covered with
night-soil, from the overflowing of the privy, to the depth of nearly
six inches, and bricks were placed to enable the inmates to get across
dry shod; in addition to this, there was an accumulation of filth
piled up against the walls, of the most objectionable nature; the
interior of the house partook something of the same character, and
discovering, upon examination, that the other houses were nearly
similar; I found a detailed survey impracticable, and was obliged to
content myself with making general observations. My duties, as one of
the surveyors to a fire-office, call me to all parts of the town, and
I am constantly shocked almost beyond endurance at the filth and
misery in which a large part of our population are permitted to drag
on a diseased and miserable existence. I consider a large portion, if
not the whole, of this accumulation of dirt and filth is caused by the
bad and inefficient sewerage of the metropolis. I am acquainted with
numberless houses in Westminster where the cellars are constantly
flooded, and having no drainage, the occupiers are obliged to pump out
the water, which, from being stagnant, is foul and offensive. If in
the performance of this necessary duty the matter becomes known, they
are summoned to the public office and fined 5_l._; however much,
therefore, the evil is felt in permitting the continuance of stagnant
water, the alternative of the fine for pumping out is worse; they
submit therefore to the lesser evil, and leave the water in the
cellars. * * *

“I am quite sure, from much observation, that the occupiers of houses
in all neighbourhoods are much influenced in their habits of
cleanliness by the facilities afforded for draining, and by the want
of carriage and foot-paving in the streets; and it is equally certain
that both health and life are frequently sacrificed by the constant
damps and unwholesome smell, occasioned entirely by the absence of all
means to carry off the impurities, which, in densely populated
neighbourhoods, increase with such fearful rapidity.”

It might have been expected, from the value of the refuse as manure (one of the most powerful known), that the great demand for it would have afforded a price which might have returned, in some degree, the expense and charge of cleansing. But this appears not to be the case in the metropolis. It is stated that at present, with the exception of coal-ashes, which are indispensable for making bricks, some description of lees, and a few other inconsiderable exceptions, no refuse in London pays half the expense of removal by cartage. The cost of removal, or of the labour and cartage, limits the general use or deposit of the refuse within a radius which does not exceed three miles beyond the line of the district-post of the metropolis, that is, about six miles. It is stated that, partly from the nature of the holdings, and from other circumstances within this limited district, agricultural improvements are not so great as might be expected where the facilities are so easy for obtaining any quantity of manure. Some idea may be formed of the loss of value of this manure from the metropolis, occasioned by the expense of its collection and removal, from the evidence of a considerable contractor for scavengering, &c., who states, with respect to the most productive manure,—“I have given away thousands of loads of night-soil: we knew not what to do with it.”[4]

In the parts of some towns adjacent to the rural districts the cesspools are emptied gratuitously for the sake of the manure; but they only do this when there is a considerable accumulation, and any accumulation of any decomposing material which offends the smell is injurious to the health, especially in a town where all miasma is less diluted with fresh air, and where the population is less robust. For the saving of cartage, as well as the convenience of use, accumulations of refuse are frequently allowed to remain and decompose and dry amidst the habitations of the poorer classes. _Dr. Laurie_ in his report on the sanitary condition of Greenock, furnishes an example. He says,—

“The first question I generally put when a new case of fever is
admitted, is as to their locality. I was struck with the number of
admissions from Market-street; most of the cases coming from that
locality became quickly typhoid, and made slow recoveries. This is a
narrow back street; it is almost overhung by a steep hill, rising
immediately behind it; it contains the lowest description of houses,
built closely together, the access to the dwellings being through
filthy closes. The front entrance is generally the only outlet.
Numerous food for the production of miasma lies concealed in this
street. I think I could point out one in each close.

“In one part of the street there is a dunghill,—yet it is too large to
be called a dunghill. I do not misstate its size when I say it
contains a hundred cubic yards of impure filth, collected from all
parts of the town. It is never removed; it is the stock-in-trade of a
person who deals in dung; he retails it by cartfuls. To please his
customers, he always keeps a nucleus, as the older the filth is the
higher is the price. The proprietor has an extensive privy attached to
the concern. This collection is fronting the public street; it is
enclosed in front by a wall; the height of the wall is about 12 feet,
and the dung overtops it; the malarious moisture oozes through the
wall, and runs over the pavement. The effluvia all round about this
place in summer is horrible. There is a land of houses adjoining, four
stories in height, and in the summer each house swarms with myriads of
flies; every article of food and drink must be covered, otherwise, if
left exposed for a minute, the flies immediately attack it, and it is
rendered unfit for use, from the strong taste of the dunghill left by
the flies. But there is a still more extensive dunghill in this
street; at least, if not so high, it covers double the extent of
surface. What the depth is I cannot say. It is attached to the
slaughter-house, and belongs, I believe, to the town authorities. It
is not only the receptacle for the dung and offal from the
slaughter-house, but the sweepings of the streets are also conveyed
and deposited there; it has likewise a public privy attached. In the
slaughter-house itself, which is adjoining the street, the blood and
offal is allowed to lie a long time, and the smell in summer is highly
offensive. In two of the narrow closes opposite the market, there is
in each a small space not built upon, and that space, being the only
spare ground in the close, is occupied by a dunghill; these two closes
are notorious as nurseries for fever. I believe it to be a rare
occurrence when fever is not to be found in them during any time of
the year. Market-street is certainly one of the most filthy and
unhealthy streets in Greenock; it is needless to say that many places
here and there throughout the town are as bad, indeed, I may state
that from the best to the worst locality in the town there is not a
street but requires to be subjected to some rigid system for removing
away regularly the rubbish and impurities which are constantly
exhaling forth so much, and which is indirectly the cause of the
yearly increase of so much destitution.”

_Mr. Baker_, in his report, gives another instance of the ignorance and carelessness under which the health of the population suffers.

“The contractor for the street sweepings, who is the treator with the
Commissioners of Public Nuisances in Leeds, last year rented a plot of
vacant land in the centre of the North-east ward, the largest ward in
point of population in the township of Leeds, and containing the
greatest number of poor, and this year rents, in the East ward,
another plot of land, as a depôt for the sweepings from the streets
and markets, both vegetable and general, for the purpose of
exsiccating and accumulating till they could be sold as manure and
carried away. So noisome were these exhalations, that the inhabitants
complained of their utter inability to ventilate their sleeping-rooms
during the day time, and of the insufferable stench to which both by
night and day they were thus subjected.”

The comparatively recent mode of cleansing adopted in the wealthy and newly-built districts by the use of water-closets, and the discharge of all refuse at once from the house through the drain into the sewers, saves the delay and the previous accumulation, and it also saves the expense of the old means of removal. It is most applicable to the poorer districts, because really the most economical, when they are properly sewered and supplied with water. The cost of cheap and appropriate apparatus, and of water for cleansing, it will be proved is a reduction of the mere cost of cleansing in the old method, independently of the cost incurred by the decay of woodwork and deterioration of the tenement which commonly takes place on premises in the condition of those described by Mr. Howell. The chief objection to the extension of this system is the pollution of the water of the river into which the sewers are discharged. Admitting the expediency of avoiding the pollution, it is nevertheless proved to be an evil of almost inappreciable magnitude in comparison with the ill health occasioned by the constant retention of several hundred thousand accumulations of pollution in the most densely-peopled districts.

There is much evidence, however, to prove that it is possible to remove the refuse in such a mode as to avoid the pollution of the river, and at the same time avoid the culpable waste of the most important manure.

A practical example of the money value which lies in the refuse of a town, when removed in the cheapest manner, and applied in the form best adapted to production, viz., by a system of cleansing by water, is afforded in connexion with the city of Edinburgh. In the course of the sanitary inquiry in that city the particular attention of Dr. Arnott and myself was directed to the effects of some offensive irrigation of the land which had taken place in the immediate vicinity of that city. It appears that the contents of a large proportion of the sinks, drains, and privies of that city are conveyed in covered sewers to the eastern suburb of the town, where they are emptied into a stream called the Foul Burn, which passes ultimately into the sea. The stream is thus made into a large uncovered sewer or drain. Several years ago some of the occupiers of the land in the immediate vicinity of this stream diverted parts of it, and collected the soil which it contained in tanks for use as manure. After this practice had been adopted for a long period, the farmers in the vicinity gradually found that the most beneficial mode of applying the manure was in the liquid form, and they conducted the stream over their meadows by irrigation. Others, perceiving the extraordinary fertility thus obtained, followed the example, and by degrees about 300 acres of meadow, chiefly in the eastern parts of that city, but all in its immediate vicinity, and the greater part of it in the neighbourhood of the palace of Holyrood, have been systematically irrigated with the contents of this common sewer. From some of this land so irrigated, four or five crops a-year have been obtained; land once worth from 40_s._ to 50_s._ per acre now lets for very high sums. It is stated by a writer cited as an authority, on behalf of the parties interested,—

“That the rent for which some of these meadows are let in small
portions to cow-feeders varies on an average from 20_l._ to 30_l._ per
acre. Some of the richest meadows were let in 1835 at 38_l._ per acre;
and in that season of scarce forage, 1826, 57_l._ per acre were
obtained for the same meadows. * * * The waste land called Figget
Whins, containing 30 acres, and 10 acres of poor sandy soil adjoining
them, were formed into water meadows in 1821, at an expense of
1000_l._ The pasture of the Figget Whins used to be let for 40_l._
a-year, and that of the 10 acres at 60_l._ Now the same ground as
meadows lets for 15_l._ or 20_l._ an acre a-year, and will probably
let for more, as the land becomes more and more enriched.”

This use of irrigation followed so gradually, that the time of its commencement seems not accurately ascertained, but is known to have been usual near the beginning of the present century. The tanks are still to a certain extent used. The irrigation proceeds from the beginning of April to the middle of September, and, it is supposed that the deposits in the tanks are in the interval increased by the quantity of soil not employed in irrigations.

The practice is strongly objected to by the inhabitants as an offensive and injurious nuisance. To Dr. Arnott, who surveyed the district, the process appeared to be, like most offensive processes, unfitted for the vicinity of a town. The miasma from the preparation of the large accumulations of manure in open receptacles near places of public resort or crowded habitations would probably affect the public health injuriously to a greater or less degree. In particular states of the weather it could scarcely fail to engender disease. In the decomposition of substances for manure, deleterious gasses will be evolved, which in particular states of the atmosphere will act with powerful effects on animal life within their reach. But it is at the same time stated, the process of applying manure by irrigation, that is, separated and diluted with water, is considered to be productive of less deleterious gas, of less injurious effects, than by spreading it over fields in a solid form, and allowing it to remain until it is decomposed and separated by the atmosphere and conveyed into the soil by rain. Liebig, the greatest living authority on agricultural chemistry, states that night-soil loses in drying half its valuable products, that is, half its “nitrogen,” for the “ammonia” escapes into the atmosphere. By irrigation, by the diffusion and conveyance of the manure to the plant in the medium of water the escape of the valuable substance as a noxious and injurious gas is diminished.[5] Whatever extent of loss there is from manures by decomposition when placed on the land in a solid form, and when exposed to the action of the atmosphere, it is stated that there is proportionate gain by holding the material in suspension in water. The simple offensiveness, it may be assumed, is a sufficient ground of exclusion of any process from amidst the habitations of a town population. But at a reasonable distance the use of dung or any other manure would not be forbidden; and the process which is the least injurious, the irrigative, is entitled therefore to a preference. Effective drainage must make way for the conveyance of diluted manures, and consequently for effective irrigation.

The continuance of the practice in Edinburgh of the use of the common sewer for irrigation is defended by the occupiers and owners, on the ground that from the time of its commencement, when it was unopposed, and, as it appears to us, escaped any notice, a legal right has been acquired by them in the manure of the city contained in the Burn, and the present claimants of the right contend that they are entitled to compensation under the Scotch law for any diversion of the stream or of the manure which it contains. The irrigation which has surrounded the palace of Holyrood having, as it is considered, rendered it prejudicial to health, Her Majesty’s government, for the protection of this palace as a royal residence, have directed legal process for the trial of the right claimed to the irrigation. The defendants vindicate the measure on the ground of its utility as an agricultural operation, and treat the proposal to divert the contents of the sewers as being in fact a proposal to deprive the city of the milk and butter yielded by more than 3000 milch cows, and the markets of the meat from their carcases; that, in fact, “the grass, which in virtue of irrigation these meadows produce, supports in Edinburgh 3300 cows, and in Leith 600 cows, during the season.”[6] We were informed that the parties interested in the lands estimate the compensation that would induce them to discontinue the practice at 150,000_l._; and a pamphlet written at their instance, in 1840, states this as the sum which the proprietors of the meadows to the west of the city would be legally entitled to (independently of the claims of those in the east) were the practice abolished by legislative authority. The proprietors have had, on several occasions, sufficient influence to frustrate the efforts of the city authorities, to obtain legislative sanction for the removal of the nuisance, and for a more salubrious disposal of it for the advantage of the inhabitants themselves.

The public refuse of cities by the usual course of legislation in local Acts, and by custom, and on all principles which govern the application of the proceeds of such produce belongs to the public, and it may be submitted that, whatever may be the decision in the case of Edinburgh, means should be taken to prevent for the future the acquisition of new rights at the expense of the health and of the conveniences of such large classes of the population. And it may here be observed that it will probably be found, under the circumstances of the increasing population of the towns, and the increasing necessity of keeping open spaces within and around the towns, and of exercising a general control for the beneficial arrangement of new buildings for the public health and convenience, and of securing convenient public walks and places of temperate and healthful recreation for the population—that it is most desirable for all these objects that means should be taken to redeem to the crown the fee, or otherwise obtain as early as practicable, and on the terms of proper compensation, lands within and in the immediate vicinity of towns for public use.

If then, in Edinburgh, the contents of the cesspools were carried by adequate supplies of water in drains from the houses into covered sewers, and thence in covered instead of open sewers to the lands at proper distances where it might be distributed as manure by irrigation, it would be a mode of irrigation considered by Mr. Smith of Deanston, and other authorities on drainage and irrigation, whom I consulted, the best that is now apparently practicable, _i. e._, the best means for removing quickly, and constantly, and the least injuriously, the matters which can only remain for removal by any other process at the expense of the public health; they concur in opinion that it would also be the most productive mode of distributing the manure.

On the scale of the value set upon that portion of the refuse of Edinburgh that has been appropriated for irrigation by the occupiers of the land in the vicinity of the city, the value of the whole of the soil of the city (not one-third of which finds its way into the irrigated meadows), if it were made completely available by an appropriate system of town drainage, would be double or treble the amount, producing an income of 15,000_l._ to 20,000_l._ per annum for public purposes. On the same scale of value it would appear that, in the metropolis, refuse to the value of nearly double what is now paid for the water of the metropolis is thrown away, partly from the districts which are sewered into the Thames, and partly from the poor districts which are unsewered, where it accumulates and remains a nuisance until it is removed at a great expense. It is allowed by Captain Vetch, an experienced engineer, and by other authorities, to be the most eligible plan in respect to economy as well as efficiency, wherever the levels were not convenient, or it were desirable to send the refuse over heights for distribution, that the contents of the sewers should be lifted by steam power, as water is lifted in the drainage of the fens, and that it might be sent for distribution, wherever it is required for use, in iron pipes, in the same mode as that in which water is conveyed into towns by the water companies. The estimated expense of this mode of cleansing and removal is about the same as the conveyance of water into towns, _i. e._, not a tithe of the expense of cartage, as will subsequently be shown.

The comparative economy of conveyance of fluid in pipes has been but little observed, and has only recently perhaps been applied for the purpose of cleansing. The following is an instance of the application of the principle:—A contract was about to be entered into by the West Middlesex Water Company for hauling out from their reservoir at Kensington the deposit of eight or ten years’ silt, which had accumulated to the depth of three or four feet. The contractor offered to remove this quantity, which covered nearly an acre of surface, for the sum of 400_l._, in three or four weeks. The reservoir was emptied in order to be inspected by the engineer and directors before the contract was accepted. It occurred to one of the officers that the cleansing might be accomplished more readily by merely stirring up the silt, to mix it with the water; and then if a cut or outlet were made in the main-pipe used for conveying the water to London, that it might be washed out. He accordingly got thirty or forty men to work in stirring up the deposit, and accomplished the work at the cost of 40_l._ or 50_l._ and three or four days’ labour, instead of so many weeks; when the directors went to see the basin, to decide upon the contract, the reservoir was as free from any deposit as a house-floor. Since the discovery thus made, the silt has been regularly cleansed out into the common sewers. It is to be observed, in respect to the relative cheapness of the two modes, that the contractor would only have removed the silt to the nearest convenient place of deposit in the immediate vicinity of the reservoir, whereas, in the fluid state, it might be carried at the actual cost of conveying water, as far as it is at present conveyed, and sold with a profit, 12 or 14 miles, and raised to heights of 150 feet, at 2½_d._ per ton.

By the application of capital and machinery, the cost of conveyance of substances in suspension in a fluid, even at the water companies’ prices, may be rendered thirty and even more than forty times as cheap as collection by hand labour and removal by cartage. In the metropolis, where the persons who water the roads may obtain water gratuitously from pumps, the water supplied by stand-pipes by some of the water companies at 1_l._ per 100 tons, is found to be twice as cheap as the mere labour of pumping the water into the cart. By proper hydraulic arrangements heavy solid substances may be swept away through the iron pipes.

These means which science gives of cheapening the cost of the conveyance of refuse from houses, will be available also in extending and completing the cleansing of the towns, of removing the filth which oppresses the poorer districts, and rendering the whole of it available, in the best form, for future use as manure.

The expense of cleansing the streets of the _township_ of Manchester is 5,000_l._ per annum. For this sum the first class of streets, namely, the most opulent and the large thoroughfares, are cleansed once a-week, the second class once a-fortnight, and the third class once a-month. But this provision leaves untouched, or leaves in the condition described in Dr. Baron Howard’s report, the courts, alleys, and places where the poorest classes live, and where the cleansing should be daily. There are abundance of recommendations to the effect, “Let it be ordered that the streets be properly cleansed;” but in this instance the cost of cleansing the whole of what is properly the same town, Salford, and the out-townships, would be 8,000_l._ or 10,000_l._ per annum; and such a recommendation, under the existing modes of management, is equivalent to saying, let 20,000_l._ or 30,000_l._ of additional rates be expended, and 40,000 or 60,000 additional loads of refuse be removed. In other large towns, the service and the expense is on a similar scale. At the rate of expense of one large parish, the present cost of cleansing in the metropolis may be estimated at about 40,000_l._ per annum. This expense, however, is generally repaid by the sale of the coal-ashes, which are used in the manufacture of bricks.

Though the refuse of the poorer districts is often taken and sold, the immediate objection to the extension of the services of the scavenger to them is the increase of the immediate expense, which it is practically necessary to consider in detail, although if there were no compensation by the sale of any coal-ashes or house refuse, and if the occupants were required to pay for the cleansing at the rate of one of the opulent parishes in the metropolis, that is at the rate of 4_s._ per house per annum, which would be less than a penny per tenement for the weekly street cleansing; or in the poorer districts, where there are mostly two families to a tenement, a charge of less than one halfpenny per week for cleansing, would be found to be good economy, as one means of diminishing the existing heavy charge of sickness, not to speak of the wear and tear of clothes.

Two-thirds of the usual expense of street cleansing is the expense of cartage, which, with a proper adaptation of the sewers, is wholly unnecessary. The exclusive use of hand-labour in street-sweeping is pronounced by competent judges to be a mere barbarism, and several machines have been invented which demonstrate that by mechanical power, moved by horses, the cleansing may be effected in a far shorter time. Some of these scrape the mud in ridges to the sides, where it remains until it can be lifted and carted away. But this is objected to as inconvenient by the shopkeepers, and the scavengers object that it is no convenience to them, inasmuch as raking it in heaps prevents the evaporation of the liquid, and increases the cartage; and, moreover, that the process of sweeping by hand is as quick as the carts can return for its removal. A machine has been used at Manchester which rapidly and cleanly sweeps the level surfaces of the streets into a cart; but there is still the encumberance of the labour, and cost and delay of carting the refuse to a place of deposit, which may be several miles distant, and returning to reload. The value of a process of street-cleansing is proportioned to the rapidity with which it is performed, but at present it is usually delayed until the sun or the air has done a large portion of the work by the evaporation of the moisture, commonly however to the deterioration of the air of the town and the health, and also to the deterioration of the value of the refuse.

On examining these obstructions to the cleanliness and salubrity of our towns, it became apparent that the expensive and slow process of the removal of the surface refuse of the streets by cartage might be dispensed with, and the whole at once carried away by the mode which is proved, in the case of the refuse of houses, to be the most rapid, cheap, and convenient, namely, by sweeping it at once into the sewers, and discharging it by water.

The sewerage of the metropolis, though it is a frequent subject of boast to those who have not examined its operations or effects, will be found to be a vast monument of defective administration, of lavish expenditure, and extremely defective execution. The general defect of these works is, that they are so constructed as to accumulate deposits within them; that the accumulations remain for years, and are at last only removed at a great expense, and in an offensive manner, by hand-labour and cartage. The effect is to generate and retain in large quantities before the houses the gases which it is the object of cleansing to remove. In the course of the present inquiry instances have been frequently presented of fevers and deaths occasioned by the escapes of gas from the sewers into the streets and houses. In the evidence given before the Committee of the House of Commons, which received evidence on the subject in 1834, one medical witness stated, that of all cases of severe typhus that he had seen, eight-tenths were either in houses of which the drains from the sewers were untrapped, or which, being trapped, were situated opposite gully-holes; and he mentioned instances where servants sleeping in the lower rooms of houses were invariably attacked with fever. It was proposed as a remedy to prevent the escape of the noxious effluvia by trapping them, but this was refused on the ground of the danger to the men, who must enter the sewers to clean them, from the confined gas. In one of the circulars the reason assigned for allowing the escape of the gas into the streets is that if it were confined in the sewers it might impede the flow of the water. It was then proposed to allow the escape of the noxious gases through chimneys constructed at certain distances. But this was decided to be an experiment, and the Committee did not feel themselves authorized to make experiments. Instances were adduced where it had been found necessary either to trap or to remove gully-holes in the vicinity of butchers’ shops, to avoid the injurious effects of the effluvium upon the meat. Similarly mischievous effects of the defective construction and management of the sewers are commonly displayed in the medical reports from the provincial towns, and they have been incidentally noticed in the passages already cited.

It may be mentioned as another instance of the absence of appropriate knowledge that has governed these structural arrangements, that a large proportion of the most expensive sewers are constructed with flat bottoms. In proportion as the water is spread the flow is impeded, and the deposit of matter it may hold in suspension increased. Mr. Roe, a civil engineer, who, much to the honour of the Holborn and Finsbury district of sewers, has been appointed to the care of their sewers, and is perhaps the only officer having the experience and qualifications of a civil engineer, states, that as compared with sewers or drains with bottoms of a semicircular form, those with flat bottoms invariably occasion a larger amount of deposit; and with the same flow of water, the difference of construction occasions a difference of more than one-half in the deposit which is left. By the common and most expensive form, the drains are apt to be choked up with noxious accumulations; by being built with flat sides (instead of with curved sides, which give the strength of an arch) they are apt in clayey and slippery ground to be forced in. The expense of the improved form is nearly one-fourth less than those in general use. _Mr. Roe_, whose evidence, which is corroborated by the evidence of other engineers, is given in the Appendix, was asked,—

In respect to the levels, how have you found the sewers?—They appear
to have been entirely constructed with reference to the locality, to
drain to the nearest outlet, and not on an extended view for the whole
district, or with any view to sewerage on a large scale. In the
Holborn and Finsbury divisions the Commissioners now adopt a series of
levels suited from the lowest outlets to the surrounding districts.

Have you heard of any alterations made in the surrounding districts on
the same principle?—I have heard of none as adopted generally. The
City have lowered several of their outlets; and the chairman of the
Westminster Commission has had the subject under consideration for
some time.

What are the chief effects of the piecemeal town drainage without
reference to extended levels?—Chiefly that when new lines of houses
are built and require new sewers, either the old sewers must be taken
up and re-constructed at a great expense, to adjust them to a new and
effective sewerage, or the new sewers, if they are adjusted to the old
ones, are deficient in fall, and they have greater deposits.

Does the existing form or system of sewerage answer fully and at the
least expense the chief objects of sewerage in house and street
cleansing, and the removal of noxious substances?—No, it does not,
except where the outlets have been lowered, and the sewers continued
at a proper level; great accumulations of deposit are occasioned in
the sewers, and from their containing the refuse that was at one time
deposited in the cesspools, the deposit is more noxious than formerly;
the gas is more considerable, it escapes more extensively into streets
and into the houses, where the drains are not well trapped. My opinion
is that the general health of the men who work and have been
accustomed to the sewers, has become still worse; they are more pale
and thin, and lower in general health than formerly. The effect of the
noxious gases upon men working in these places is to lower the general
health. Since I have had the superintendence of the sewers, the men
have encountered about half a dozen accidents by explosions of gas.

But is the health of these men who work in the sewers to be taken as a
criterion of the health of persons who are not accustomed to such
places?—I have had no means of forming a comparison, though I am of
opinion that gases which they encounter without any immediate injury
would be very injurious to the health of susceptible persons, or of
any persons not habituated to it.

The first prejudicial effect of the defective system, then, is to
occasion these noxious accumulations; how are they removed?—Formerly,
in the Holborn and Finsbury sewers, and at present, I believe, in all
other sewers, the streets were opened at a great expense and
obstruction (they are so now, I believe, elsewhere); men descend,
scoop up the deposit into pails, which are raised by a windlass to the
surface, and laid there until the carts come; it is laid there until
it is carted away, sometimes for several hours, to the public
annoyance and prejudice. The contract price for removal from the old
sewers without man-holes was 11_s._ per cubic yard of slop removed;
where they have man-holes it was 6_s._ 10_d._ per cubic yard. This
practice also involves injury and expense as respects the pavement; a
street may be well paved when it is broken up for the cleansing of the
sewers, but the portions of pavements so disturbed are never so well
put down again; neither can accidents be effectually guarded against.

By what means may these effects be obviated?—In the Holborn and
Finsbury divisions I suggested a plan of flushing the sewers, and of
carrying off all the refuse by water. This plan has been adopted, and
it is now in operation. The breaking up of the streets is avoided by
the formation of side entrances; cast-iron flushing gates are fixed in
the sewers; the ordinary flow of water in the sewers accumulates at
these gates; the gates are opened, and the force of the water is
sufficient to sweep off the deposit; and the system may be further
extended.

What is the comparative difference in the expense of construction?—The
cost of side entrances and flood-gates, as compared with the cost of
man-holes, is from 6_d._ to 1_s._ less per foot lineal of the length
of new sewers.

What other expense is attendant on this improved practice?—The main
expense is the attendance of a man to shut and open the flood-gates.

The structural expense being lower, is the ultimate expense of
cleansing lower also?—Yes; the expense of cleansing the sewers is
about 50 per cent. less than the prevalent mode. Our expense of
cleansing the sewers was about 1,200_l._ per annum; we save 600_l._ of
that, and expect to save more; but to this must be added the saving to
the public of the cleansing of the private drains, formerly choked by
the accumulations in the sewers. This saving, on a moderate
calculation, is found to be upwards of 300_l._ per annum. There is
also the diminution of the escapes of gas from the old and continued
accumulations.

During what intervals are deposits allowed to remain on the old
mode?—The average is in one set of sewers about five years, and in
another about ten years.

During which time the public are subjected to all the escapes of gas
from the decomposing accumulation?—Exactly so. It could not, however
go on so long but for heavy falls of rain or snow, which occasion
partial clearances.

What is the effect of these accumulations upon the private
drainage?—That the drains to the private houses are stopped: the first
intimation of the foul state of the main sewer arises from complaints
of individuals whose drains are affected; the accumulations in the
private drains also occasions an expense to the individuals and much
annoyance. By flushing the sewers this expense might be, and in
Holborn and Finsbury division it is, avoided.

Are there any other defects you have, as an engineer, noticed in the
prevalent mode of constructing the sewers?—Yes, the prevalent practice
is to join sewers at angles, frequently at right angles; this
occasions eddies and deposits of sediment that would otherwise pass
off with the water; it injures the capacity of the main sewers by
obstructing the current of water along them: I ascertained by
experiment that the time occupied in the passage of an equal quantity
of water, along similar lengths of sewer with equal falls, was—

Seconds.
Along a straight line 90
With a true curve 100
With a turn at right angles 140

The Commissioners of the Holborn and Finsbury divisions agreed to
require that the curves in sewers, passing from one street to another,
shall be formed with a radius of not less than 20 feet; it is also
required that the inclination or fall shall be increased at the
junction, in order to preserve an equal capacity for the passage of
water, and of effect in sweeping away the deposit.

When by heavy falls of snow or otherwise the refuse of the streets is
carried into such sewers, is there any difficulty in sweeping it
away?—None whatsoever.

In what number of years would the saving in cleansing sewers by
flushing repay the expense of applying the apparatus to the existing
sewers in the Holborn and Finsbury divisions?—In seven years.

Have you any doubt of the practicability of carrying all the surface
cleansing of the streets into the sewers, and removing it by
conveyance in water, instead of by hand labour and cartage?—I
entertain no doubt whatever that it might be done, where there is a
good sewer and proper gully-holes and shoots; with a good supply of
water these would carry away rapidly all the surface refuse; the
experience of the sewerage in the Holborn and Finsbury divisions prove
it.

How does it prove it?—At every opportunity the street-sweepers sweep
all they can into the gully-holes, and it is swept away without
inconvenience.

One practical witness states that the expense of the cartage alone of
the refuse from a Macadamised street of half a mile, in the winter
time in the metropolis, is 5_l._ weekly. What would be the comparative
expense of carrying it away by the sewers?—It would save the whole
expense of the cartage; it would be less than the present expense of
sweeping and filling into the carts, and if there were a sufficient
supply of water on the surface, the work might be conducted with great
rapidity.

You are aware that one inconvenience of the existing mode of street
cleansing, independently of the great expense, is the length of time
during which the wet refuse remains to the public annoyance on the
surface, until removed by the slow process of sweeping and
cartage?—Yes; and the men would appear to delay for the purpose of the
dirt being removed, by being washed by rain into the sewers.

Do you conceive that all the business of street cleansing and house
draining might be consolidated advantageously to the public?—Yes,
clearly so, and with great economy.

In the evidence of Mr. Oldfield, an experienced builder in the wealthy districts of the metropolis, will be found exemplifications of the mischiefs resulting from the defective modes of opening sub-drains or communications, even from houses of the first class, into the main drains.[7] The state of sewerage and drainage in the larger towns, as described in the medical reports, in its effects of frequent disease and death,—is much worse in the provincial towns. But every step in improvement is an advance in reduction of existing burdens; drainage, _per se_, will be found to be a reduction of an existing charge for the expenses of sickness and mortality; _science_, applied to the improvement of drainage, not only gives it efficiency, but reduces greatly the expense.

The streets in the larger towns commonly display, from the want of science in their construction, similar waste, and equally admit of an improved and scientific arrangement, which will conduce to economy and to improved public health.

The bad condition of the streets in many of the towns is very generally ascribable to pavement being commonly regarded as requisite solely for cart or carriage conveyance, and not as a means of cleanliness. The pavement has therefore been usually confined to the chief streets in which the carriage traffic is considerable. Some of the principal streets even in the metropolis almost justify the description of being “streams of mud and filth in winter,” and “seas of dust” in summer. But attention has of late been directed to the cleansing of the road as a means of removing damp and dirt or dust, which are each found to be injurious. So far as various experiments have yet proceeded in the metropolis, they are stated to be highly favourable to the use of wood as a substance for paving the streets, though perhaps in forms different from those at present in use, with improvements which further experience will suggest. Wood, when pinned together and laid on a firm substratum, appears to be less retentive of wet than most forms of stone pavement, and to possess very considerable advantages over the Macadamised roads for crowded thoroughfares. If it be brought into general use it will have an advantage in removing the granite dust, which medical authorities believe to be much more prejudicial to health, in exciting or aggravating lung diseases, than the public have been aware of. Where there is much dust in the working of close quarries, the effects of it are almost as destructive to the lungs of the operatives as the knife-grinding to the operatives of Sheffield who do not guard against the steel-dust. “It is scarcely conceivable,” Dr. Arnott states, “that the immense quantities of granite-dust pounded by one or two hundred thousand pairs of wheels working on Macadamised streets, should not greatly injure the public health. In houses bordering such streets or roads, it is found that, notwithstanding the practice of watering, the furniture is often covered with dust even more than once in the day, so that writing on it with the finger becomes legible, and the lungs and air-tubes of the inhabitants, with a moist lining to detain the dust, are constantly pumping the same atmosphere. The passengers by a stage-coach in dry weather, when the wind is moving with them so as to keep them enveloped in the cloud of dust raised by the horses’ feet and the wheels of the coach, have their clothes soon saturated to whiteness with the dust, and their lungs of course are charged in a corresponding degree. A gentleman who rode only 20 miles in this way, had afterwards to cough and expectorate for 10 days to clear his chest again.” The imperfection of road cleansing in paved streets at the same time deteriorates the salubrity of the towns, the value of the refuse for production, and the streets themselves. The farmers find that the refuse of the streets, of which horse-dung and other excrementitious substances form so important a part, is valuable in proportion as it is “fresh.” On a proposition to sweep the streets of a town district oftener, it was stated by some farmers that they would, in that case, give more for the refuse. It is with this description of refuse, as stated with respect to the night-soil, in proportion as it is allowed to remain in the streets to dry, it loses the gas which gives it value; and the gas which is lost frequently gives to streets the offensive smell perceptible to strangers who have not been familiarised to it, and makes a deleterious addition to the compounds by which the health of the town population is injured. The complete and rapid cleansing of the roads has also its effects on the draught. It is proved experimentally that, “calling the draught on a broken-stone road 5, that on the same road covered with dust is 8, and that on the same road wet and muddy is 10.”[8] A road should be cleansed “from time to time, so as never to have half an inch of mud upon it. This is particularly necessary to be attended to where the materials are weak, for if the surface is not kept clean, so as to admit of its becoming dry in the intervals between showers of rain, it will be rapidly worn away.” With the even surface obtainable from the use of wood as a pavement, it is stated that the streets which are now kept wet and dirty whilst the process of cleansing is slowly carried on by the hand, may be rapidly and cheaply swept by sweeping-machines drawn by horses. With the advantage of such a system of sewerage as that described by Mr. Roe, the surface refuse, which continues exposed during a whole week, may be removed every morning before the hours of traffic from all the principal thoroughfares. In the main streets of the towns of considerable traffic, a smooth and firm surface for the carriage-way would ensure the advantages of a railroad, in addition to those to the public health from cleanliness. The experience on several portions of smooth road shows that single horses with lighter and less expensive vehicles would suffice where two horses are now required on the common roads; where strong stone pavements are required to resist the shock of heavy vehicles, and heavy vehicles propelled with double power to resist the battering of strong pavements, and the grinding and wear and tear of heavy and dirty roads.

_Captain Vetch_, the engineer, who is extensively acquainted with the structural economy of towns, observes in a communication on the subject, that—

“The other mode of avoiding the formation of mud is the substitution
of wooden pavements; of the success of these I have little doubt,
though for the present many failures have occurred, either from the
foundation not having been truly and firmly laid, or from the blocks
of wood not being massive enough. The greatest objection to wood
pavements at present is the slipping of the horses, but this I believe
might be obviated. The question, however, at present is to get rid of
the street dirt, such as it is; and for that purpose I concur in
opinion it would only be necessary in wet weather during rains that
the street-cleaner should sweep the dirt into the kennels, and aid the
water by stirring the mud, to carry off the material in a state of
diffusion; in dry weather, the opening of pipes with hose attached
would serve the same purpose as the rains, and at the same time aid
the sewerage at the time most required. After a short but heavy fall
of rain, the cleansing effect of the water is fully perceived: and if
any means could be devised of saving the rain-water that falls on the
houses and in the streets, so as to apply it in considerable
quantities at intervals, it is probable that the rain-water would be
amply sufficient for all the purposes in question.”

Mr. Roe states, that arrangements were made with the water companies for supplies of water for the cleansing of the sewers in the Holborn and Finsbury district, but it was found that the ordinary supplies to the sewers sufficed, and those from the company were not used.

The cleansing of the streets and the removal of the impurities from the habitations appears to have been the subject of considerable attention at Paris of late years. An individual proposed to the administration of that city a mode of cleansing the streets and pavement, by sweeping all the refuse into the sewers which are discharged into the Seine, that had hitherto been daily gathered into heaps and carted away beyond the precincts. The minister of police thought it advisable to take the opinion of the Institute on the proposal. The superiority of the proposed mode of street cleansing was admitted, but the members of the Institute, to whom the subject was referred, having ascertained the quantity of rubbish which was daily collected in Paris, and also the quantity of water which flowed in the Seine during the summer-time, they found that this volume of water was 9600 times greater than the greatest quantity of filth and rubbish collected in the same length of time from the streets of Paris; and they reported as their conclusion, “that the quantity of dirt which would be thrown into the Seine, compared with the volume of water in the river, would be found to be so extremely small as to be absolutely inappreciable; that it was not from the consideration therefore of insalubrity that the project for cleaning the streets as proposed should be negatived, but solely because by that means there would be lost a quantity of most valuable manure, which was quite indispensable to the agriculture around Paris, and consequently to Paris itself.”[9]

Mr. Roe has furnished me with a calculation made from the flow of water in the Thames, at a neap tide: taking the ebb, and comparing it with the quantity of deposit in the water running from the sewers from the whole of the metropolis (assuming that the sewerage bears the same proportion as the Holborn and Finsbury division), that the proportion of impurities to the volume of water of the Thames is as 1 to 10,100. If the surface cleansing of the streets were added to the ordinary mass of impurity, he calculates that the proportion held in suspension would then be about 1 to 5069. To this must be added the impurities from land-floods, and those from vessels in the river. The amount of impurity discharged from the sewers was calculated from the amount of deposit known to have been formed in several of them. The amount of impurity in the Thames would therefore be, at the least, double the amount of that calculated for the Seine.[10]

If the evils of the pollution of such a stream were much greater, they would still be found inconsiderable as compared with the perpetual pollution of the air by the retention of ordures and refuse amidst large masses of the population. What has been stated as to the practicability of extending threefold the cleansing of towns, by dispensing with cartage, and using the sewers for the removal of the refuse of the streets, is stated as an advantage, even on the supposition that no use is made of the refuse, and that it is entirely thrown away. But it were a reproach to stop at the advance to this far lesser evil, and to add to the pollution of the streams of the towns, which throughout the country form the chief common sewers, by throwing into them everything that is vile in the towns, i. e. everything that is most valuable for increasing the surrounding fertility.