Chapter XXVIII: Appendix (18)

“An immense number of the small houses occupied by the poorer classes
in the suburbs of Manchester are of the most superficial character;
they are built by the members of building clubs, and other
individuals, and new cottages are erected with a rapidity that
astonishes persons who are unacquainted with their flimsy structure.
They have certainly avoided the objectionable mode of forming
underground dwellings, but have run into the opposite extreme, having
neither cellar nor foundation. The walls are only half brick thick, or
what the bricklayers call ‘brick noggin,’ and the whole of the
materials are slight and unfit for the purpose. I have been told of a
man who had built a row of these houses; and on visiting them one
morning after a storm, found the whole of them levelled with the
ground; and in another part of Manchester, a place with houses even of
a better order has obtained the appellation of ‘Pickpocket-row,’ from
the known insecure and unsubstantial nature of the buildings. I
recollect a bricklayer near London complaining loudly of having to
risk his credit by building a house with nine-inch walls, and declared
it would be like ‘Jack Straw’s House,’ neither ‘wind nor water tight:’
his astonishment would have been great had he been told that thousands
of houses occupied by the labouring classes are erected with walls of
4½ inch thickness. The chief rents differ materially according to the
situation, but are in all cases high; and thus arises the inducement
to pack the houses so close. They are built back to back, without
ventilation or drainage; and, like a honeycomb, every particle of
space is occupied. Double rows of these houses form courts, with,
perhaps, a pump at one end and a privy at the other, common to the
occupants of about twenty houses.”

Whilst there is the new element of this extreme rapidity of construction to accommodate demands for labour, the increasing rapidity of the conveyance of goods and information is manifestly loosening the ties of the manufacturer to particular neighbourhoods. Whilst looms have been idle in Spitalfields on disputes on scale-prices, or from hesitation as to comply with the requisite changes of modes of working, I am informed that large quantities of work have been taken away, executed in the new neighbourhoods, and returned at reduced prices to the London markets. In the instance of Macclesfield, it is shown that neither foresight nor considerations of the expediency of a reduction operates on the speculating owners of tenements occupied by workmen in towns, or even on the other ratepayers, (who bear the burdens of the sickness and mortality, and pay extravagant rates, which are incident to them); nor can the operation of a wise self-interest be relied upon to avert the tendency to the dispersion of work, and the multiplication of ill-conditioned and ultimately burdensome tenements. The following evidence supplies additional illustration of this state of things:—

_John Wilson_, relieving officer.

Are you acquainted with the cottage property in Macclesfield?—Yes, I
am; as an assistant overseer, I see that the rates are collected.

Are there in Macclesfield many large owners of cottage tenements?—The
number of owners of property in Macclesfield is about 1000; of these
about 300 receive incomes from cottage property, some of those only
one, others only two. The chief owner owns about 200 cottages; the
next owns about two streets or 45 cottages. One man owns about 180.

Do you receive rates from these cottages?—From the cottages belonging
to these large holders we get no rates.

How is it that you obtain no rates from these classes of
cottages?—Because they are tenanted by the lowest class of persons who
have nothing in their houses from which we could recover the rates.

What are the rents paid from these cottages?—The rents vary from 1_s._
to 2_s._ 8_d._ each house. The average would be about 2_s._ a-week.

What would be the amount of rates on this cottage property if payment
were enforced?—From the 1_s._ a-week cottages the rates would be 6_s._
per annum; from the others, 12_s._ per annum. Last quarter there were
nearly 300 people excused; and the total amount lost for rates excused
and houses empty was 900_l._

What proportion does that bear to the whole rates for the quarter or
for the year?—The loss for the year would be 1800_l._, and the rate
last year was 8726_l._; the amount collected was 5900_l._; but the
arrear of the former year would be in round numbers about 2000_l._
more.

Is the tenantry of these cottages a fluctuating tenantry?—Yes, very
much so.

Are these tenements taken on the expectation that the rates will be
excused?—Yes; in many cases they are told when objecting to the
payment of the rent that they will have no rates to pay.

Considering the qualities of the tenements, are the rents charged
really high rents?—Yes, they are.

Are they such rents, as would justify the levy or the deduction of
rates from the proprietor, comparing them with the rents paid for good
property?—Yes, they are such rents; the house which I live in, and for
which I pay rates, and pay 8_l._ a-year rent, is a house of three
rooms on a floor, two floors, detached yard, and every convenience;
whilst cottages of a very inferior description, with two rooms only on
a floor, are as high rented and pay no rates.

Are the rents from the inferior tenements rigorously exacted?—Yes,
they are.

Are the occupants of these houses frequently applicants for parochial
relief?—Yes, they are.

Do any numbers of them receive relief?—Yes, they do.

What is the average amount of weekly out-door relief given to the
recipients?—Perhaps about 3_s._

Then the average relief is of the average amount of the rent of the
tenements you describe?—Yes; and I have no doubt that much of the
relief has gone to pay rent.

If the rates were duly exacted, do you think it must follow that the
unduly high rents must be lowered in proportion?—Yes, they must.

If the landlords were compelled to pay the rates, what would be the
saving to the town?—1_s._ in the pound.

And no additional burden cast on the labouring classes?—No material
additional burden.

Of course the diminution of out-door relief would diminish the means
of unduly paying high rents?—Certainly, it would.

The sanitary condition of many of these dwellings is described in the reports of Mr. Bland, the medical officer already quoted.

It may hereafter excite surprise, that the labouring classes have hitherto been left exposed to such influences as those described in the last evidence, and in the evidence previously cited, as to the pernicious operation of exemptions from payments of rates on the parties intended to be benefited.

My inquiries into the effects of the administration of the old poor law brought before me numerous instances of such devastation, the effects of which would not be obliterated during the lives of a generation. Examples might also be presented of the deterioration of property by the irruptions of an ill-regulated population by the running up of undrained and badly-constructed dwellings in the finest suburbs of the metropolis, and other towns throughout the country. Any regulations of the nature of Building Acts confined to towns, or to particular districts, or that were unequally or oppressively administered, must powerfully tend to increase such evils to the labouring classes, to the ratepayers, and to the owners of all suburban property.

Frequent opportunities are, however, presented and commonly lost for the erection of improved tenements for the use of the labouring classes, on the occasion of taking down old tenements and erecting new ones to form new streets, under the authority of Buildings’ and Towns’ Improvement Acts. It is usually assumed that the general effect of the “clearances,” as they are called, occasioned by the formation of new streets, though attended with the present inconvenience of disturbing the occupants, is ultimately of unmixed advantage, by driving them into new and better tenements in the suburbs. I have endeavoured to ascertain by inquiries, with the aid of the relieving officers, how far the assumption is justified by the experience of such alterations as have been already made in some of the crowded districts of the metropolis, by taking down inferior tenements to form new streets.

It is found to be difficult to trace the individuals of a population so removed, and the inquiries on the subject are incomplete; but they tend to show that the working people make considerable sacrifices to avoid being driven to a distance from their places of work; that the poorest struggle against removal to a distance from the opportunities of charitable donations; and that where new habitations are not opened to them in the immediate vicinity, every effort is made by biddings of rent to gain lodgings in the nearest and poorest of the old tenements. To the extent to which the displaced labourers succeed in getting lodgings in the same neighbourhood, as a large proportion of them certainly do, the existing evils are merely shifted, and, by being shifted, they are aggravated. On a survey of the newly-built houses in the suburbs to which displaced labourers can go, it appears that the labourer, to use the expression of Dr. Ferriar, is almost “driven to hire disease,” for if he do not find any lodging near his place of work, he is driven to a choice amongst tenements of the character of those found in the parts of Kensington out of the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Building Act, without sewers or drains, without water or proper conveniences on the premises, without pavements or means of cleansing the streets; where exorbitant rents are levied, where adequate means of moral or religious instruction are yet unprovided, and where they will neither gain in health nor in morals.

On reference to such past experience it appears to suggest itself as an expedient arrangement, that on the removal of old tenements and the occupation of the old ground by building new houses and streets for a superior class of tenants, or for public buildings, some provision should be made against the aggravation of the existing evils as respects the old occupants; that it should be required to be shown, for example, that appropriate unoccupied tenements are in the market, and on failure to do so, provisions might be made (on the principle of those provided for preserving accommodation for the labouring classes in enclosure bills) for the construction of appropriate tenements, in which qualities of the nature of those described by Mr. Sydney Smirke might be ensured. If the attention and power by which large public alterations are obtained were, at the same time, directed to the construction of new dwellings for the labouring classes, instead of spreading existing evils, all such alterations might certainly, and at remunerative though not at increased rents, be made the means of greatly improving the condition of those who stand in the greatest need of attention and aid for improvement.

The most important immediate general measure of the nature of a Building Act, subsidiary to measures for drainage, would be a measure for regulating the increments of towns, and preventing the continued reproduction in new districts of the evils which have depressed the health and the condition of whole generations in the older districts. Regulations of the _sites_ of town buildings have comparatively little effect on the cost of construction, and it may in general be said that a Building Act would effect what any enlightened owner of a district would effect for himself, of laying it out with a view to the most permanent advantage; or what the separate owners would effect for themselves if they had the power of co-operation, or if each piece of work were governed by enlarged public and private views. Had Sir Christopher Wren been permitted to carry out his plan for the rebuilding of London after the great fire, there is little doubt that it would have been the most advantageous arrangement for rendering the whole space more productive, as a property to the great mass of the separate interests, by whom the improvement was defeated. The most successful improvements effected in the metropolis by opening new lines of street, and the greater number of the openings projected are approximations at an enormous expense to the plan which he laid down. The larger towns present instances of obstructions of the free current of air even through the principal streets, and of deteriorations which a little foresight and the exercise of an impartial authority would have prevented. In one increasing town, a builder made a successful money speculation by purchasing such plots of ground as would enable him to erect impediments and extort compensation for their removal from the path of improvements in building. The improvements affecting whole towns are also frequently frustrated by the active jealousies of the occupants of rival streets. It would appear to be possible to provide an impartial authority to obtain and, on consultation with the parties locally interested, to settle plans for regulating the future growth of towns, by laying down the most advantageous lines for occupation with due protection of the landowners’ interest. The most serious omissions in the building of common houses are so frequently oversights as to make it probable, that if it were required that a plan of any proposed building should be deposited with a trustworthy officer, with a specification of the arrangements intended for the attainment of the essential objects, such as cleansing and ventilation, the mere preparation of the document would of itself frequently lead to the detection of grievous defects. An examination of Mr. Loudon’s specification of the requisites of cottages will show that a large proportion of the most important of these are independent of the cost of construction.

_General State of the Law for the Protection of the Public Health._

In a work which is considered in Germany the chief authority in respect to the extensive administrative duties comprehended under the term police,[41] the author, Professor Mohl, of Tubingen, in speaking of the sanitary police of towns, observes, that “Medical police is both in theory and practice essentially German. In German states only, as Austria and Prussia, has anything been done in it systematically; the literature also of medical police is almost entirely German. Other states either do nothing at all, as England, the United States of America, or only very imperfectly, as France; where anything is done, German principles and arrangements are closely imitated.”

It is stated that some of the new towns and the new parts of the old towns in Germany, as in Stuttgard, Manheim, Darmstadt, exhibit striking marks of this care in the comparative structure and arrangements of the houses, and in the general administration, with a view to the health and pleasure of the population, which is sometimes impressively displayed in the superior condition of the public walks and gardens, as at Frankfort and Baden-Baden. The professor’s reproach is, however, scarcely applicable to the substantive English law, or to the early constitutional arrangements in which are found extensive and useful provisions, and complete principles for the protection of the public health.

1st. So much of the structural arrangements as depended on drainage was provided for by the Commissions of Sewers, who were invested with valuable powers by the statute 23d Hen. VIII, cap. 5, s. 1; the authority of these Commissions “to be directed into all parts within this realm where need shall require, according to the form ensuing, to such substantial persons as shall be named by the Lord Chancellor and Lord Treasurer, and the two chief justices, or by three of them, whereof the Lord Chancellor to be one,” to cause “to be made, corrected or repaired, amended, put down or reformed, as the case shall require, walls, ditches, banks, gutters, sewers, gates, cullices, bridges, streams, and other defences by the coasts of the sea and marsh ground.”

2dly. The ancillary arrangements as to road cleansing as well as road structure, were provided for by the highway laws, including the provisions of the 5th Eliz. c. 13, s. 7, for the cleansing of the ditches, &c.

The common law provided general remedies for the redress of injuries, under the comprehensive title nuisance (_nocumentum_), meaning anything by which the health or the personal safety, or the conveniences of the subject might be endangered or affected injuriously. By the law as it now stands, the subject is entitled to protection against things which are offensive to the senses, from which no injury to the health or other injury can be proved than the often overlooked but serious injury of discomfort, of daily annoyance, as by matters offensive to the sight, as by allowing blood to flow in the streets; by filth, by offensive smells, and by noises. The injuries termed nuisances were threefold,—first, public or general; second, common; third, private. “Public is that which is a nuisance to the whole realm; common is that which is to the common nuisance of all passing by; private is that which is to a house or mill, &c.” 2 Institute, 406. A common nuisance is defined to be an offence against the public “either by doing a thing which tends to the annoyance of all the king’s subjects, or by neglecting to do a thing which the common good requires.” Hawk, p. 1. c. 107, c. 75, f. 1. For the private injury there was the remedy by civil action; for the common and the public injuries, the remedy was by indictment.

The common-law obligation upon all owners of property has, in general, been adhered to by the superior courts. “_Prohibetur ne quis faciet in suo quod nocere possit alieno; et sic utere tuo ut alienum non lædas._” 9 Co. Rep. 58.

Thus, it is held to be a common nuisance and indictable to divide a messuage in a town for poor people to inhabit, by which it will be more dangerous in time of infection. 2 Roll’s Abridgment, 139. Such indictment of one Brown for dividing a messuage in the village of Hertford was held good, and he was put to plead to it; and it was then said that such indictments are frequent in London for dividing of messuages.

The policy of the common law was endeavoured to be enforced by the statute of the 31st of Eliz. c. 7, which provided that there should not be any inmate or more families or households than one dwelling or inhabiting in any one cottage, made or to be made or created, upon pain that every owner or occupier of such cottage, placing or wilfully suffering any such inmate or other family than one, should forfeit 10_s._ for every month that such inmate or other family than one should dwell in it. The statute provided that no cottage should for the future be built without four acres at the least of land attached to it. But this provision did not extend to cottages in towns, or for mineral works, navigation, sheep cotes, &.c. From the number of decisions in the books, it would appear that the provisions of the statute were extensively enforced against the overcrowding of the tenements, but the obligation for attaching the four acres of land impeded the erection of new tenements, and occasioned inconvenience and led to the repeal of the whole statute, by the 15th Geo. III. cap. 32.

In a temporary Act passed in the 35th of Eliz. cap. c., for the reforming of the great mischiefs and inconveniences that “daily grow and increase by reason of the pestering of houses with divers families harbouring of inmates,” that occurred in the city of London and Westminster, it is recited that the practice had been productive of “great infection of sickness.” This effect could scarcely have failed to be perceived when the plague was so frequent and dreadful in its visitations. The exemption from it is ascribed to such widening of the streets and improvements of the houses as took place after the Fire of London.

But we apprehend that the common-law remedy still remains in force as against the owners of tenements which are a nuisance. It was decided in the case of the King _v._ Pedley, temp. 1834, 1st Adolphus and Ellis, 822:—

“That if the owner of land erect a building which is a nuisance, or of which the occupation is likely to produce a nuisance, and let the land, he is liable to an indictment for such nuisance being continued or created during the term.

“So he is if he let a building which requires particular care to prevent the occupation from being a nuisance, and the nuisance occur for want of such care on the part of the tenant.

“That if a party buy the reversion during a tenancy, and the tenant afterwards during his term erect a nuisance, the reversioner is not liable for it; but if such reversioner relet, or having an opportunity to determine the tenancy omit to do so, allowing the nuisance to continue, he is liable for such continuance. Per Littledale, J.

“And such purchaser is liable to be indicted for the continuing of the nuisance if the original reversioner would have been liable, though the purchaser has had no opportunity of putting an end to the tenant’s interest or abating the nuisance.”

The stopping of wholesome air is held to be a nuisance as well as the stopping of the light. Co. 9 Will., Aldred, 57. In the case of Lewes _v._ Keene, Trin. Term. Jac. Rex, it was held by the court—“that the light which cometh in by the windowes, being an essential part of the house, by which he hath three great commodities, that is to say, air for his health, light for his profit, prospect for his pleasure, may not be taken away no more than a part of his house may be pulled down, whereby to erect the next house adjoining. And with this resolution agreeth the case of Eldred, reported by Sir Edw. Coke, in his Ninth Report, fol. 58, where he showeth the ancient form of the action upon the case to be _quod messuagium horrida tenebritate obscuratum facit_; but if there be hinderance only of the prospect by the new erected house, and not of the air, not of the light, then an action of the case will not lye, insomuch that the prospect is only a matter of delight, and not of necessity.”

The corruption of the water is an offence at common law, and was early the subject of a statutory provision. In the earlier periods the power of the legislature was directly exercised for the abatement of nuisances. I am favoured by the following illustrations from a collection of records upon the subject made by _Mr. T. D. Hardy_, of the Record Office in the Tower:—

The first extract shows that sea-coal was in use in London much earlier than is commonly supposed:—

“_Patent Roll_, 16 Edw. 1.—The king to his beloved and faithful Thomas
de Weylaund, John de Luvetot, John de Cobeham, and Ralph de Sandwico,
custos of his city of London, greeting: From the complaint of many
persons, we understand that many people are dangerously aggrieved by
the furnaces of lime which are built in the said city and its suburbs,
and in Southwark; because the lime which formerly used to be burnt
with wood, is now burnt with sea coal, by which the air there is
affected and corrupted, to the great danger of persons frequenting
those parts and dwelling around them: we, therefore, being willing to
afford a fitting remedy for this, have appointed you to see those
furnaces, and remove the danger and nuisances which threaten from them
in these days, and to order further concerning them according to your
discretion, as you shall see most expedient for the common use and
safety; and therefore we command you, that taking with you our
sheriffs of London and our bailiffs of Southwark, you perform the
premises with diligence. We have also commanded the same sheriffs and
bailiffs that at a certain day, which you shall make known to them,
they attend to this with you, in form aforesaid. Witness, Edmund Earl
of Cornwall, at Westminster, on the 26th day of May.”

“A.D. 1290, 18 Edw. I.—The Carmelite Friars of London, the
Friars-preachers, the Bishop of Salisbury, and others, petition
Parliament to abate a nuisance (viz. a great stench) near them which
they cannot endure, and which prevents them from performing their
religious duties, and from which several of the monks had died.
(Petit, in Parl. 18 Edw. I.)

“35 Edw. I.—The mayor of London is commanded to prevent persons from
lighting furnaces near the Tower of London during the stay of the
Queen and the nobles at the tower, because the air is corrupted and
infection generated by the insalubrity of the air on account of the
said furnaces. (Rot. claus. 35 Edw. I.)

“A.D. 1320, 14 Edw. II.—The inhabitants of the neighbourhood of
Smithfield complain to Parliament that wells and ditches are dug there
without the king’s license, to the annoyance of the inhabitants and
passengers. The mayor and corporation of London are thereupon ordered
to see that such nuisances are abated. (Petit, in Parl. 14 Edw. II.)

“A.D. 1330, 4 Edw. III.—The chancellor and University of Cambridge
petition Parliament that the mayor and corporation of Cambridge may be
constrained to scour the ditch of the town, which is injurious to the
health of the inhabitants of the town. (Petit, in Parl. 4 Edw. III.)

“44 Edw. III.—The butchers of London are forbidden to slaughter cattle
within that city, or throw entrails into the river Thames, on
forfeiture of the carcase and imprisonment. (Rot. claus. 44 Edw. III.)

“A.D. 1370, 3 Rich. II.—The inhabitants of Smithfield and Holborn
complain of the infection of the air from butchers slaughtering
cattle, &c., and casting entrails into the ditches. (Petit, in Parl. 3
Rich. II.)

“By stat. 12th Rich. II. c. 13.—None shall cast any garbage or dung or
filth into ditches, waters, or other places within or near any city or
town, on pain of punishment by the Lord Chancellor at his discretion.

“Butchers of London shall erect a slaughter-house on the banks of the
Thames, and thither carry off their offals, which, when cut into
pieces, shall be carried in boats, and at the commencement of the ebb
cast into the river. (Rot. Parl. 16 Rich. II.)

“A.D. 1392, 16 Rich. II.—It is enacted that the butchers of London
shall not slaughter therein any swine or other beasts for sale. (Rot.
Parl. 16 Rich. II.)

“Same date.—All filth, &c. ordered by Parliament to be removed from
both banks of the Thames between the palace of Westminster and the
power of London; and butchers or others are prohibited from casting
entrails, &c. into the river on penalty of 40_l._ (Ibid.)

“Parliament forbids all persons from throwing dung, garbage, or
entrails of slaughtered beasts into rivers or waters near cities or
towns to corrupt the air and cause infection. (Rot. claus. 4 Hen. IV.)

“The Chancellor is authorized to treat touching the non-rebuilding of
two forges in Fleet-street, London, demolished in a riot, as
straitening the said street.” (Rot. Parl. 18 Hen. VI.)

We find the authority of Parliament exercised in the reign of Henry VII. to restrain a nuisance. In the 4th of his reign, c. 3.

“Item, it was shewed by a petition put to the king, our said sovereign
lord, in the said Parliament, by his subjects and parishioners of the
parish of St. Faith’s and St. Gregory’s in London, near adjoining unto
the cathedral church of St. Paul’s, that whereas great concourse of
people as well of his royal person as of other great lords and states
with other his true subjects, oftentimes was had unto the said
cathedral church, and that for the most part throughout the parishes
aforesaid the which oftentimes been greatly annoyed and distempered by
corrupt airs engendered in the said parishes, by occasion of blood and
other foulis things by reason of the slaughter of beasts and scalding
of swine, had and done in the butchery of St. Nicholas’s flesh
shambles, whose corruption and foul ordure by violence of unclean,
corrupt, and putrefied waters is borne down through the said parishes,
&c., complaint whereof at many and divers seasons also by the space of
sixteen years continually, as well by canons and petty canons of the
said cathedral church, landlords there, as also by many other of the
king’s subjects, of right honest behaviour, hath been made unto divers
mayors and aldermen of the City of London and no remedy had ne found;
that it may please our said sovereign lord of his abundant grace, to
provide for the conservation as well of his most royal person, as to
succour his poor subjects and suppliants in this behalf, considering
that in few noble cities and towns, or none within Christendon,
whereat travelling men have laboured, the common slaughter-house of
beasts should be kept in any special part within the walls of the
same, lest it might engender sickness unto the destruction of the
people.”

Therefore it is enacted that butchers shall not slay beasts within the walls of London; and that this law be observed in every walled town “except Berwick and Carlisle.”

The courts, however, have always had regard to the convenience of trade: thus it was held,—

“Si homme fait candells deins un vill, per qui il cause un noysom sent
al inhabitants, uncore ceo nest ascun nusans car le _needfulness_ de
eux dispensera ove le noisomness del _smell_.” (2 Roll’s Abr. 139.)

But this decision has been doubted, “Because,” says Serjeant Hawkins, Pl. Cor. 190, c. 75, “whatever necessity there may be that candles be made, it cannot be pretended to be necessary to make them in a town, and that the trade of a brewer is as necessary as that of a chandler; and yet it seems to be agreed that a brewhouse erected in such an inconvenient place where the business cannot be carried on without incommoding greatly the neighbourhood may be indicted as a common nuisance. A presentment was made to a Leet for erecting a glass-house; and Twisden, J., said he had known an information adjudged against one for erecting a brewhouse near Serjeants’ Inn; but it was insisted that a man ought not to be punished for erecting anything necessary for the exercise of his lawful trade; and it being answered that it ought to be in convenient places where it may not be a nuisance, the other justices doubted, and agreed that it was unlawful only to erect such things near the King’s palace.” Vent. 26, Pasch. 21, Car. 2. Recently, however, when some architects and medical gentlemen went to the top of Buckingham Palace to examine it preparatory to its occupation by Her Majesty, they were assailed by a cloud of smoke from the chimney of the furnace of a neighbouring brewery; and the nuisance remains to the present time in full force, notwithstanding the statutory provisions against it.

Where the defendant in his business as a printer employed a steam-engine, which produced a continued noise and vibration in the plaintiff’s apartment which adjoined the premises of the defendant, this was held to be a nuisance. The Duke of Northumberland _v._ Clowes, C. P., at Westminster, A.D., 1824.

The earlier sanitary regulations were frequently set forth in the provisions of the local Acts for the regulation of the streets. From the early street regulations of the city of London, we find that the purity of the river and of the contributary streams was zealously regarded; the ward inquests were specially charged to inquire:—

“If any manner of person cast or lay dung, ordure, rubbish, sea-coal
dust, rushes, or any other noiant, in the river of Thames, Walbrook,
Fleet, or other ditches of this city, or in the open streets, ways, or
lanes within this city.

“Also, if any person in or after a great rain falleth, or at any other
time, sweep any dung, ordure, rubbish, rushes, sea-coal dust, or any
other thing noiant down into the channel of any street or lane,
whereby the common course there is let, and the same things noiant
driven down into the said water of Thames.”

But when it is considered how few of the streets were paved, or sewered, or drained, the following regulation indicates what must have been their condition and the habits of the inhabitants:—

“No man shall cast any urine-boles or ordure-boles into the street by
day or night, afore the hour of nine in the night: and also he shall
not cast it out, but bring it down, and lay it in the channel, under
the pain of three shillings and four-pence; and if he do cast it upon
any person’s head, the party to have a lawful recompense, if he have
hurt thereby.”

The state in which the streets were under such regulations is indicated in the proclamations issued at the time of the Plague, 1569, to “warne all inhabitants against their houses to keep channels clear from filth, (by onlie turning yt) aside, that the water may have passage.”

The prominent provisions of the modern Sewers’ and Street Acts are those which contain penalties against the most effectual means of street-cleansing,—that by discharging the street refuse through the sewers; but whilst the local legislation was deficient in principle in the main provisions, it is distinguished by a multitude of particular provisions against nuisances and obstructions, which would argue the most extensive foresight. The nature of the provisions habitually resorted to are illustrated in the statute of 4th Geo. IV. c. 50, s. l, for building the new London Bridge.[42]

“Every man may abate a common nuisance.” Br. Nuisance. “The nuisance may be abated, that is, taken away or removed by the aggrieved thereby, so as he commits no riot in doing of it.” “And the reason,” says Blackstone, “why the law allows this private and summary method of doing one’s-self justice, is because injuries of this kind which obstruct or annoy such things as are of daily convenience and use require an immediate remedy, and cannot wait for the slow progress of the ordinary forms of justice.” Com. B. iii. 6. And the annotator adds, “The security of the lives and property may sometimes require so speedy a remedy as not to allow time to call on the person on whose property the mischief has arisen to remedy it. Pardon for a nuisance is void as for the continuance thereof.” 3 Cro. Jac. 492, Dewell _v._ Saunders.

_State of the Special Authorities for reclaiming the Execution of the
Laws for the Protection of the Public Health._

The most important, perhaps, because the most cheap and accessible authority for reclaiming the execution of the law for the protection of the subject against nuisances, for punishing particular violations of it, was vested in the Courts Leet. The statute of the view of Frankpledge, 13 Edw. II., directs inquiry to be made of waters turned, or stopped, or brought from their right course, and obstructions in ditches were presentable at the Leet; but the stopping up a watering-place for cattle was held not to be presentible as a common nuisance. (40 Lit. 56 _a._) The juries, commonly called “annoyance juries,” impanelled to serve on Courts Leet in towns, are accustomed to perambulate their districts to judge of nuisances upon the view. But the state of this machinery will be seen in the state of the evils which come within its jurisdiction.

With all this legal strength, however, there is scarcely one town in England which we have found in a low sanitary condition, nor scarcely one village marked as the abode of fever, that does not present an example of standing violations of the law, and of the infliction of public and common as well as of private injuries, the tenements overcrowded, streets replete with injurious nuisances, the streams of pure water polluted, and the air rendered noisome.

The chimneys of the furnaces which darken the atmospheres, and pour out volumes of smoke and soot upon the inhabitants of populous towns, afford most frequent examples of the inefficiency of the local administration, and the contempt of the law for the protection of the public against nuisances which are specially provided for.

Most modern private Acts contain penalties on gas-companies permitting their washings to contaminate streams, or using for steam-engines furnaces which do not consume their own smoke. The general statute, 1 and 2 Geo. IV. c. 41, empowers the court to award costs to the prosecutor of those who use such furnaces. Where the grievance may be remedied by altering the construction of the furnace employed in the working of engines by steam, the court may make an order for preventing the nuisance in future.

The specific effects of an excess of smoke on the general health of a town population has not been distinguished, but from the comparatively high average of mortality amongst the middle classes in situations undistinguished by confined residences, or defective drainage, or anything but an excessively smoky atmosphere; from the comparatively rapid improvement of convalescents on removal to purer atmospheres, there is strong reason to believe that the prejudicial effect is much more considerable than is commonly apprehended even by medical practitioners. As the smoke in Manchester and other towns becomes more dense, the vegetation declines; and even in the suburbs the more delicate species die. _Dr. Baker_, in his report on the sanitary condition of the town of Derby, after adverting to the state of the places of work as affecting the health of the operations, proceeds to notice the effects of the smoke:—

“The next general cause of injury to public health, and connected with
the foregoing, is the corruption of the air caused by the torrents of
black smoke that issue from the manufactory chimneys, the nuisance
from which is much augmented in heavy and moist states of the
atmosphere. There is a law by which those who most offend, as regards
their chimneys, can be punished; but of course the magistrates are not
also prosecutors, whilst, private individuals, being unwilling to
become informers, little is done to check this nuisance; and such is
the state of the air, that in gardens in the town none but deciduous
shrubs can be kept alive.”

Besides the prejudicial effects on the health of the population by the deterioration of the quality of the air that is breathed, a serious effect is created by its operation as an impediment to the formation and maintenance of habits of personal and household cleanliness amongst the working classes. Even upon the middle and higher classes the nuisance of an excess of smoke, occasioned by ignorance and culpable carelessness, operates as a tax increasing the wear and tear of linen and the expense of washing, to all who live within the range of the mismanaged chimneys. In the suburbs of Manchester, for example, linen will be as dirty in two or three days as it would be even in the suburbs of London in a week. One person stated that, on the Isle of Arran, a shirt was cleaner at the end of a week’s wear than at Manchester at the end of a day’s.

Nor is this the only oppressive tax occasioned by the carelessness; _Mr. Thomas Cubitt_, the eminent builder, when examined before the Committee of the House of Commons, was asked,—

“Suppose it were intended to build a row of houses, would you not
suffer them to be built unless there was a sewer provided?—I would not
allow a house to be built anywhere unless it could be shown that there
was a good drainage, and a good way to get rid of water. I think that
there should be some public officer responsible for that; that there
should be surveys of every district, so that the officer should be
aware whether the sewers were provided or not. I think there should be
an officer paid at the public expense, who should be responsible for
that. I think they should not be appointed by the district; there
should be no favouritism of that kind; but public officers, changed
from point to point, to take care of all public nuisances. With
respect to manufactories, here are a great number driven by
competition to work in the cheapest way they can. A man puts up a
steam-engine, and sends out an immense quantity of smoke; perhaps he
creates a great deal of foul and bad gas; that is all let loose. Where
his returns are 1000_l._ a-month, if he would spend 5_l._ a-month more
he would make that completely harmless; but he says, ‘I am not bound
to do that,’ and therefore he works as cheaply as he can, and the
public suffer to an extent beyond all calculation. I look upon it it
has this effect: a gentleman comes to London, and lives in London; I
will suppose he fits up his house in the best style he can; he has a
taste for good pictures and upholstery, and so on. After a time the
smoke has destroyed them, and he is disappointed and annoyed, and the
effect is he is brought down in his feelings in a degree from the
state in which he was accustomed to have things.”

The appearance of the towns on the Sunday, when nearly all the furnaces are stopped, when there is little more than the smoke from the dwelling-houses, when everything is comparatively bright, and the distant hills and surrounding country that are never visible though the atmosphere of the town in the week-days may be seen across it, presents nearly the appearance which such towns would assume on the working days, if the laws were duly executed, and the excessive smoke of the furnaces prevented. On inquiry of a peace-officer acting where redress is provided for under a local Act, how it was that the dereliction of duty occurred that was visible in the dense black clouds that darkened the town, he replied that the chief members of the Board were the persons whose furnace-chimneys were most in fault, and he appealed whether a man in his condition was to be expected to prosecute his patrons?

The greater part, if not the whole, of the excess of smoke and of unconsumed gas by which the metropolis and the neighbourhoods of manufactories are oppressed, is preventible by the exercise of care in the management of the fires of the furnaces. And here also the measures for the prevention of the nuisance are measures of economy.

Many witnesses whose opinions are enforced by practical examples, state confidently that such nuisances are generally the result of ignorance or carelessness. Amongst others we may cite the authority of Mr. Ewart, the inspector of machinery to the Admiralty, residing at Her Majesty’s Dock-yard at Woolwich, where the chimney of the manufactory under his immediate superintendence, regulated according to his directions, offers an example of the little smoke that need be occasioned from steam-engine furnaces if care be exercised. He states that no peculiar machinery is used; the stoker or fire-keeper is only required to exercise care in not throwing on too much coal at once, and to open the furnace door in such slight degree as to admit occasionally the small proportion of atmospheric air requisite to effect complete combustion. Mr. Ewart also states that if the fire be properly managed, there will be a saving of fuel. The extent of smoke denotes the extent to which the combustion is incomplete. The chimney belonging to the manufactory of Mr. Peter Fairbairn, engineer at Leeds, also presents an example and a contrast to the chimneys of nearly all the other manufactories which overcast that town. On each side of it is a chimney belonging to another manufactory, pouring out dense clouds of smoke; whilst the chimney at Mr. Fairbairn’s manufactory presents the appearance of no greater quantity of smoke than of some private houses. Mr. Fairbairn stated, in answer to inquiries upon this subject, that he uses what is called Stanley’s feeding machinery, which graduates the supply of coal so as to produce nearly complete combustion. After the fire is once lighted, little remains to the ignorance or the carelessness of the stoker. Mr. Fairbairn also states that his consumption of fuel in his steam-engine furnaces, in comparison with that of his immediate neighbours, is proportionately less. The engine belonging to the cotton-mills of Mr. Thomas Ashton, of Hyde, near Stockport, affords to the people of that town an example of the extent to which, by a little care, they might be relieved of the thick cloud of smoke by which the district is oppressed.

At a meeting of manufacturers and others, held at Leeds, for the suppression of the nuisance of the smoke of furnaces, and to discuss the various plans for abating it, the resolution was unanimously adopted, “that in the opinion of this meeting the smoke arising from steam-engine fires and furnaces can be consumed, and that, too, without injury to the boilers, and with a saving of fuel.” Notice of legal proceedings being given against Messrs. Meux, the brewers in London, for a nuisance arising from the chimneys of two furnaces, they found that by using anthracite coal they abated the nuisance to the neighbourhood, and saved 200_l._ per annum. The West Middlesex Water Company, by diminishing the smoke of their furnaces saved 1000_l._ per annum.

The gas-companies in the city of London were indicted for throwing their refuse into the Thames, and compelled to dispose of it otherwise; and they found out that they had been guilty of waste as well as of nuisance; and it is stated that the whole of what was formerly cast away has now become an important article of commerce.

In the rural districts the Courts Leet have generally fallen into desuetude. In illustration of the feeble tenure on which they were held, I may mention that in some instances, where it has been necessary to disallow payments of fees paid to the officers of those courts from the poor’s rates, the stewards have stated that they should hereafter discontinue the courts; and it is probable that they did so. In the towns, Courts Leet are sometimes held, and inquest juries appointed; but it is objected to these bodies, and frequently to the bodies constituted under local acts, that they are usually composed of tradesmen who attend unwillingly and at an inconvenient sacrifice of time; who can have little or no information in respect to the evils in question; who have no arrangements to bring the evils in question before them; no time to master such information as may be brought before them casually; little interest and scarcely any real responsibility imposed for ensuring any mastery of it; and neither time nor adequate means at their disposal for the removal of such evils as those in question when they are presented to them, and proved to exist. Thus: two persons of respectability who were unexpectedly called upon to serve on a jury of this description in the metropolis, state that, as they had no properly qualified officer to instruct them, they were only directed to the performance of their duties by the accidental presence of a builder.

“When we were sworn in, we went over the district: we went through
many places which were disgustingly filthy, that I have since learned
were places where there is always fever, but we were not told about
it; the afflicted knew nothing of our coming, and we had no medical
officer, or means to enable us to detect the presence of any nuisances
which would endanger the public health.

“The number of persons sworn in was twenty-four, of whom I can
remember six were publicans (at one or other of whose houses we dined
on the days of meeting), one or two cheesemongers, three or four
tailors or drapers, one builder, and one bricklayer; the trades or
occupations of the remainder I cannot remember. Of the twenty-four
sworn in, twelve only served, and the duties were performed in
rotation. An allowance of 2_s._ 6_d._ was given to each juryman for
his expenses on the days of acting, with the exception of the foreman
and the secretary, who had been unfortunate enough, or who, for some
purpose of their own, managed to be sworn in on three or four previous
occasions. None of the jury knew the nature of the duties further than
that they were to examine weights and measures; that part of their
duty respecting the removal of nuisances, or of things affecting the
health or the lives of the inhabitants of the district which we
perambulated, was entirely neglected or lost sight of; the only
instance that I remember of any attention being paid to the subject,
was that of the condemnation of an old house in a disgusting
neighbourhood of houses; and in this case, although the house
certainly looked in a bad condition, the jury were quite unable to
come to a decision until the bricklayer and builder pronounced its
condemnation, when the jury at once became unanimous, and condemned
the house forthwith. My own impression was, that the house was not in
a safe condition, but I felt, in common with others, (the tailors,
drapers, and cheesemongers,) that however anxious we might be to
discharge our duties faithfully, that the nature of our occupations
did not at all qualify us to express an opinion upon the subject, and
hence we were all guided and determined by the opinion of the
bricklayer and builder who happened to be present. Had they not been
present, we should probably have done nothing. It is only necessary
for any sensible person to serve on such a body in a town to be
convinced of its entire inefficiency.”

The district over which this jury perambulated was one in which contagious disease often prevails in its worst forms; and it is quite clear that, without appropriate arrangements, such a body would continue to walk over the ground, equally unconscious of the evil and impotent to effect its removal.

A civil engineer and surveyor of very high acquirements in the metropolis thus describes the qualification of persons serving on these inquests:—

“I speak from experience, having personally attended one of these
inquests, with a view to give them the benefit of my practical
knowledge; I did not find one of them amongst the twelve competent to
perform usefully to the parish or the public the duties imposed upon
them. I have known repeated instances in these united parishes, where
ruinous houses have been permitted to remain for years without
receiving any attention from the authorities, to the great danger of
the occupiers and also to the public. I would instance two houses that
to my certain knowledge have for ten or a dozen years inclined over in
the street from the pavement upwards of eighteen inches, without being
noticed by an Inquest Jury. My attention was lately directed
professionally by the owner of the houses in question to their state
and condition; upon a careful examination I found them so dangerous
that I immediately gave directions to have them shored up, and
recommended the tenant to vacate them in the meanwhile: to my great
surprise, at the expiration of three or four days after the houses had
been properly secured, the freeholders were served with a notice from
the Inquest Jury to do what had already been done, viz., secure the
houses from danger.”

A gentleman who has acted as one of the Commissioners under the Act for Bolton, thus describes the operation of its provisions:—

“We have an Act in Little Bolton with extensive powers for the
preservation of the public health.

“I was appointed in 1837 one of the Trustees or Commissioners under
this Act; they are elected by the ratepayers, and one-third go out
annually; party political feeling has created a strife as to whether
Whigs or Tories shall expend the public funds (the same is the case in
Manchester), and hence a strife as to the economy of management. The
streets are badly lighted, and sometimes not at all, to save the
expense of gas. A surveyor is appointed in Little Bolton, whose duties
are to see after the lighting, paving, cleansing, sewering,
fire-engines, and firemen, the prevention of nuisances, encroachments,
&c., &c.; to hiring and paying all the workmen, and buying the
materials for repairing the roads and streets over a district
containing about 15,000 inhabitants, for all of which service he
receives 80_l._ a-year.

“With such talent as 80_l._ a-year will command, and such duties to
perform, it may readily be supposed that sewerages and nuisances are
liable to be overlooked.

“I once called the surveyor before a Board of about twenty Trustees,
to draw attention to a pool of stagnant water lying in front of or
betwixt two rows of cottages about 60 feet apart from each other, and
about 150 feet long, covering nearly the whole of this vacant space of
around from one to two feet deep; dead dogs, kittens, and other
impurities in the height of summer were floating in it, yet I was
unable to obtain an order for the surveyor to expend a few pounds in
draining it off, or to compel the owner to do it, although situate in
the centre of a very populous district; and it continued in the same
state till built over by cottages the following year.”