Volume 2 — Of the London Chimney-Sweepers. (continued 5)

After the junction of the covered City sewer with the uncovered ditch in Clerkenwell, the Fleet-river sewer (again covered) skirts round Cold Bath Fields Prison (the Middlesex House of Correction), runs through Clerkenwell-green into the Bagnigge Wells-road, so on to Battle-bridge and King’s-cross; then along the Old Saint Pancras-road, and thence to the King’s-road (a name now almost extinct), where the St. Pancras Workhouse stands close by the turnpike-gate. Along Upper College-street (Camden-town) is then the direction of this great sewer, and running under the canal at the higher part of Camden-town, near the bridge by the terminus of the Great North Western Railway, it branches into the highways and thoroughfares of Kentish-town, of Highgate, and of Hampstead, respectively, and then, at what one informant described as “the outside” of those places, receives the open ditches, which form the further sewerage, under the control of the Commissioners, who cause them to be cleansed regularly.

In order to show more consecutively the direction, from place to place, in straight, devious, or angular course, of this the most remarkable sewer of the world, considering the extent of the drainage into it, I have refrained from giving beyond the Whitecross-street connection with the Fleet, an account of the number of streets sewered into this old civic stream. I now proceed to supply the deficiency.

From a large outlet at Clerkenwell-green (a very thickly-built neighbourhood) flows the connected sewage of 100 streets. At Maiden-lane, beyond King’s-cross, a district which is now being built upon for the purposes of the Great Northern Railway, the sewage of 10 streets is poured into it. In the course of this sewer along Camden-town, it receives the issue of some 20 branches, or 40 streets, &c. About 15 other issues are received before the open ditches of Kentish-town, Highgate, and Hampstead are encountered.

It is not, however, merely the sewage collected in the precincts of the City proper, which is “outletted” (as I heard a flusherman call it) into the Thames. Other districts are drained into the large City outlets nearing the river. “Many of your works,” says Mr. Haywood, the City surveyor, in a report addressed to the City Commissioners, Oct. 23, 1849, “have been beneficially felt by districts some miles distant from the City. Twenty-nine outlets have been provided by you for the sewage of the County of Middlesex; the high land of and about Hampstead, drains through the Fleet sewer; Holloway and a portion of Islington can now be drained by the London Bridge sewer; Norton Folgate and the densely-populated districts adjacent are also relieved by it.”

On the other hand, the Irongate sewer (one of the most important), which has its outlet in the Tower Hamlets, drains a portion of the City.

The reader must bear in mind, also, that were he to traverse the Fleet sewer in the direction described—for all the men I conversed with on the subject, if asked to show the course of sewerage with which they were familiar, began from the outlet into the Thames—the reader, I say, must remember that he would be advancing all the way against the stream, in a direction in which he would find the sewage flowing onward to its mouth, while his course would be towards its sources.

On the left-hand side (for the account before given refers only to the right-hand side) proceeding in the same direction, after passing the underground precincts of the City proper, there is another addition near Saffron-hill, of the sewage of 30 streets; then at Gray’s-inn-road is added the sewage of 100 streets; New-road (at King’s-cross), 20 more streets; from the whole of Somers-town, a populous locality, the sewerage concentrating all the busy and crowded places round about “the Brill,” &c., the sewage of 120 streets is received; and at Pratt-street, Camden-town, 12 other streets.

Thus into this sewage-current, directed to one final outlet, are drained the refuse of 517 streets, including, of course, a variety of minor thoroughfares, courts, alleys, &c., &c., as in the neighbourhoods of Gray’s-inn-road, in Clerkenwell, Somers-town, &c. Some of these tributaries to the efflux of the sewage are “barrel-drains,” but perform the function of sewers along small courts, where there is “no thoroughfare” either upon, or below the surface.

The London Bridge sewer runs up King William-street to Moorgate-street, along Finsbury-square into the City-road, diverging near the Wharf-road, which it crosses under the canal near the Wenlock basin, and thence along the Lower-road, Islington, by Cock-lane, through Highbury-vale; after this, at the extremity of Holloway, the open ditches, as in the former instance, carry on the conveyance of sewage from the outer suburbs.

The King’s Scholars’ Pond Sewer—which seems to have given the Commissioners more trouble than any other, in its connection with Buckingham Palace, St. James’s Park, and the new Houses of Parliament—runs from Chelsea-bridge past Cubitt’s workshops, and along the King’s-road to Eaton-square, the whole of which is drained into it; then “turning round,” as one man described it, it approaches Buckingham Palace, which, with its grounds, as well as a portion of St. James’s and the Green parks, is drained into this sewer; then branching away for the reception of the sewage from the houses and gardens of Chelsea, it drains Sloane-street, and, crossing the Knightsbridge-road, runs through or across Hyde-park to the Swan at Bayswater, whence its course is by the Westbourne District and under the canal, along Paddington, until it attains the open country, or rather the grounds, in that quarter, which have been very extensively and are now still being built over, and where new sewers are constructed simultaneously with new streets.

Thus in the “reach,” as I heard it happily enough designated, of each of these great sewers, the reader will see from a map the extent of the subterranean metropolis traversed, alike along crowded streets ringing with the sounds of traffic, among palatial and aristocratic domains, and along the parks which adorn London, as well as winding their ramifying course among the courts, alleys, and teeming streets, the resorts of misery, poverty, and vice.

Estimating, then, the number of sewers from the number of their river outlets, and regarding all the rest as the branches, or tributaries, to each of these superior streams, we have, adopting the area before specified as being drained by the metropolitan sewers, viz., 58 square miles, the following results:—

Each of the 60 sewers having an outlet into the Thames drains 618 statute acres.

And assuming the number of houses included within these 58 square miles to be 200,000, and the population to amount to 1,500,000, or two-thirds of the houses and people included in the Registrar-General’s Metropolis, we may say that each of the 60 sewers would carry into the Thames the refuse from 25,000 individuals and 3333 inhabited houses. This, however, is partly prevented by the cesspoolage system, which supplies receptacles for a proportion of the refuse that, were London to be rebuilt according to the provisions of the present Building and Sanitary Acts, would all be carried, without any interception, into the river Thames by the media of the sewers.

In my account of cesspoolage I shall endeavour to show the extent of fæcal refuse, &c., contained in places not communicating with the sewers, and to be removed by the labour of men and horses, as well as the amount of fæcal refuse carried into the sewerage.

Of the Qualities, etc., of the Sewage.

The question of the value, the uses, and the best means of collecting for use, the great mass of the sewage of the metropolis, seems to have become complicated by the statements which have been of late years put forth by rival projectors and rival companies. In our smaller country towns, the neighbourhood of many being remarkable for fertility and for a green beauty of meadow-land and pasturage, the refuse of the towns, whether sewage or cesspoolage (if not washed into a current, stream, or river), is purchased by the farmers, and carted by them to spread upon the land.

By sewage, I mean the contents of the sewerage, or of the series of sewers; which neither at present nor, I believe, at any former period, has been applied to any useful or profitable purpose by the metropolitan authorities. The readiest mode to get rid of it, without any care about ultimate consequences, has always been resorted to, and that mode has been to convey it into the Thames, and leave the rest to the current of the stream. But the Thames has its ebbs as well as its flow, and the consequence is the sewage is never got rid of.

The most eminent of our engineers have agreed that it is a very important consideration how this sewage should be not only innocuously but profitably disposed of; and if not profitably, in an immediate money return, to those who may be considered its owners (the municipal authorities of the kingdom), at least profitably in a national point of view, by its use in the restoration or enrichment of the fertility of the soil, and the consequent increase of the food of man and beast.

Sir George Staunton has pronounced some of the tea-growing parts of China to be as blooming as an English nobleman’s flower-garden. Every jot of manure, human ordure, and all else, is minutely collected, even by the poorest.

I have already given a popular account of the composition of the metropolitan sewage, &c. (under the head of Wet Refuse), and I now give its scientific analysis.

In some districts the sewage is more or less liquid—in what proportion has not been ascertained—and I give, in the first place, an analysis of the sewage of the King’s Scholars’ Pond Sewer, Westminster, the result having been laid before a Committee of the House of Commons. As the contents of the great majority of sewers must be the same, because resulting from the same natural or universally domestic causes (as in the refuse of cookery, washing, surface-water, &c.), the analysis of the sewage of the King’s Scholars’ Pond Sewer may be accepted as one of sewer-matter generally.

Evidence was given before the committee as to the proportion of “land-drainage water” to what was really manure, in the matter derived from the sewer in question. A produce of 140 grains of manure was derived from a gallon of sewer-water. Messrs. Brande and Cooper, the analyzers, also state that one gallon (10 lbs.?) of the liquid portion of the sewage, evaporated to dryness, gave 85·3 grains of solid matter, 74·8 grains of which was again soluble, and contained—

Ammonia3·29

Sulphuric acid0·62

Phosphate of lime0·29

Lime6·25

Chlorine10·00

“and potass and soda, with a large quantity of soluble and vegetable matter, and 10·54 insoluble.”

This insoluble portion consisted of

Phosphate of lime2·32

Carbonate of lime1·94

Silica6·28

10·54

The deposit from another gallon weighed 55 grains, of which 21·22 were combustible, being composed of animal matter “rich in nitrogen,” some vegetable matter, and a quantity of fat. Of this matter 33·75 grains consisted of

Phosphate of lime6·81

Oxide of iron2·01

Carbonate of lime1·75

Sulphate of lime1·53

Earthy matter and sand21·65

33·75

Other Reports and other evidence show that what is described as “earthy matter and sand” is the mac, mud, and the mortar or concrete used in pavement, washed from the surface of the streets into the sewers by heavy rains; otherwise for the most part the proper load of the scavager’s cart.

Further analyses might be adduced, but with merely such variation in the result as is inevitable from the state of the weather when the sewage is drawn forth for examination; whether the day on which this is done happens to be dry or wet[66].

It has been ascertained, but the exact proportion is not, and perhaps cannot be, given, that the extent of covered to uncovered surface in the district drained by the King’s Scholars’ Pond Sewer was as 3 to 1, while that of the Ranelagh Sewer, not far distant, was as 1 to 3, at the time of the inquiry (1848).

“It could not be expected, therefore,” says the Report, “that the Ranelagh Sewer (which, moreover, is open to the admission of the tide at its mouth), in the quantity or quality of the manure produced, could bear any proportion to the King’s Scholars’ Pond Sewer.”

Mr. Smith, of Deanston, stated in evidence, that the average quantity of rain falling into King’s Scholars’ Pond Sewer was 139,934,586 cubic feet in a year, and he assumes 6,000,000 tons as the amount of average minimum quantity of drainage (yearly), yielding 4 cwt. of solid matter in each 100 tons = 1 in 500.

Dr. Granville said, on the same inquiry, that he should be sorry to receive on his land 500 tons of diluted sewer water (such as that from the uncovered Ranelagh Sewer) for 1 ton of really fertilizing sewage, such as that to be derived from the King’s Scholars’ Pond Sewer.

I could easily multiply these analyses, and give further parliamentary or official statements, but, as the results are the same, I will merely give some extracts from the evidence of Dr. Arthur Hassall, as to the microscopic constituents of sewage-water:—

“I have examined,” he said, “the sewer-water of several of the principal sewers of London. I found in it, amongst many other things, much decomposing vegetable matter, portions of the husks and the hairs of the down of wheat, the cells of the potato, cabbage, and other vegetables, while I detected but few forms of animal life, those encountered for the most part being a kind of worm or anælid, and a certain species of animalcule of the genus monas.”

“How do you account,” the Doctor was asked, “for the comparative absence of animal life in the water of most sewers?” “It is, doubtless, to be attributed,” he replied, “in a great measure, to the large quantity of sulphuretted hydrogen contained in sewer-water, and which is continually being evolved by the decomposing substances included in it.”

“Have you any evidence to show that sewer-water does contain sulphuretted hydrogen in such large quantity as to be prejudicial and even fatal to animal life?” “With a view of determining this question, I made the following experiments:—A given quantity of Thames water, known to contain living infusoria, was added to an equal quantity of sewer-water; examined a few minutes afterwards, the animalculæ were found to be either dead or deprived of locomotive power and in a dying state. A small fish, placed in a wine glass of sewer-water, immediately gave signs of distress, and, after struggling violently, floated on its side, and would have perished in a few seconds, had it not been removed and placed in fresh water. A bird placed in a glass bell-jar, into which the gas evolved by the sewer-water was allowed to pass, after struggling a good deal, and showing other symptoms of the action of the gas, suddenly fell on its side, and, although immediately removed into fresh air, was found to be dead. These experiments were made, in the first instance, with the sewer water of the Friar-street sewer (near the Blackfriars-road); they were afterwards repeated with the water of six other sewers on the Middlesex side, and with the same result, as respects the animalculæ and fish, but not the bird; this, although evidently much affected by the noxious emanations of the sewer-water, yet survived the experiment.”

“Would you infer from these experiments that sewer-water, as contained in the Thames near to London, is prejudicial to health?” “I would, most decidedly; and regard the Thames in the neighbourhood of the metropolis as nothing less than diluted sewer-water.”

“You have just stated that you found sewer-water to contain much vegetable matter, and but few forms of animal life; the vegetable matter you recognised, I presume, by the character of the cells composing the several vegetable tissues?” “Yes, as also by the action of iodine on the starch of the vegetable matter.”

“In what way do you suppose these various vegetable cells, the husks of wheat, &c., reach the sewers?” “They doubtless proceed from the fæcal matter contained in sewage, and not in general from the ordinary refuse of the kitchen, which usually finds its way into the dust-bin.”

“Sewer-water, then, although containing but few forms of animal life, yet contains, in large quantities, the food upon which most animalculæ feed?” “Yes; and it is this circumstance which explains the vast abundance of infusorial life in the water of the Thames within a few miles of London.”

The same gentleman (a fellow of the Linnæan Society, and the author of “A History of the British Fresh-water Algæ,” or water-weeds considered popularly), in answer to the following inquiries in connection with this subject, also said:—

“What species of infusoria represent the highest degree of impurity in water?” “The several species of the genera Oxytricha and Paramecium.”

“What species is most abundant in the Thames from Kew Bridge to Woolwich?” “The Paramecium Chrysalis of Ehrenberg; this occurs in all seasons of the year, and in all conditions of the river, in vast and incalculable numbers; so much so, that a quart bottle of Thames water, obtained in any condition of the tide, is sure to be found, on examination with the microscope, to contain these creatures in great quantity.”

“Do you find that the infusorium of which you have spoken varies in number in the different parts of the river between Kew Bridge and Woolwich?” “I find that it is most abundant in the neighbourhood of the bridges.” [Where the outlet of the sewers is common.]

“Then the order of impurity of Thames water, in your view, would be the order in which it approaches the centre of London?” “Yes.”

“You find then, in Thames water, about the bridges, things decidedly connected with the sewer water, as vegetable and animal matter in a state of decomposition?” “I do; about the bridges, and in the neighbourhood of London, there is very little living vegetable matter on which animalculæ could live; the only source of supply which they have is the organic matter contained in sewer-water, and which is to be regarded as the food of these creatures. Where infusoria abound, under circumstances not connected with sewage, vegetable matter in a living condition is certain to be met with.”

Respecting the uses of the sewage, I may add the following brief observations. Without wishing in any way to prejudice the question (indeed the reader will bear in mind that I have all along spoken reprovingly of the waste of sewage), I am bound to say that the opinions I heard during my inquiry from gentlemen scientifically and, in some instances, practically familiar with the subject, concurred in the conclusion that the sewage of the metropolis cannot, with all the applications of scientific skill and apparatus, be made either sufficiently portable or efficacious for the purposes of manure to assure a proper pecuniary return. In this matter, perhaps, speculators have not traced a sufficient distinction between the liquid manure of the sewers and the “poudrette,” or dry manure, manufactured from the more solid excrementitious matter of the cesspools, not only in Paris, but, until lately, even in London, where the business was chiefly in the hands of Frenchmen. The staple of the French “poudrette” is not “sewage,” that is, the outpourings of the sewers—for this is carried into the Seine, and washed away with little inconvenience, as the tide hardly affects that river in Paris; but it is altogether “cesspoolage,” that is, the deposit of the cesspools, collected in fixed and moveable utensils, regulated by the “universal” police of Paris, and conveyed by Government labourers to the Voirées, which are huge reservoirs of nightsoil at Montfauçon, about five miles, and in the Forest of Bondy, about ten miles, from the centre of Paris. The London-made manure also was all of cesspoolage; the contents of the nightman’s cart being “shot” in the manufacturer’s yard; and when so manufactured was, I believe, without exception, sent to the sugar-growing colonies, the farmers in the provinces pronouncing it “too hot” for the ground. The same complaint, I may observe, has been made of the French manufactured cesspool manure. I heard, on the other hand, opinions from scientific and practical gentlemen, that the sewer-water of London was so diluted, it was not profitably serviceable for the irrigation of land. All, however, agreed that the sewage of the metropolis ought not to be wasted, as it was certain that perseverance in experiment (and perhaps a large outlay) were certain to make sewage of value.

The following results, which the Board of Health have just issued in a Report, containing “Minutes of Information attested on the Application of Sewer-water and Town Manures to Agricultural Production,” supply the latest information on this subject. The Report says first, that “to be told that the average yield of a county is 30 bushels of wheat per acre, or that the average weight of the turnip crop is 15 tons per acre, means very little, and there is little to be learned from such intelligence; but if it is shown that a certain farm under the usual mode of culture yielded certain weights per acre, and that the same land, by improved applications of the same manure, by the use of machinery, and by employing double the number of hands, at increased wages, is made to yield four fold the weight of crop and of better quality than was previously obtained, a lesson is set before us worth learning.”

It then proceeds to cite the following statements, on the authority of the Hon. Dudley Fortescue, as to the efficiency of sewage-water as a liquid manure applied to land.

“The first farm we visited was that of Craigentinney, situated about one mile and a half south-east of Edinburgh, of which 260 Scotch acres” (a Scotch acre is one-fourth more than any English acre) “receive a considerable proportion of such sewerage as, under an imperfect system of house-drainage, is at present derived from half the city. The meadows of which it chiefly consists have been put under irrigation at various times, the most recent addition being nearly 50 acres laid out in the course of last year and the year previous, which, lying above the level of the rest, are irrigated by means of a steam-engine. The meadows first laid out are watered by contour channels following the inequalities of the ground, after the fashion commonly adopted in Devonshire; but in the more recent parts the ground is disposed in ‘panes’ of half an acre, served by their respective feeders, a plan which, though somewhat more expensive at the outset, is found preferable in practice. The whole 260 acres take about 44 days to irrigate; the men charged with the duty of shifting the water from one pane to another give to each plot about two hours’ irrigation at a time; and the engine serves its 50 acres in ten days, working day and night, and employing one man at the engine and another to shift the water. The produce of the meadows is sold by auction on the ground, ‘rouped,’ as it is termed, to the cow-feeders of Edinburgh, the purchaser cutting and carrying off all he can during the course of the letting, which extends from about the middle of April to October, when the meadows are shut up, but the irrigation is continued through the winter. The lettings average somewhat over 20l. the acre; the highest last year having brought 31l., and the lowest 9l.; these last were of very limited extent, on land recently denuded in laying out the ground, and consequently much below its natural level of productiveness. There are four cuttings in the year, and the collective weight of grass cut in parts was stated at the extraordinary amount of 80 tons the imperial acre. The only cost of maintaining these meadows, except those to which the water is pumped by the engine, consists in the employment of two hands to turn on and off the water, and in the expense of clearing out the channels, which was contracted for last year at 29l., and the value of the refuse obtained was considered fully equal to that sum, being applied in manuring parts of the land for a crop of turnips, which with only this dressing in addition to irrigation with the sewage-water presented the most luxuriant appearance. The crop, from present indications, was estimated at from 30 to 40 tons the acre, and was expected to realize 15s. the ton sold on the land. From calculations made on the spot we estimated the produce of the meadows during the eight months of cutting at the keep of ten cows per acre, exclusive of the distillery refuse they consume in addition, at a cost of 1s. to 1s. 6d. per head per week. The sea-meadows present a particularly striking example of the effects of the irrigation; these, comprising between 20 and 30 acres skirting the shores between Leith and Musselburgh, were laid down in 1826 at a cost of about 700l.; the land consisted formerly of a bare sandy tract, yielding almost absolutely nothing; it is now covered with luxuriant vegetation extending close down to high-water mark, and lets at an average of 20l. per acre at least. From the above statement it will be seen how enormously profitable has been the application in this case of town refuse in the liquid form; and I have no hesitation in stating that, great as its advantages have been, they might be extended four or five fold by greater dilution of the fluid. Four or five times the extent of land might, I believe, be brought into equally productive cultivation under an improved system of drainage in the city, and a more abundant use of water. Besides these Craigentinney meadows, there are others on this and on the west side of Edinburgh, which we did not visit, similarly laid out, and I believe realizing still larger profits, from their closer proximity to the town, and their lying within the toll-gates.”[67]

Such, then, are said to be the results of a practical application of sewer-water. The preliminary remark of the Board of Health, however, applies somewhat to the statement above given; for we are not told what the same land produced before the liquid manure was applied; nor are we informed as to the peculiar condition and quantity of the land near Craigentinney, and how it differs from the land near London.

The other returns are of liquid manures, of which sewer-water formed no part, and, therefore, require no special notice of them. The following observations are, however, worthy of attention:—

“The cases above detailed furnish some measure of the possible results attainable in cultivation, especially corroborated as they are by others which did not on this occasion come under our personal observation, but one of which I may mention, having recently examined into it, that of Mr. Dickinson, at Willesden, who estimates his yield of Italian rye-grass at from 80 to 100 tons an acre, and gets 8 or 10 cuttings, according to the season; and as there is no peculiar advantage of soil or climate (the former ranging from almost pure sands to cold and tenacious clays, and the latter being inferior to that of a large proportion of England) to prevent the same system being almost universally adopted, they give some idea of the degree to which the productiveness of land may be raised by a judicious appliance of the means within our reach. When it is considered that such results may, in the vicinity of towns and villages, be most effectually brought about by the instant removal of all those matters which, when allowed to remain in them, are among the most fruitful sources of social degradation, disease, and death, one cannot but earnestly desire the furtherance of such measures as will ensure this double result of purifying the town and enriching the country; and as the facts I have stated came at the same time under the notice of the gentleman I mentioned above, under whose able superintendence the arrangements for the water-supply and drainage of several towns are now in course of execution, I trust it will not be long before this most advantageous mode of disposing of the refuse of towns may be brought into practical operation in various parts of the country.

“I have, &c., “D. F. Fortescue.

“General Board of Health.”

Of the New Plan of Sewerage.

This branch of the subject hardly forms part of my present inquiry, but, having pointed out the defects of the sewers, it seems but reasonable and right to say a few words on the measures determined upon for their improvement. It is only necessary for me, however, to indicate the principal characteristics of the new, or rather intended, mode of sewerage, as the work may be said to have been but commenced, or hardly commenced in earnest, the Report of Mr. Frank Forster (the engineer) bearing the date of Jan. 30, 1851.

In the carrying out of the engineer’s plan—which from its magnitude, and, in all human probability, from its cost, when completed, would be national in other countries, but is here only metropolitan—in the carrying out of this scheme, I say, two remarkable changes will be found. The one is the employment of the power of steam in sewerage; the other is the diversion of the sewage from the current of the Thames. The ultimate uses of this sewage, agriculturally or otherwise, form no part of the present consideration.

I should, however, first enumerate the general principles on which the best authorities have agreed that the London sewers should be constructed so as to ensure a proper disposal of the sewage, for these principles are said to be at the basis of Mr. Forster’s plan.

I condense under the following heads the substance of a mass of Reports, Committee Meetings, Suggestions, Plans, &c.:—

1. The channels, or pipeage, or other means of conveying away house-refuse, should be so made that the removal will be immediate, more especially of any refuse or filth capable of suspension in water, since its immediate carrying off, it is said, would leave no time for the generation of miasma.

2. Means should be provided for such disposal of sewage as would prevent its tainting any stream, well, or pool, or, by its stagnation or obstruction, in any way poisoning the atmosphere. And, as a natural and legitimate result, it should be so collected that it could be applied to the cultivation of the land at the most economical rate.

3. In the providing works of deposit or storage in low districts, or “of discharge where the natural outlets are free,” such works should be provided as would not subject any place, or any man’s property, to the risk of inundation, or any other evil consequence; while in the construction of the drainage of the substratum, the works should be at such a depth below the foundation of all buildings that tenements should not be exposed to that continued damage from exhalation and dampness which leads to the dry rot in timber, and to an immature decay of materials and a general unhealthiness.

There are other points insisted upon in many Reports to which I need but allude, such as

(a.) The channels containing sewage should be of enduring and impermeable material, so as to prevent all soakage.

(b.) There should be throughout the channels of the subterranean metropolis a fall or inclination which would suffice to prevent the accumulation of any sewage deposit, with its deleterious influence and ultimate costliness.

(c.) Similar provisions should be used were it but to prevent the creation of the noxious gases which now permeate many houses (especially in the quarters inhabited by the poor) and escape into many streets, courts, and alleys, for until improvements are effected the pent-up sewage and the saturated brickwork of the sewers and older drains must generate such gases.

(d.) No tidal stream should ever receive a flow of sewage, because then the cause of evil is never absent, for the filth comes back with the tide; and as the Thames water constitutes the grand fount of metropolitan consumption, the water companies, with very trifling exceptions, give us back much of our own excrement, mixed with every conceivable, and sometimes noxious, nastiness, with which we may brew, cook, and wash—and drink, if we can. Filtering remedies but a portion of the evil.

Now it would appear that not one of these requirements, the necessity of which is unquestioned and unquestionable, is fully carried out by the present system of sewerage, and hence the need of some new plan in which the defects may be remedied, and the proper principles carried out.

The instructions given by the Court were to the following effect:—

A. The Thames should be kept free from sewage whatever the state of the tide.

B. There should be intercepting drains to carry off the sewage (so keeping the Thames unsoiled by it) wherever practicable.

C. The sewage should be raised by artificial means into a main channel for removal.

D. The intercepting sewers should be so constructed as to secure the largest amount of effective drainage without artificial appliances.

In preparing his plan, Mr. Forster had the advice and assistance of Mr. Haywood, of the City Court of Sewers.

The metropolis is divided into two portions—“the northern portion of the metropolis,” or rather that portion of the metropolis which is on the north or Middlesex bank of the Thames; and the southern portion, or that which is on the south or Surrey side of the river.

The northern portion is in the new plan considered to “divide itself into two separate areas,” and to these two areas different modes of sewerage are to be applied:

“1. The interception of the drainage of that district, which, from its elevation above the level of the outlet, is capable of having its sewage and rainfall carried off by gravitation.

“2. The interception of the drainage of that district, which, from its low lying position, will require its sewage, and in most localities its rainfall, to be lifted by steam-power to a proper level for discharge.”

The first district runs from Holsden-green (beyond the better-known Kensall-green) in the west, to the Tower Hamlets in the east. Its form is irregular, but not very much so, merely narrowing from Westbourn-green to its western extremity, the country then becoming rural or woodland. Its highest reaches to the north are to Highgate and Stamford-hill. The nearest approach to the south is to a portion of the Strand, between Charing-cross and Drury-lane. Care has evidently been taken to skirt this district, so to speak, by the canals and the railroads. This division of the northern portion is described as “the district for natural drainage.”

The area of this division is about 25⅙ square miles.

The second division meets the first at the highway separating Kensington-gardens from Bayswater; and runs on, bordering the river, all the way to the West India Dock. Its shape is irregular, but, abating the roundness, presents somewhat of that sort of figure seen in the instrument known as a dumb-bell, the narrowest or hand-part being that between Charing-cross and Drury-lane, skirting the river as its southern bound. At its eastern end this second district widens abruptly, taking in Victoria-park, Stratford, and Bromley.

The area of this division of the northern portion is 16⅛ square miles.

There are, moreover, two small tracts, comprising the southern part of the Isle of Dogs, and a narrow slip on the west side of the river Lea, which are intended to allow the rainfall to run into the Thames and the Lea respectively.

The area of the two is 1¾ square mile.

The area to be drained by natural outfall comprises, then, 25⅙ square miles as regards rainfall, and the same extent as regards sewage; while the area to the drainage of which steam power is to be applied comprises 14⅓ square miles of rainfall, and 16⅙ square miles of sewage; the two united areas of rainfall and sewage respectively being 39½ and 41⅓ square miles.

The length of the great “high-level sewerage” will be, as regards the main sewer, 19 miles and 106 yards; that of the “low-level sewerage,” 14 miles and 1501 yards.

I will now describe the course of each of these constructions.

On the eastern bank of the Lea the sewage of both districts is to be concentrated. The high-level sewer will commence and cross the Lea near the “Four Mills.” It is then to proceed “in a westerly direction under the East and West India Dock Railway and the Blackwall Extension Railway, beneath the Regent’s-canal, to the east end of the Bethnal-green-road, at the crossing of the Cambridge-heath-road, at which point it will be joined by the proposed northern division of the Hackney-brook, which drains an extensive district up to the watershed line north of London, including Hackney, Stoke Newington and Holloway, and part of Highgate and Hampstead; from thence the main sewer proceeds along the Bethnal-green-road, Church-street, Old-street, Wilderness-row (where a short branch from Coppice-row will join) to Brook-street-hill; from thence to Little Saffron-hill, where a distance of about 100 yards is proposed to be carried by an aqueduct over the Fleet-valley; thence along Liquorpond-street, at the end of which it will receive a branch from Piccadilly, on the south side, and a diversion of the Fleet-river, on the north side; thence along Theobald’s-road, Bloomsbury-square, Hart-street, New Oxford-street, to Rathbone-place (where it will receive a diversion of the Regent-street sewer from Park-crescent), along Oxford-street, and extending thence across Regent-circus to South Molton-lane (where it will intercept the King’s Scholars’ Pond sewer), continuing still along Oxford-street to Bayswater-place, Grand Junction-road, Uxbridge-road, where it is joined by the Ranelagh sewer, the sewage of which it is capable of receiving, and at this point it terminates.”

It is difficult to convey to a reader, especially to a reader who may not be familiar with the localities of London generally, any adequate notion of the largeness, speaking merely of extent, of this undertaking. Even a map conveys no sufficient idea of it.

Perhaps I may best be able to suggest to a reader’s mind a knowledge of this largeness, when I state that in the district I have just described, which is but one portion (although the greatest) of the sewerage of but one side of the Thames, more than half a million of persons, and nearly 100,000 houses are, so to speak, to be sewered.

The low-level tract sewerage, also, concentrates on the Lea, “near to Four Mill’s distillery, taking the north-western bank of the Limehouse Cut, at which point it receives the branch intended to intercept the sewage of the Isle of Dogs; thence continuing along the bank of Limehouse Cut, through a portion of the Commercial-road, Brook-street, and beneath the Sun Tavern Fields, into High-street, or Upper Shadwell; thence along Ratcliffe-highway and Upper East Smithfield, across Tower-hill, through Little and Great Tower-streets, Eastcheap, Cannon-street, Little and Great St. Thomas Apostle, Trinity-lane, Old Fish-street, and Little Knight Rider-street; thence beneath houses in Wardrobe-terrace, and on the eastern side of St. Andrew’s-hill, along Earl-street to Blackfriars-road. From Blackfriars Bridge it is proposed to construct the sewer along the river shore to the junction of the Victoria-street sewer at Percy-wharf; which sewer between Percy-wharf and Shaftesbury-terrace, Pimlico, becomes thus an integral portion of the intercepting line; at Bridge-street, Westminster, a branch from the Victoria-street sewer is intended to proceed along Abingdon and Millbank-streets, as far as and for the purpose of taking up the King’s Scholars’ Pond and other sewers at their outlets into the Thames. From Shaftesbury-terrace the Victoria-street sewer is proposed to be extended through Eaton-square and along the King’s-road, Chelsea, to Park-walk, intercepting all the sewers along its line, and terminating at a point where the drainage of Kensington may be brought into it without pumping.”

The lines of sewerage thus described are, then, all to the west of the Lea, and all, whether from the shore of the Thames, or the northern reaches in Highgate and Hampstead, converging to a pumping station or sewage-concentration, on the east bank of the Lea, in West Ham. By this new plan, then, the high-level sewer is to cross the Lea, but that arrangement is impossible as respects the second district described, which is below the level of the Lea, so that its course is to be beneath that river, a little below where it is crossed by the high-level line. To dispose of the sewage, therefore, conveyed from the low-level tract, there will be a sewer of a “depth of forty-seven feet below” the invert of the high-level sewer. This sewer, then, at the depth of 47 feet, will run to the point of concentration containing the low-level sewage.

At this point of the works, in order that the sewage may be collected, so as to be disposed of ultimately in one mass, it has to be lifted from the low to the high-level sewer. The invert of the high-level sewer will at the lifting or pumping station be 20 feet above the ordnance datum, while that of the low-level sewer will be 27 feet below the same standard. Thus a great body of metropolitan sewage, comprising among other districts the refuse of the whole City of London, must be lifted no less than 47 feet, in order to be got rid of along with what has been carried to the same focus by its natural flow.

The lifting is to be effected by means of steam, and the pumping power required has been computed at 1100-horse power. To supply this great mechanical and scientific force, there are to be provided two engines, each of 550-horse power, with a third engine of equal capacity, to be available in case of accident, or while either of the other engines might require repairs of some duration.

The northern sewage of London (or that of the Middlesex bank of the Thames, covered by that division of the capital) having been thus brought to a sort of central reservoir, or meeting point, will be conveyed in two parallel lines of sewerage to the bank of the river Roding, being the eastern extremity of Gallion’s Reach (which is below Woolwich Reach), in the Thames. The Roding flows into the Thames at Barking Creek mouth. The length of this line will be four miles.

“At this point,” it is stated in the Report, “the level of the inverts of the parallel sewers will be eight feet below high-water mark, and here it is intended to collect the sewage into a reservoir during the flood-tide, and discharge the same with the ebb-tide immediately after high-water; and, as it is estimated that the reservoir will be completely emptied during the first three hours of the ebb, it may be safely anticipated that no portion of the sewage will be returned, with the flood-tide, to within the bounds of the metropolis.”

The whole of the sewage and rainfall, then, will be thus diverted to one destination, instead of being issued into the river through a multiplicity of outlets in every part of the northern shore where the population is dense, and will be carried into the Thames at Barking Creek, unless, as I have intimated, a market be found for the sewage; when it may be disposed of as is most advantageous. The only exceptions to this carrying off will be upon the occurrence of long-continued and heavy rains or violent storms, when the surplus water will be carried off by some of the present outlets into the river; but even on such occasions, the first scour or cleansings of the sewerage will be conveyed to the main outlet at the river Roding.

The inclination which has been assigned to the whole of the lines of sewers I have described, is, with some unimportant exceptions, 4 feet per mile, or 1 in 1320. These new sewers are, or rather will be, calculated to carry off a fall of rain, equal to ¼ inch in 24 hours, in addition to the average daily flow of sewage.

Mr. Forster concludes his Report:—“I am only able to submit approximately that I estimate the cost of the whole of the lines of sewers, the pumping engines, and station, the reservoir, tidal gates, and other apparatus, at one million and eighty thousand pounds (1,080,000l.). This estimate does not include the sums required for the purchase of land and houses, which may be needed for the site of the pumping engine-house, or compensation for certain portions of the lines of sewers.”

As regards the improvements in the sewerage on the south side of the Thames (the great fever district of the metropolis, and consequently the most important of all, and where the drainage is of the worst kind), I can be very brief, as nothing has been positively determined.

A somewhat similar system will be adopted on the south side of the Thames, where it is proposed to form one main intercepting sewer; but, owing to the physical configuration of this part of the town, none of the water will flow away entirely by gravitation. There will be a pumping station on the banks of the Ravensbourne, to raise the water about 25 feet; and a second pumping station to raise the water from the continued sewer in the reservoir, in Woolwich Marsh, which is to receive it during the intervals of the tides. The waters are to be discharged into the river at the last-named point. The main sewer on the south side will be of nearly equally colossal proportions; for its total length is proposed to be about 13 miles 3 furlongs, including the main trunk drain of about 2 miles long, and the respective branches. The area to be relieved is about proportionate to the length of the drain; but the steam power employed will be proportionally greater upon the southern than upon the northern side.

There are divers opinions, of course, as to the practicability and ultimate good working of this plan; speculations into which it is not necessary for me to enter. Mr. Forster has, moreover, resigned his office, adding another to the many changes among the engineers, surveyors, and other employés under the Metropolitan Commission; a fact little creditable to the management of the Commissioners, who, with one exception, may be looked upon as irresponsible.

Of the Management of the Sewers and the late Commissions.

The Corporation of the City of London may be regarded as the first Commission of Sewers in the exercise of authority over such places as regards the removal of the filth of towns. In time, but at what time there is no account, the business was consigned to the management of a committee, as are now the markets of the City (Markets Committee), and even what may be called the management of the Thames (Navigation Committee). It is not at all necessary that the members of these committees should understand anything about the matters upon which they have to determine. A staff of officers, clerks, secretaries, solicitors, and surveyors, save the members the trouble of thought or inquiry; they have merely to vote and determine. It was stated in evidence before a Select Committee of the House of Commons on the subject of the Thames steamers, that at that period the Chairman of the Navigation Committee was a bread and biscuit baker, but “a very-firm-minded man.” In time, but again I can find no note of the precise date, the Committee became a Court of Sewers, and so it remains to the present time. Commissions of sewers have been issued by the Crown since the 25th year of the reign of Henry VIII., except during the era of the Commonwealth, when there seems to have been no attention paid to the matter.

As the metropolis increased rapidly in size since the close of the last century, the public sewers of course increased in proportion, and so did Commissions of Sewers in the newly-built districts. Up to 1847 these Commissions or Court of Sewers were eight in number, the metropolis being divided into that number of districts.

The districts were as follows:—

1. The City.

2. The Tower Hamlets.

3. St. Katherine.

4. Poplar and Blackwall.

5. Holborn and Finsbury.

6. Westminster and part of Middlesex.

7. Surrey and Kent.

8. Greenwich.

Each of these eight Commissions had its own Act of Parliament; its own distinct, often irregular and generally uncontrolled plan of management; each had its own officers; and each had its own patronage. Each district court—with almost unlimited powers of taxation—pursued its own plans of sewerage, little regardful of the plans of its neighbour Commission. This wretched system—the great recommendation of which, to its promoters and supporters, seems to have been patronage—has given us a sewerage unconnected and varying to the present day in almost every district; varying in the dimensions, form, and inclination of the structures.

The eight commission districts, I may observe, had each their sub-districts, though the general control was in the hands of the particular Court or Board of Commissioners for the entire locality. These subdivisions were chiefly for the facilities of rate-collecting, and were usually “western,” “eastern,” and “central.”

The consequence of this immethodical system has been that, until the surveys and works now in progress are completed, the precise character, and even the precise length, of the sewers must be unknown, though a sufficient approximation may be deduced in the interim.

To show the conflicting character of the sewerage, I may here observe that in some of the old sewers have been found walls and arches crumbling to pieces. Some old sewers were found to be not only of ample proportions, but to contain subterranean chambers, not to say halls, filled with filth, into which no man could venture. While in a sewer in the newly-built district of St. John’s-wood, Mr. Morton, the Clerk of Works, could only advance stooping half double, could not turn round when he had completed his examination, but had most painfully—for a long time feeling the effects—to back out along the sewer, stooping, or doubled up, as he entered it. Why the sewer was constructed in this manner is not stated, but the work appears, inferentially, to have been scamped, which, had there been a proper supervision, could hardly have been done with a modern public sewer, down a thoroughfare of some length (the Woronzow-road).

But the conflicting and disjointed system of sewerage was not the sole evil of the various Commissions. The mismanagement and jobbery, not to say peculation, of the public moneys, appear to have been enormous. For instance, in the “Accountant’s Report” (February, 1848), prepared by Mr. W. H. Grey, 48, Lincoln’s-inn-fields, I find the following statements relative to the Book-keeping of the several Commissions:—

“The Westminster plan is full of unnecessary repetition. It is deficient in those real general accounts which concentrate the information most needed by the Commissioners, and it contains fictions which are very inconsistent with any sound system of book-keeping.

“The ledger of the Westminster Commission does not give a true account of the actual receipt and expenditure of each district.

“The Holborn and Finsbury books are still more defective than those of the Westminster Commission.... There are the same kind of fictions.... But the extraordinary defect in these books consists in the utter want of system throughout them, by keeping one-sided accounts only in the ledger, with respect to the different sewers in each district, showing only the amount expended on each.

“The Tower Hamlets books have been kept on a regular system, though by no means one conveying much general information.”

“With respect to the Surrey and Kent accounts,” says Mr. Grey, “the books produced are the most incomplete and unsatisfactory that ever came under my observation. The ledger is always thought to be a sine quâ non in book-keeping; but here it has been dispensed with altogether, for that which is so marked is no ledger at all.”

Under these circumstances, the Report continues, “It cannot be wondered at that debts should have been incurred, or that they should have swollen to the amount of 54,000l., carrying a yearly interest of 2360l., besides annuities granted to the amount of 1125l. a year.

“The Poplar and Greenwich accounts (I quote the official Report), confined as they are to mere cash books, offer no subjects for remark....

“No books of account have been produced with respect to the St. Katherine’s Commission.”

On the 16th December, 1847, the new Commissioners ordered all the books to be sent to the office in Greek-street; but it was not until the 21st February, 1848, that all the minute-books were produced. There were no indexes for many years even to the proceedings of the Courts; and the account-books of one of the local Courts, if they might be so called, were in such a state that the book called “ledger” had for several years been cast up in pencil only.

This refers to what may be characterised, with more or less propriety, as mismanagement or neglect; though in such mismanagement it is hardly possible to escape one inference. I now come to what are direct imputations of Jobbery, and where that is flourishing or easy, no system can be other than vicious.

In a paper “printed for use of Commissioners” (Sept. 7, 1848), entitled “Draft Report on the Surrey Accounts,” emanating from a “General Purposes’ Committee,” I find the following, concerning the parliamentary expenses of obtaining an Act which it was “found necessary to repeal.” The cost was, altogether, upwards of 1800l., which of course had to be defrayed out of the taxes.

“This Act,” says the Report, “authorized an almost unlimited borrowing of money; and immediately upon its passing, in July, 1847, notices were issued for works estimated to amount to 100,000l.; and others, we understand, were projected for early execution to the amount of 300,000l.... Considering the general character of the works executed, and from them judging of those projected, it may confidently be averred that the whole sum of 300,000l., the progressive expenditure of which was stayed by the ‘supersedeas’ of the old Commission, would have been expended in waste.” [The Italics are not those of the Reports.]

The Report continues, “It is to be observed that each of the district surveyors would have participated in the sum of 15,000l. percentage on the expenditure for the extension of the Surrey works. Thus the surveyors, with their percentages on the works executed, and the clerk, by the fees on contracts, &c., had a direct interest in a large expenditure.”

Instances of the same dishonest kind might be multiplied to almost any extent.

After the above evidences of the incompetency and dishonesty of the several district Commissions—and the Reports from which they are copied contain many more examples of a similar and even worse description—it is not to be wondered at that in the year 1847 the district courts were, with the exception of the City, superseded by the authority of the Crown, and formed into one body, the present Metropolitan Commission of Sewers, of the constitution and powers of which I shall now proceed to speak.

Of the Powers and Authority of the present Commissions of Sewers.

In 1847 the eight separate Commissions of Sewers were abolished, and the whole condensed, by the Government, into one Commission, with the exception of the City, which seems to supply an exception in most public matters.

The Act does not fix the number of the Commissioners. To the Metropolitan Commissioners, five City Commissioners are added (the Lord Mayor for the year being one ex officio); these have a right to act as members of the Metropolitan Board, but their powers in this capacity are loosely defined by the Act, and they rarely attend, or perhaps never attend, unless the business in some way or other affects their distinct jurisdiction.

The Commissioners (of whom twelve form a quorum) are unpaid, with the exception of the chairman, Mr. E. Lawes, a barrister, who has 1000l. a year. They are appointed for the term of two years, revocable at pleasure.

The authority of the City Commission, as distinct from the Metropolitan, for there are two separate Acts, seems to be more strongly defined than that of the others, but the principle is the same throughout. The Metropolitan Act bears date September 4, 1848; and the City Act, September 5, 1848.

The Metropolitan Commissioners have the control over “the sewers, drains, watercourses, weirs, dams, banks, defences, gratings, pipes, conduits, culverts, sinks, vaults, cesspools, rivers, reservoirs, engines, sluices, penstocks, and other works and apparatus for the collection and discharge of rain-water, surplus land or spring-water, waste water, or filth, or fluid, or semi-fluid refuse of all descriptions, and for the protection of land from floods or inundation within the limits of the Commission.” Ample as these powers seem to be, the Commissioners’ authority does not extend over the Thames, which is in the jurisdiction of the Lord Mayor and Corporation of the City of London; and it appears childish to give men control over “rivers,” and to empower them to take measures “for the protection of land from floods or inundation,” while over the great metropolitan stream itself, from Yantlet Creek, below Gravesend, to Oxford, they have no power whatever.

The Commissioners (City as well as Metropolitan) are empowered to enforce proper house-drainage wherever needed; to regulate the building of new houses, in respect of water-closets, cesspools, &c.; to order any street, staircase, or passage not effectually cleansed to be effectually cleansed; to remedy all nuisances having insanitary tendencies; to erect public water-closets and urinals, free from any charge to the public; to order houses and rooms to be whitewashed; to erect places for depositing the bodies of poor persons deceased until interment; and to regulate the cleanliness, ventilation, and even accommodation of low lodging-houses.

The jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Commissioners of Sewers extends over “all such places or parts in the counties of Middlesex, Surrey, Essex, and Kent, or any of them not more than twelve miles distant in a straight line from St. Paul’s Cathedral, in the City of London, but not being within the City of London or the liberties thereof.”

This, it must be confessed, is an exceedingly broad definition of the extent of the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Commission, giving the Commissioners an extraordinary amount of latitude.

In our days there are many Londons. There is the London (or the metropolitan apportionment of the capital) as defined by the Registrar-General. This, as we have seen, has an area of 115 square miles, and therefore may be said to comprise as nearly as possible all those places which are rather more than five miles distant from the Post Office.

There is the Metropolis as defined by the Post-Office functionaries, or the limits assigned to what is termed the “London District Post.” This London District Post seems, however, to have three different metropolises:—First, there is the Central Metropolis, throughout which there is an hourly delivery of letters after mid-day, and which deliveries are said to be confined to “London.” Then there is the six-delivery Metropolis, or that throughout which the letters are despatched and received six times per day; this is said to extend to such of the “environs” as are included within a circle of three miles from the General Post Office. Then there is the six-mile Metropolis with special privileges. And lastly, the twelve-mile Metropolis, which, being the extreme range of the London District Post, may be said to constitute the metropolis of the General Post Office.

There is, again, the metropolis of the Metropolitan Commissioners of Police, before the region of rural police and country and parish constables is attained; a jurisdiction which covers 96 square miles, as I have shown at pp. 163-166 of the present volume, and reaches—generally speaking—to such places as are included within a circle of five miles and a half from the General Post Office.

There is, moreover, the metropolis, as defined by the Hackney-Carriage Act, which comprises all such places as are within five miles of the General Post Office.

And further, there is the Metropolis of the London City Mission, which extends to eight miles from the Post Office, and the Metropolis, again, of the London Ragged Schools, which reaches to about three miles from the Post Office.

This, however, is not all, for there are divers districts for the registration and exercise of votes, parliamentary, or municipal; there are ecclesiastical and educational districts; there is a thorough complication of parochial, extra-parochial, and chartered districts; there is a world of subdivisions and of sub-subdivisions, so ramified here and so closely blended there, and often with such preposterous and arbitrary distinctions, that to describe them would occupy more than a whole Number.

My present business, however, is the extent of the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Commissioners of Sewers, or rather to ascertain the boundaries of that metropolis over which the Metropolitan Commissioners are allowed to have sway.

The many discrepancies and differences I have explained make it difficult to define any district for the London sewerage; and in the Reports, &c., which are presented to Parliament, or prepared by public bodies, little or no care seems to be taken to observe any distinctiveness in this respect.

For instance: The jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Commission of Sewers, which is said to extend to all such places as are not more than 12 miles distant in a straight line from St. Paul’s Cathedral, in the City of London, comprises an area of 452 square miles; the metropolis, that of the Registrar-General, presenting a radius of 6 miles (with a fractional addition), contains 115 square miles; yet in official documents 58 square miles, or a circle of about 4½ miles radius, are given as the extent of the metropolis sewered by the Metropolitan Commission. By what calculations this 58 miles are arrived at, whether it has been the arbitrium of the authorities to consider the sewers, &c., as occupying the half of the area of the Registrar-General’s metropolis, or what other reason has induced the computation, I am unable to say.

The boundaries of the several metropolises may be indicated as follows:—

The Three-Mile Circle includes Camberwell; skirts Peckham; seems to divide Deptford (irregularly); touches the West India Dock; includes portions of Limehouse, Stepney, Bromley, Stratford-le-Bow, and about the half of Victoria-park, Hackney. It likewise comprises a part of Lower Clapton, Dalston, and a portion of Stoke Newington; and closely touching upon or containing small portions of Lower Holloway, and Kentish-town, sweeps through the Regent’s and Hyde parks, includes a moiety of Chelsea, and crossing the river at the Red-house, Battersea, completes the circle. This is the six-delivery district of the General Post Office.

In this three-mile district are chiefly condensed the population, commerce, and wealth of the greatest and richest city in the world.

The Six-Mile Circle runs from Streatham (on the south); just excludes Sydenham; contains within its exterior line Lewisham, Greenwich, and a part of Woolwich; also, wholly or partially, East Ham, Laytonstone, Walthamstow, Tottenham, Hornsey, Highgate, Hampstead, Kensall-green, Hammersmith, Fulham, Wandsworth, and Upper Tooting. The portion without the three-mile circle, and within the six, is the suburban portion or the immediate environs of the metropolis, and still presents rural and woodland beauties in different localities. This may be termed the metropolis of the Registrar-General and Commissioners of Metropolitan Police.

The Twelve-Mile Circle, or the extent of the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Commissioners of Sewers, as well as the “London District Post,” includes Croydon, Wickham, Paul’s Cray, Foot’s Cray, North Cray, and Bexley; crosses the river at the Erith-reach; proceeds across the Rainham-marshes; comprises Dagenham; skirts Romford; includes Henhault-forest and the greater portion of Epping-forest; touches Waltham-abbey and Cheshunt; comprehends Enfield and Chipping-Barnet; runs through Elstre and Stanmore; comprehends Harrow-on-the-Hill, Norwood, and Hounslow; embraces Twickenham and Teddington; seems to divide somewhat equally the domains of Bushey-park and of Hampton-court Palace; then, crossing the river about midway between Thames Ditton and Kingston, the boundary line passes between Cheam and Ewell, and completes the circuit.

Over this large district, then, the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Commissioners of Sewers is said to extend, and one of the outlets of the London sewers has already been spoken of as being situate at Hampton. The district yielding the amount of sewage which is assumed as being the gross wet house-refuse of the metropolis is, as we have seen, taken at 58 square miles, and is comprised within a circle of about 4½ miles radius; this reaches only to Brixton, Dulwich, Greenwich, East India Docks, Layton, Highgate, Hampstead, Bayswater, Kensington, Brompton, and Battersea. The actual jurisdiction of the Commissioners is, then, nearly eight times larger than the portion to which the estimated amount of the sewage of the metropolis refers.

The metropolitan district is still distinguished by the old divisions of the Tower Hamlets, Poplar and Blackwall, Holborn and Finsbury, Westminster, &c.; but many of these divisions are now incorporated into one district; of which there would appear to be but four at present; or five, inclusive of the City.

These are as follows:—

1. Fulham and Hammersmith, Counter’s Creek and Ranelagh districts.

2. Westminster (Eastern and Western), Regent-street, and Holborn.

3. Finsbury, Tower Hamlets, Poplar, and Blackwall.

4. Districts south of the Thames, Eastern and Western.

5. City.

The practical part or working of the Commission of Sewers is much less complicated at present than it was in the times of the independent districts and independent commissions.

The orders for all work to be done emanate from the court in Greek-street, but the several surveyors, &c. (whose salaries, numbers, &c., are given below), can and do order on their responsibility any repair of a temporary character which is evidently pressing, and report it at the next court day. The Court meets weekly and monthly, and what may be styled the heavier portion of the business, as regards expenditure on great works, is more usually transacted at the monthly meetings, when the attendance is generally fuller; but the Court can, and sometimes does, meet much more frequently, and sometimes has adjourned from day to day.

Any private individual or any public body may make a communication or suggestion to the Court of Sewers, which, if it be in accordance with their functions, is taken into consideration at the next accruing court day, or as soon after as convenient. The Court in these cases either comes to a decision of adoption or rejection of any proposition, or refers it to one of their engineers or surveyors for a report, or to a committee of the Commissioners, appointed by the Court; if the proposition be professional, as to defects, or alleged and recommended improvements in the local sewers, &c., it is referred to a professional gentleman for his opinion; if it be more general, as to the extension of sewerage to some new undertaking or meditated undertaking in the way of building new markets, streets, or any places, large and public; or in applications for the use and appropriation by enterprising men of sewage manure, it is referred to a committee.

On receiving such reports the Court makes an order according to its discretion. If the work to be done be extensive, it is entrusted to the chief engineer, and perhaps to a principal surveyor acting in accordance with him; if the work be more local, it is consigned to a surveyor. One or other of these officers provides, or causes to be prepared, a plan and a description of the work to be done, and instructs the clerk of the works to procure estimates of the cost at which a contractor will undertake to execute this work, or, as it is often called by the labouring class, to “complete the job” (a word at one time singularly applicable). The estimates are sent by the competing builders, architects, general speculators, or by any one wishing to contract, to the court house (without the intervention of any person, officially or otherwise) and they are submitted to the Board by their clerk. The lowest contract, as the sum total of the work, is most generally adopted, and when a contract has been accepted, the matter seems settled and done with, as regards the management of the Commissioners; for the contractor at once becomes responsible for the fulfilment of his contract, and may and does employ whom he pleases and at what rates he pleases, without fear of any control or interference from the Court. The work, however, is superintended by the surveyors, to ensure its execution according to the provisions of the agreement. The contractor is paid by direct order of the Court.

The surveyors and clerks of works are mostly limited as to their labours to the several districts; but the superior officers are employed in all parts, and so, if necessary, are the subordinate officers when the work requires an extra staff.

According to the Returns, the following functionaries appear to be connected with the undermentioned districts:—

Fulham, Hammersmith, Counter’s Creek, and Ranelagh.

1 Surveyor.

3 Clerks of the Works.

1 Inspector of Flushing.

Eastern and Western Divisions of Westminster and Regent-street.

1 Surveyor, who has also the Holborn division to attend to.

2 Clerks of the Works.

6 Flap and Sluice keepers.

Holborn.

2 Clerks of the Works.

1 Inspector of Flushing.

Finsbury.

1 Clerk of the Works.

1 Inspector of Flushing.

Tower Hamlets, and Poplar and Blackwall.

1 Surveyor, who has also the Finsbury division included in his district.

2 Clerks of the Works.

2 Inspectors of Flushing.

South of the Thames. Western Districts.

1 Surveyor.

2 Clerks of the Works.

2 Inspectors of Flushing.

Eastern Districts.

1 Surveyor.

2 Clerks of the Works.

2 Inspectors of Flushing.

What may be called the working staff of the Metropolitan Commissioners consists of the following functionaries, receiving the following salaries:—

£s.

Chairman, with a yearly salary of1,0000

Secretary, with a yearly salary of (besides an allowance of £100, in lieu of apartments)8000

Clerk of minutes3500

Two clerks of do., (each with a salary of £150)3000

One do., with a salary of1200

One do. do.1050

One do. do.950

One do. do.900

Accountant do.3500

Accountant’s clerk do.1500

Do do.800

Clerk of surveyors’ and contractors’ accounts2000

Do. do.1250

Do. do.1100

Clerk of rates2500

Another do.1800

Do. do.1100

Do. do.900

Engineer1,0000

For travelling expenses2000

Surveyor for Fulham and Hammersmith, Counter’s Creek, and Ranelagh districts3500

Clerk of works (Hammersmith)1500

Do. (Counter’s Creek)1500

Do. (Ranelagh)1500

Inspector of flushing800

Surveyor of eastern and western divisions of Westminster, and of Regent-st. and Holborn divisions3000

Two clerks of works (eastern and western and Regent-street), with a salary of £300 each6000

Two do. (Holborn), with a salary of £150 each3000

Inspector of flushing800

Surveyor of Finsbury, Tower Hamlets, and Poplar and Blackwall3000

Clerk of works (Finsbury)1500

Inspector of flushing800

Two clerks of works (Tower Hamlets, and Poplar and Blackwall), with a salary of £150 each3000

Two inspectors of flushings with a salary of £80 each1600

One marsh bailiff650

Surveyor of the western districts south of the Thames3000

Do., eastern do.2500

Clerk of works (eastern portion)1640

Two inspectors of flushing, £80 each1600

One wallreeve228

Clerk of works (western portion)1640

Do. do.1500

Two inspectors of flushing, with a salary of £80 each1600

Two engineer’s clerks, with a salary of £150 each3000

One do.1500

One do.1000

One do.800

One by-law clerk1500

Twenty-two flap and sluice keepers892 12

Surveyor (of the surveying and drawing staff)2500

Drawing clerk1500

Two do., with a salary of £130 each2600

Five do., with a salary of £105 each5250

One do.500

Six surveyors, with a salary of £100 each6000

Six chainmen, 18s. a week each2800

Office-keeper and crier (general service)1200

Bailiff, &c.1000

Strong-room keeper800

One messenger700

Two do., £40 each800

Three errand-boys, £32 each960

Housekeeper1500

Yearly total£13,8740

This is called a “reduced” staff, and the reduction of salaries is certainly very considerable.

If we consider the yearly emoluments of tradesmen in businesses requiring no great extent of education or general intelligence, the salaries of the surveyors, clerk of the works, &c., must appear very far from extravagant; and when we consider their responsibility and what may be called their removability, some of the salaries may be pronounced mean; for I think it must be generally admitted by all, except the narrow-minded, who look merely at the immediate outlay as the be-all and the end-all of every expenditure, that if the surveyors, clerks of works, inspectors of flushing, &c., be the best men who could be procured (as they ought to be), or at any rate be thorough masters of their craft, they are rather underpaid than overpaid.

The above statement may be analysed in the following manner:—

£s.£

Chairman1,000

Secretary and 7 clerks18600

Accountant and 5 clerks10150

Clerk of rates and 3 clerks6300

3,505

Engineer and 5 clerks18300

7 surveyors, of surveying and drawing staff, with 6 chainmen and 9 drawing clerks21250

5 district surveyors15000

12 clerks of works22780

9 inspectors of flushing7200

22 flap and sluice keepers892 12

Bailiff, marsh-bailiff, and wallreeve1878

9,533

Office keeper, strong-room keeper, and housekeeper3500

3 messengers and 3 errand-boys2460

596

£14,634

The cost of rent, taxes, stationery, and office incidentals, is now 4440l., which makes the total yearly outlay amount to upwards of 19,000l. The annual cost of the staff in the secretary’s department is said to have been reduced from 3962l. 4s. to 3605l.; in the engineers’ department from 16,437l. 3s. to 8973l. 16s. In the general service there has been an increase from 606l. 16s. to 696l.

A deputation who waited lately upon Lord John Russell is said to have declared the expenses of the Commissioners’ office to be at the rate of from 25 to 30 per cent. on the amount of rate collected. The sum collected in the year 1850 averaged 89,341l. The cost of management in that year was 23,465l.; this, it will be seen, is 26 per cent of the gross income.

The annual statement of the receipts and expenditure under the Commission for the year 1851 has just been published, but not officially; from this it appears that in February, 1851—

£s.d.

The balance of cash in hand was5,750911

The total receipts during the year have amounted to129,00009

Making together134,750 108

The expenditure, as returned under the general head, is—

For work£95,539 193

(This item includes the cost of supervision and compensation for damages.)

The cost of surveys has been6,332 199

Management16,43092

Loans10,442 102

Contingencies2,74911

Total payments131,494 195

Balance in hand£3,355 113

As an instance of the mismanagement of the sewers work of the metropolis, it is but right that the subjoined document should be published.

I need not offer any comment on the following “Return to an Address of the Honourable the House of Commons, dated 28th July, 1851,” except that I was told early in January, on good authority, that the matter was now worse than it was when reported as follows:—

“Privy Gardens, Whitehall Yard, Scotland Yard, &c., Public Sewer.

“With reference to the two orders of the Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Woods, &c., I have the honour to state that, since the 15th of November (when I last sent in a memorandum), I have frequently visited the several Crown buildings affected by the building of the main public sewer for draining Westminster; viz., the Earl of Malmsbury’s, the Exchequer Bill Office, the United Service Museum, Lord Liverpool’s, Mr. Vertue’s, Mr. Alderman Thompson’s, and Messrs. Dalgleish’s.

“All these buildings have been more or less damaged by the construction of the sewer; the Exchequer Bill Office, the United Service Museum, and Mr. Vertue’s, in a manner that, in my opinion, can never be effectually repaired.

“At Lord Malmsbury’s, the party wall next to the Exchequer Bill Office has moved, as shown by some cracks in the staircase; but for this house it may not be necessary to require more to be done than stopping and painting.

“At the Exchequer Bill Office, the old Gothic groins have been cracked in several places, and several settlements have taken place in the walls over and near to where the sewer passes under the building. The shores are still standing against this building, but it would now be better to remove them; the cracks in the groins and walls can never be repaired to render the building so substantial as it was before. The cracks in the basement still from month to month show a very slight movement; those in the staircase and roof also appear to increase. As respects this building, I would submit to the Commissioners of Woods that it would not be advisable to permit the surveyors of the Commissioners of Sewers to enter and make only a surface repair of plaster and paint; but I would suggest that a careful survey be made by surveyors appointed respectively by the Board of Woods and the Commissioners of Sewers, and that a thorough repair of the building be made (so far as it is susceptible of repair), under the Board of Woods; the Commissioners of Sewers paying such proportion of the cost thereof as may fairly be deemed to have been occasioned by their proceedings.

“At the United Service Museum, the settlements on the side next the sewer appear to me very serious.

“The house occupied by Lord Liverpool, as also Mr. Vertue’s house, of which his Lordship is Crown lessee, were both affected, the former to some extent, but not seriously; of the latter, the west front sunk, and pulled over the whole house with it; but as respects these two houses the interference of the Board is, I believe, unnecessary, Mr. Hardwicke (one of the Sewer Commissioners) having, as architect for Lord Liverpool, caused both to be repaired.

“A like repair has also been made in the kitchen offices of Mr. Alderman Thompson’s house, where alone any cracks appeared.

“At Messrs. Dalgleish and Taylor’s, very serious injury has been done to both their buildings and their trade. The Commissioners of Sewers have a steam-engine still at work on those premises, and have not yet concluded their operations there. Some of the sheds which entirely fell down they have rebuilt; and others, which appear in a very defective if not dangerous state, it is understood they propose to repair or rebuild; but as eventually Messrs. Dalgleish and Taylor will have a very heavy claim against them for interference with business, and as the extent of damage to the buildings which has been done, or may hereafter arise, cannot at present be fully ascertained, it would probably be advisable to postpone this part of the subject, giving notice, however, to the Commissioners of Sewers that it must hereafter come under consideration.

(Signed) “James Pennethorne.

“10th May, 1851.”

“Sewer, Whitehall Yard, &c.

“Under the order of the Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Woods, &c., of yesterday’s date, endorsed on a letter from Mr. Tonna, I have inspected the United Service Institution in Whitehall Yard, and find most of the cracks have moved.

“The movement, though slight, and not showing immediate danger, is more than I had anticipated would occur within so short a period when I reported on the 10th instant. It tends to confirm the opinion therein given, and shows the necessity for immediate precaution, and for a thorough repair.

(Signed) “James Pennethorne.

“16th May, 1851.

“Seymour, “Charles Gore, {Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Woods, Forests, Land Revenues, Works, and Buildings.

“Office of Woods, &c. “5th August, 1851.”

Of the Sewers Rate.

Having shown the expenditure of the Commission of Sewers, we now come to consider its income.

The funds available for the sewerage and drainage of the several towns throughout the kingdom, are raised by means of a particular property tax, termed the Sewers Rate. This forms part of what are designated the Local Taxes of England and Wales.

Local taxes are of two classes:—

I. Rates raised upon property in defined districts, as parishes, jurisdictions, counties, &c.

II. Tolls, dues, and fees charged for particular services on particular occasions, as turnpike tolls, harbour dues, &c., &c.

The rates or sums raised upon the property lying within a certain circumscribed locality, admit of being subdivided into two orders—

1. The rates of independent districts, or those which, being required for a particular district (as the parish or some equivalent territorial limit), are not only levied within the bounds of that district, but expended for the purposes of it alone; as is the case with the poor rate.

2. The rates of aggregate districts, or those which, though required to be expended for the purposes of a given district (such as the county), are raised in detail in the several inferior districts (such as the various parishes) which compose the larger one, and which contribute the sums thus levied to one common fund; such is the case with the county rate.

But the rates of independent districts may be further distinguished into two orders, viz.—

i. Those which are levied on the same classes of persons, the same kinds of property, and the same principles of valuation as the poor rate; such are the highway rate, the lighting and watching, and the militia rate among the independent rates; and the police, borough, and county rates among the aggregate rates.

ii. Those which are not levied on the same basis as the poor rate. The church and sewers rates are familiar instances of this peculiarity.

The sewers rate, then, is a local tax required for an independent rather than an aggregate district, and is not levied upon the basis of the poor law.

The assessment of the poor rate, for instance, includes tithes of every kind, that of the sewers rate extends to such tithes only as are in the hands of laymen. Again, the sewers rate embraces some incorporeal hereditaments to which the poor rate does not extend; but stock in trade, which of late years has been specially exempted from the poor rate, was never subject to the sewers rate.

A sewers rate, however, was known as early as the sixth year of Henry VI. (1427), though “commissions” were not instituted till the time of Henry VIII. The Act which now regulates the collection of the funds required for the cleansing, building, repairs, and improvements of the sewers, is 4 and 5 Vict. (1841). This statute gives the “Courts” or “Commissions” of Sewers, power “to tax in the gross” in each parish, &c., all lands, &c., within the jurisdiction of such courts, for the requirements of the public sewerage. This impost is not periodically levied, nor at any stated or even regularly recurring term, but “as occasion requires:” perhaps once in two or three years. It is (with some exceptions, which require no notice) what is commonly called “a landlord’s tax” in the metropolis, that is, the sewers-rate collector must be paid by the occupier of the premises, who, on the production of the collector’s receipt, can deduct the amount from his rent. If this arrangement were meant to convey a notion to the public that the sewers tax was a tax on property—on the capitalist who owns, and not on the tenant who merely occupies—it is a shallow device, for every one must know that the more sewers rate a tenant pays for his landlord, the more rent he must pay to him.

The sewers rate is levied according to the rateable value put upon property by the surveyors and assessors appointed by the Commissioners, who may make the rate “by such ways and means, and in such manner and form, as to them may seem most convenient.” It seems a question yet to be determined whether or not there is a right of appeal against the sewers rate, but the general opinion is that there is no appeal. The rate can be mortgaged by the Commissioners if an advance of money is considered desirable. The maximum of 1s. in the pound on the net annual value of the property was fixed by the Act. The Commissioners have also the power to levy a “special rate” on any district not connected with the general system of sewerage, but which it has been resolved should be so connected; also an “improvement rate,” at a maximum of 10 per cent. on the rack rent, “in respect of works they may judge to be of private benefit,” a provision which has called forth some comments.

The metropolitan sewers rate is now collected in nine districts.

There are at present 42 Commissions or Courts of Sewers throughout England and Wales.

The only return which has yet been prepared of the annual amount assessed and collected under the authority of the Metropolitan Commission of Sewers, is one presented to the House of Commons in 1843. It includes the sum assessed in four of the eight districts within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Commissioners from 1831 to 1840 inclusive.

Districts.Total in the 10 years. Annual Average.

£ £

Westminster 235,397 23,539⁷⁄₁₀

Holborn and Finsbury 123,317 12,331⁷⁄₁₀

Tower Hamlets 82,468 8,246⁸⁄₁₀

From East Moulsey, in Surrey, to Ravensbourne, in Kent 175,137 17,513⁷⁄₁₀

616,319 61,631⁹⁄₁₀

The following amounts were returned to Parliament as that expended in two other of the metropolitan districts in the year 1833:—

In the City£17,718²⁄₁₀

Poplar district2,746⁹⁄₁₀

£20,465¹⁄₁₀

Annual average of the four above-mentioned districts61,631⁹⁄₁₀

Yearly total£82,097

The two districts excluded from the above total are the minor ones of St. Katherine and Greenwich, so that altogether the gross sum levied within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Commissioners must have been between 85,000l. and 90,000l.

The annual amount of the local rates in England and Wales is, according to a work on the subject (“The Local Taxes of the United Kingdom”), published “under the direction of the Poor Law Commissioners” in 1846, 8,801,838l.[68] In this large sum only the average annual outlay on the six districts of the sewers of the metropolis is included (82,097l.), and it is stated that not even an approximate average could be arrived at as regards the expenditure on sewers in the country districts. Such absence of statistical knowledge,—and it is a want continually observable—is little creditable to the legislative, executive, and administrative powers of the State.

I shall now proceed to show, from the best data at my command, the present outlay on the metropolitan sewers.

According to the present law, the Commissioners are required to submit to Parliament yearly returns of the money collected on account of, and expended in, the sewerage of the metropolis.

I need only state, that in the latest and, indeed, the sole returns upon the subject, the rates in 1845-6-7, under the former separate commissions, were 1d. and 2d. in the pound on land, and from 3d. (Ranelagh and Westminster) to 1s. 10d. (Greenwich) on houses.

The rates made under the combined and consolidated Commissions, from 30th Nov., 1847, to 8th Oct., 1849, were all 6d., excepting the Western division of Westminster sewers, which were 3d., and a part of the Surrey and Kent district, 8d.

The rates under the present Metropolitan Commission, from 8th October, 1849, to 31st July, 1851, are all 6d., with a similar exception in Surrey and Kent. The following are the only further returns bearing immediately on the subject:—

RETURN OF THE PERCENTAGE ON THE TOTAL RATEABLE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY ASSESSED, to which the Rates collected under the separate Commissions, between January, 1845, and November, 1847, amounted; Similar Return as to the combined and consolidated Commissions, from November, 1847, to October, 1849; and as to the present Commission, from October, 1849, to July 31, 1851.

Total Rateable Annual Value of the Districts on November 30, 1847, and October 8, 1849, and July 31, 1851, respectively.Average Amount collected for One Year.Amount of the Percentage of the Rates collected on the Rateable Annual Value.

£s.d.£s.d.£s.d.

Under the old separate Commissions of Sewers, between January, 1845, and November 30, 18476,683,8960081,738 110145 or 2¾d. ·72 in the pound per annum.

Under the combined and consolidated Commissions, from November 30, 1847, to October 8, 1849 (including first Metropolitan Commission)7,128,1110067,7071630 18 11¾ or 2¼d. ·11 in the pound per annum.

Under the present Metropolitan Commission of Sewers, from October 8, 1849, to July 21, 18518,135,090[69] 0089,341 16011 11 or 2½d. ·52 in the pound per annum.

8,820,325[70] 00103 or 2¼d. ·72 in the pound per annum.

August, 1851.

THOMAS COGGIN, Clerk of Rates and Collections.

return of the present annual amount of the local rates in England and Wales.

I. RATES.

A. Rates of Independent Districts.

1. On the basis of the poor rate.

The poor rate, including the purposes of—

The workhouse building rate

The survey and valuation rate

Relief of the poor£4,976,093

Other objects567,567

Contributions to county and borough rates (see below).

Jail fees rateunknown

Constables rate

Highway rates1,312,812

Lighting and watching rateunknown

Militia ratenot needed

2. Not on the basis of the poor rate.

Church rates506,812

Sewers rate—

General sewers tax—

In the metropolis82,097

In the rest of the countryunknown

Drainage and inclosure ratesunknown

Inclosure rate

Regulated pasture rate

B. Rates of Aggregate Districts.

County ratesContributed from the poor rate.1,356,457

Hundred rate

Borough rates

Total rates of England and Wales£8,801,834

The amount of the taxation in the shape of tolls, dues, and fees is as follows:—

II. TOLLS, DUES, AND FEES.

Turnpike tolls£1,348,085

Borough tolls and dues£172,911

City of London205,100

378,011

Light dues257,776

Port dues554,645

Church dues and feesunknown

Marriage fees

Registration fees

Justiciary fees—

Clerks of the Peace£11,057

Justices’ clerks57,668

68,725

Total tolls, dues, and fees of England and Wales£2,607,241

The subjoined, then adds the same work, founded on the preceding details, may be regarded as exhibiting an approximate estimate of the present amount of the local taxes in England and Wales, being, however, obviously below the actual total.

Rates£8,801,838

Tolls, dues, and fees2,607,241

£11,409,079

“The annual amount of the local taxation of England and Wales may at the present time be stated, in round numbers, at not less than £12,000,000;” or we may say that the local taxation of the country is one-fourth of the amount of the general taxation.

RETURN OF THE COST OF MANAGEMENT PER ANNUM ON THE TOTAL RATEABLE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE DISTRICTS.

YEARS.Total Rateable Annual Value of the Districts.Cost of Management per Annum.Rate per Cent. per Annum of Cost of Management on the Rateable Annual Value of the Districts.

£s. d.£s. d.£s. d.

18456,320,3310018,5914305 10½

18466,423,9090018,09751057½

18476,683,8960024,371 169073½

18486,783,1110020,0087 1005 10¾

18498,077,5910020,0057604 11¼

18508,791,9670023,465 187054

August 7, 1851.

G. S. HATTON, Accountant.

Of the Cleansing of the Sewers—Ventilation.

There are two modes of purifying the sewers; the one consists in removing the foul air, the other in removing the solid deposits. I shall deal first with that mode of purification which consists in the mechanical removal or chemical decomposition of the noxious gases engendered within the sewers.

This is what is termed the Ventilation of the Sewers, and forms a very important branch of the inquiry into the character and working of the underground refuse-channels, for it relates to the risk of explosions and the consequent risk of destruction to men’s lives; while, if the sewer be ill-ventilated, the surrounding atmosphere is often prejudicially affected by the escape of impure air from the subterranean channels.

A survey as to the ventilation, &c., of the sewers was made by Mr. Hawkins, Assistant-Surveyor, and Mr. Jenkins, Clerk of the Works. Four examinations took place of sewers; of those in Bloomsbury; those from Tottenham-court-road to Norfolk-street, Strand; from the Guard-room in Buckingham Palace to the Horseferry-road, Millbank; and in Grosvenor-square and the streets adjacent. There were difficulties attending the experiment. From Castle-street to Museum-street there was a drop of 4 feet in the levels, so that the examiners had to advance on their hands and knees, and it was difficult to make observations. In some places in Westminster also the water and silt were knee deep, and the lamps (three were used) splashed all over. In Bloomsbury the sewers gave no token of the presence of any gas, but in the other places its presence was very perceptible, especially in a sewer on the west side of Grosvenor-square, a very low one, in which the gas was ignited within the wire shade of one of the lamps, but without producing any effect beyond that of immediately extinguishing the light. There was also during the route, in the neighbourhood of Sir Henry Meux’s brewery and of an adjoining distillery in Vine-street, a considerable quantity of steam in the sewer, but it had no material effect upon the light.

The examiners came to the conclusion that where there was any liability to an explosion from the presence of carburetted hydrogen, or other causes, the Improved Davy Lamp afforded an almost certain protection.

The attention of the Commissioners seems to have been chiefly given of late, as regards ventilation and indeed general improvement, to the sewers on the Surrey side of the metropolis. Among these a new sewer along Friar-street, running from the Blackfriars to the Southwark-bridge-road, is one of the most noticeable.

Friar-street is one of the smaller off thoroughfares, the character of which is, perhaps, little suspected by those who pass along the open Blackfriars-road. As you turn out of that road to the left hand, advancing from the bridge, almost opposite the Magdalen Hospital, is Friar-street. On its left hand, as you proceed along it, are gas-works, and the factories, or work places, of tradesmen in the soap-boiling, tallow-melting, cat and other gut manufacturing, bone-boiling, and other noisome callings. On the right hand are a series of short and often neatly-built streets, but the majority of them have the look of unmistakable squalor or poverty, though not of the poverty of the industrious. Across Flint-street, Green-street, and other ways, few of them horse thoroughfares, hang, on a fair day, lines of washed clothes to dry. Yellow-looking chemises and petticoats are affixed alongside men’s trowsers and waistcoats; coarse-featured and brazen-looking women, with necks and faces reddened, as if with brick-dust, from exposure to the weather, stand at their doors and beckon to the passers by. Perhaps in no part of the metropolis is there a more marked manifestation of moral obsceneness on the one hand, and physical obsceneness on the other. With the low prostitution of this locality is mixed the low and the bold crime of the metropolis. Some of the off-shoots from Friar-street communicate with places of as nefarious a character. Hackett, whom his newspaper admirers seem to wish to elevate into the fame of a second Jack Sheppard, resided in this quarter. The gang who were last winter repulsed in their burglarious attack on Mr. Holford’s villa in the Regent’s-park favoured the same locality, and were arrested in their old haunts. Public-houses may be seen here and there—houses, perhaps, not greatly discouraged by the police—which are at once the rendezvous and the trap of offenders, for to and from such resorts they can be readily traced. And all over this place of moral degradation extends the stench of offensive manufactures and ill-ventilated sewers. Certainly there is now an improvement, but it is still bad enough.

A Report of the 21st September, 1848, shows that a new sewer, 1500 feet in length, had been “put in along Friar-street, with a fall of 15 inches from the level of the sewer in Blackfriars-road to Suffolk-street. The sewer,” states the Report, “with which it communicates at its upper end in the Blackfriars-road contains nearly 2 feet in depth of soil; it in consequence has silted up to that level with semi-fluid black filth, principally from the factories, of the most poisonous and sickening description, forming an elongated cesspool 1500 feet in length, the filth at its lower end being upwards of 3 feet in depth. Since the building of this sewer, the foul matter so discharged into it has been in a state of decomposition, constantly giving off pestilential and poisonous gases, which have spread into and filled the adjoining sewers; thence they are being drawn into the houses by the house-drains, and into the streets by the street-drains, to such a fearful extent as to infect the whole atmosphere of the neighbourhood, and so to cause the very offensive odour so generally complained of there. Sulphuretted hydrogen is present in these sewers in large quantities, as metals, silver and copper, are attacked and blackened by it; and the smell from it is so sickening as to be almost unbearable.”