Volume 2 — Of the Streets of London. (continued 6)

Brooms, barrows, and shovels, for the use of street-orderlies8680

Charges of contractors and others for removal of street slop, &c.5896

Food, lodging, and wages to street-orderlies, domiciled in Ham-yard, Great Windmill-street, St. James’s980114

Clothing for the street-orderlies1332

Baths provided for do.51510

Sundry expenses for offices, including postage-stamps, &c.92711

Law expenses81010

Builder’s charges for free lavatories in Ham-yard951310

Amount advanced to the late secretary for improving the dwellings of the poor2000

Farther advances made by president on various occasions for the general purposes of the Association59224

7133164

Audited by us, Oct. 19th, 1849, Charles Shepherd Lenton, 33, Leicester-square; and Joseph Child, 43, Leicester-square.”

Street-Orderlies.—City Surveyor’s Report.

I have been favoured with a Report “upon street-cleansing and in reference to the Street-Orderly System,” by the author, Mr. W. Haywood, the Surveyor to the City Commission of Sewers, who has invited my attention to the matter, in consequence of the statements which have appeared on the subject in “London Labour and the London Poor.”

Mr. Haywood, whose tone of argument is courteous and moderate, and who does not scruple to do justice to what he accounts the good points of the street-orderly system, although he condemns it as a whole, gives an account of the earlier scavaging of the city, not differing in any material respect from that which I have already printed. He represents the public ways of the City, which I have stated to be about 50 miles, as “about 51 miles lineal, about 770,157 superficial yards in area.” This area, it appears, comprehends 1000 different places.

In 1845 the area of the carriage-way of the City was estimated at 418,000 square yards, and the footway at 316,000, making a total of 734,000; but since that period new streets have been made and others extensively widened. The precincts of Bridewell, St. Bartholomew, St. James’s, Duke’s-place, Aldgate, and others, have been added to the jurisdiction of the Sewers Commission by Act of Parliament, so that the Surveyor now estimates the area of the carriage-way of the City of London at 441,250 square yards, and the footway at 328,907, making a total of 770,157 square yards.

“I am fully impressed,” observes Mr. Haywood, “with the great importance to a densely-populated city of an efficient cleansing of the public ways. Probably after a perfect system of sewage and drainage (which implies an adequate water supply), and a well-paved surface (which I have always considered to be little inferior in its importance to the former, and which is indispensable to obtaining clean sweeping), good surface cleansing ranks next in its beneficial sanitary influence; and most certainly the comfort gained by all through having public thoroughfares in a high degree of cleanliness is exceedingly great.”

Mr. Haywood expresses his opinion that streets “ordure soddened”—smelling like “stable yards,”—dangerous to the health of the inhabitants—impassable from mud in winter and from dust in summer—and inflicting constant pecuniary loss, “can only exist in an appreciable degree in thoroughfares swept much less frequently” than the streets within the jurisdiction of the City Commissioners of Sewers. In this opinion, however, Mr. Haywood comes into direct collision with the statements put forth by the Board of Health, who have insisted upon the insanitary state of the metropolitan streets, more strongly, perhaps, in their several Reports, than has Mr. Cochrane.

But Mr. Haywood believes that not only are the assertions of the Board of Health as to the unwholesome state of the metropolitan thoroughfares unfounded as regards the city of London, but he asserts that from the daily street-sweeping, “the surface there is maintained in as high an average condition of cleanliness, as the means hitherto adopted will enable to be attained.”

“Nor does this apply,” says Mr. Haywood, “to the main thoroughfares only. In the poorer courts and alleys within the city, where a high degree of cleanliness is, at least, as needful, in a sanitary point of view, as in the larger and wider thoroughfares, the facilities for efficient sweeping are as great, if not greater, than in other portions of your jurisdiction. For many years past the whole of the courts and alleys which carts do not enter, have been paved with flagstone, laid at a good inclination, and presenting an uniform smooth non-absorbent surface: in many of these courts where the habits of the people are cleanly, the scavenger’s broom is almost unneeded for weeks together; in others, where the habit prevails of throwing the refuse of the houses upon the pavements, the daily sweeping is highly essential; but in all these courts the surface presents a condition which renders good clean sweeping a comparatively easy operation, that which is swept away being mostly dry, or nearly so.”

After alluding to the street-orderly principle of scavaging, “to clean and keep clean,” Mr. Haywood observes, “between the ‘street-orderly system’ and the periodical or intermittent sweeping there is this difference, that upon the former system there should be (if it fulfils what it professes) no deposit of any description allowed to remain much longer than a few minutes upon the surface, and that there should be neither mud in the wet weather, nor dust in the dry weather, upon the public ways; whilst, upon the latter system, the deposit necessarily accumulates between the periods of sweeping, commencing as soon as one sweeping has terminated, gradually increasing, and being at its point of extreme accumulation at the period when the next sweeping takes place; the former, then, is, or should be, a system of prevention; the latter, confessedly, but a system of palliation or cure.

“The more frequent the periodical sweeping, therefore, the nearer it approximates in its results to the ‘street-orderly system,’ inasmuch as the accumulations, being frequently removed, must be smaller, and the evils of mud, dust, effluvia, &c., less in proportion.

“Now to fulfil its promise: upon the ‘street-orderly system,’ there should be men both day and night within the streets, who should constantly remove the manure and refuse, and, failing this, if there be only cessation for six hours out of the twenty-four of the ‘continuous cleansing,’ it becomes at once a periodical cleansing but a degree in advance of the daily sweeping, which has been now for years in operation within the city of London.”

This appears to me to be an extreme conclusion:—because the labours of the street-orderly system cease when the great traffic ceases, and when, of course, there is comparatively little or no dirt deposited in the thoroughfares, therefore, says Mr. Haywood, “the City system of cleansing once per day is only a degree behind that system of which the principle is incessant cleansing at such time as the dirtying is incessant.” The two principles are surely as different as light and darkness:—in the one the cleansing is intermittent and the dirt constant; in the other the dirt is intermittent and the cleanliness constant—constant, at least, so long as the causes of impurity are so.

Mr. Haywood, however, states that the Commissioners were so pleased with the appearance of the streets, when cleansed on the street-orderly system, which “was certainly much to be admired,” that they introduced a somewhat similar system, calling their scavagers “daymen,” as they had the care of keeping the streets clean, after a daily morning sweeping by the contractor’s men. They commenced their work at 9 A.M. and ceased at 6 P.M. in the summer months, and at half-past 4 P.M. in the winter. In the summer months 36 daymen were employed on the average; in the winter months, 46. The highest number of scavaging daymen employed on any one day was 63; the lowest was 34. The area cleansed was about 47,000 yards (superficial measure), and with the following results, and the following cost, from June 24, 1846, to the same date, 1847:—

Yards Superficial.

The average area cleansed during the summer months, per man per diem, was1298

Ditto during winter, per man per diem, was1016

The average of both summer and winter months was, per man per diem1139

The cost of the experiment was for daymen (including brooms, barrows, shovels, cartage, &c.)[29]£145018

One Foreman at780

And the total cost of the experiment£152818

“The daily sweeping,” Mr. Haywood says, “which for the previous two years had been established throughout the City, gave at that time very great satisfaction. It was quite true that the streets which the daymen attended to, looked superior to those cleansed only periodically, but the practical value of the difference was considered by many not to be worth the sum of money paid for it. It was also felt that, if it was continued, it should upon principle be extended at least to all streets of similar traffic to those upon which it had been tried; and as, after due consideration, the Commission thought that one daily sweeping was sufficient, both for health and comfort, the day or continuous sweeping was abandoned, and the whole City only received, from that time to the present, the usual daily sweeping.”

The “present” time is shown by the date of Mr. Haywood’s Report, October 13, 1851. The reason assigned for the abandonment of the system of the daymen is peculiar and characteristic. The system of continuous cleansing gave very great satisfaction, although it was but a degree in advance of the once-a-day cleansing. The streets which the daymen attended to “looked,” and of course were, “superior” in cleanliness to those scavaged periodically. It was also felt that the principle should “be extended at least to all streets of similar traffic;” and why was it not so extended? Because, in a word, “it was not worth the money;” though by what standard the value of public cleanliness was calculated, is not mentioned.

The main question, therefore, is, what is the difference in the cost of the two systems, and is the admitted “superior cleanliness” produced by the continuous mode of scavaging, in comparison with that obtained by the intermittent mode, of sufficient public value to warrant the increased expense (if any)—in a word, as the City people say—is it worth the money?

First, as to the comparative cost of the two systems: after a statement of the contracts for the dusting and cleansing of the City (matters I have before treated of) Mr. Haywood, for the purpose of making a comparison of the present City system of scavaging with the street-orderly system, gives the table in the opposite page to show the cost of street cleansing and dusting within the jurisdiction of the City Court of Sewers.

Mr. Haywood then invites attention to the subjoined statement of the National Philanthropic Association, on the occurrence of a demonstration as to the efficiency and economy of the street-orderly system.

“Association for the Promotion of Street Paving, Cleansing, Draining, &c., 20, Vere Street, Oxford Street, January 26th, 1846.

“Approximation to the total Expenses connected with cleansing, as an experiment, certain parts of the City of London, commencing December, 1845, for the period of two months.

£.s.d.

“350 brooms, being an average of 5 brooms for each man231810

For carting9919

For advertising6500

For rent of store-room, 3l. 14s.; Clerks’ salaries, 12l.; Messengers, 5l. 5s.; wooden clogs for men, 2l. 5s. 10d.; expenses of washing wood pavement, 5l.28410

Expenses of barrows24140

Christmas dinner to men, foremen, and superintendents (97)15126

83 men (averaging at 2s. 6d. per day) for 9 weeks573150

4 superintendents at 25s. 4d., foreman at 18s., cart foreman 20s., storekeeper 18s., chief superintendents 2l., for 9 weeks112100

For various small articles, brushes, rakes, &c.3678

Petty expenses of the office, postages, &c., and stationery600

Approximation to the total cost of the expense£98747

Signed, M. Davies, Secretary.”

“I will now,” says Mr. Haywood, “without further present reference to the Report of the Association, proceed to form an estimate of the expenses of the system as they would have been if it had been extended to the whole City, and which estimate will be based upon the information as to the expenses of the system, furnished by the experiment or demonstration made by the Association within your jurisdiction.

TABLE SHOWING THE COST OF STREET CLEANSING AND DUSTING WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY COURT OF SEWERS.

Date.Mode of Contracting, whether Contracts for Dusting and Scavenging were let separately or together.Leading or Principal feature in the Regulations for the Dusting and Cleansing.Sum paid for Scavenging and Dusting, or for Scavenging only during the year.Sum received by Commission for the Sale of Dust when the Contracts were let separately.Total Disbursements by the Commission for Scavenging and Dusting.

£s. d.£s. d.£s. d.

Year ending Michaelmas, 1841separatelyMain streets of largest traffic running east and west cleansed daily, other principal streets every other day, the whole of the remainder of the public ways twice a week; dust to be removed at least twice a week.459060Amounts paid and received are balanced459060

„ 1842separately3633703633170

„ 1843together208446208446

Average per Annum for 3 Years.343626

„ 1844separatelyMain line of streets cleansed daily, other principal streets every other day, and all other place twice in every week; dust to be removed at least twice a week.3826126Amounts paid and received are balanced3826126

„ 1845separately203320283320

Average per Annum of the 2 Years.3329173

„ 1846separatelyDaily cleansing throughout every public way of every description; dust to be removed twice a week.603460135450468010

„ 1847separately8014204455503558170

„ 1848separately7226161328150589766

„ 1849together74861167486116

„ 1850together67791606779160

„ 1851together63281706328170

Average per Annum of the last 6 Years.5788116

Note.—From 24th June, 1846, to 24th June, 1847, the Commission made their own experiment upon the Street-Orderly System—the expenses of such experiment are included in the above amounts. In 1849 the area of the jurisdiction of the Commission was increased by the addition of various precincts under the City of London Sewers’ Act.

“The total cost of the experiment was £987 4s. 7d., and, deducting the charges under the head of advertising, Christmas dinner, and petty cash expenses, and also that for office-rent, clerks, messengers, &c., and assigning £50 as the value of the implements at that time for future use, there is left a balance of £822 7s. 3d. as the clear cost of the experiment.

“The experiment was tried for a period of eight weeks exactly, according to the return made to the Commission by the Superintendent of the Association, but as in the statement of expenses the wages appear to be included for a period of nine weeks, I have assumed nine weeks as the correct figure, and the experiment must therefore have cost a sum of £822 7s. 3d. for that period, or at the rate of about £91 per week.

Squ. Yards

“Now the total area of the carriage-way of the City of London was at that time418,000

“And the area of the foot-way316,000

“Making a total of734,000

“And the area of the carriage-way cleaned by the street-orderlies was30,670

“And the area of the foot-way18,590

“Making a total of49,260

“The total area of foot-way and carriage-way cleansed was therefore 1-15th of the whole of the carriage-way and foot-way of the City; or, taken separately, the carriage-way cleansed was somewhat more than 1-14th of the whole of the City carriage-way.

“It has been seen also that the total cost of cleansing this 1-14th portion of the carriage-way, after deducting all extraneous expenses, was at the rate per week of£91

Or at the rate, per annum, of£4732

“To assign an expenditure in the same proportion for the remaining 13-14ths of the whole carriage-way area of the City would not be just, for, in the first place, allowance must be made, owing to the dirt brought off from the adjacent streets, which, it is assumed, would not have been the case had they also been cleansed upon the street-orderly system; and moreover, as the majority of the streets cleansed were those of large traffic, a larger proportion of labour was needed to them than would have been the case had the experiment been upon any equal area of carriage-way, taken from a district comprehending streets of all sizes and degrees of traffic; but if I assume that the 1-14th portion of the City cleansed represents 1-11th of the whole in the labour needed for cleansing the whole of the City upon the same system, I believe I shall have made a very fair deduction, and shall, if anything, err in favour of the experiment.

“Estimating, therefore, the expense of cleansing the whole of the City carriage-way upon the street-orderly system according to the expenses of the experiment made in 1845-6, and from the data then furnished, it appears that cleansing upon such system would have come to an annual sum of 52,052l.

“It will be seen that there is a remarkable difference between this estimate of 52,052l. per annum and that of 18,000l. per annum estimated by the Association, and given in their Report of the 26th January, 1846; and what is more remarkable is, that my estimate is framed not upon any assumption of my own, but is a dry calculation based upon the very figures of expense furnished by the Association itself, and herein-before recited.”

A second demonstration, carried on in the City by the street-orderlies, is detailed by Mr. Haywood, but as he draws the same conclusions from it, there is no necessity to do other than allude to it here.

According to the above estimate, it certainly must be admitted that the difference between the two accounts is, as Mr. Haywood says, “remarkable”—the one being nearly three times more than the other. But let us, for fairness’ sake, test the cost of cleansing the City thoroughfares upon the continuous plan of scavaging by the figures given in Mr. Haywood’s own report, and see whether the above conclusion is warranted by the facts there stated. From June, 1846, to June, 1847, we have seen that several of the main streets in the City were cleansed continuously throughout the day by what were called “daymen”—that is to say, 47,000 superficial yards of the principal thoroughfares were kept clean (after the daily cleansing of them by the contractor’s men) by a body of men similar in their mode of operation to the street-orderlies, and who removed all the dirt as soon as deposited between the hours of the principal traffic. The cost of this experiment (for such it seems to have been) was, for the twelve months, as we have seen, 1528l. 18s. Now if the expense of cleansing 47,000 superficial yards upon the continuous method was 1529l., then, according to Cocker, 770,157 yards (the total area of the public ways of the City) would cost 25,054l.; and, adding to this 6328l. for the sum paid to the contractors for the daily scavaging, we have only 31,382l. for the gross expense of cleansing the whole of the City thoroughfares once a day by the “regular scavagers,” and keeping them clean afterwards by a body similar to the street-orderlies—a difference of upwards of 20,000l. between the facts and figures of the City Surveyor.

It would appear to me, therefore, that Mr. Haywood has erred, in estimating the probable expense of the street-orderly system of scavaging applied to the City at 52,000l. per annum, for, by his own showing, it actually cost the authorities for the one year when it was tried there, only 1529l. for 47,000 superficial yards, at which rate 770,000 yards could not cost more than 31,500l., and this, even allowing that the same amount of labour would be required for the continuous cleansing of the minor thoroughfares as was needed for the principal ones. That the error is an oversight on the part of the City Surveyor, the whole tone of his Report is sufficient to assure us, for it is at once moderate and candid.

It must, on the other hand, be admitted, that Mr. Haywood is perfectly correct as to the difference between the cost of the “demonstration” of the street-orderly system of cleansing in the City, and the estimated cost of that mode of scavaging when brought into regular operation there; this, however, the year’s experience of the City “daymen” shows, could not possibly exceed 32,000l., and might and probably would be much less, when we take into account the smaller quantity of labour required for the minor thoroughfares—the extra value of the street manure when collected free from mud—the saving in the expense of watering the streets (this not being required under the orderly system)—and the abolition of the daily scavaging, which is included in the sum above cited, but which would be no longer needed were the orderlies employed, such work being performed by them at the commencement of their day’s labours; so that I am disposed to believe, all things considered, that somewhere about 20,000l. per annum might be the gross expense of continuously cleansing the City. Mr. Cochrane estimates it at 18,000l. But whether the admitted superior cleanliness of the streets, and the employment of an extra number of people, will be held by the citizens to be worth the extra money, it is not for me to say. If, however, the increased cleanliness effected by the street-orderlies is to be brought about by a decrease of the wages of the regular scavagers from 16s. to 12s. a week, which is the amount upon which Mr. Cochrane forms his estimate, then I do not hesitate to say the City authorities will be gainers, in the matter of poor-rates at least, by an adherence to the present method of scavaging, paying as they do the best wages, and indeed affording an illustrious example to all the metropolitan parishes, in refusing to grant contracts to any master scavagers but such as consent to deal fairly with the men in their employ. And I do hope and trust, for the sake of the working-men, the City Commissioners of Sewers will, should they decide upon having the City cleansed continuously, make the same requirement of Mr. Cochrane, before they allow his street-orderlies to displace the regular scavagers at present employed there.

Benefits to the community, gained at the expense of “the people,” are really great evils. The street-orderly system is a good one when applied to parishes employing paupers and paying them 1s. 1½d. and a loaf per day, or even nothing, except their food, for their labour. Here it elevates paupers into independent labourers; but, applied to those localities where the highest wages are paid, and there is the greatest regard shown for the welfare of the workmen, it is merely a scurf-system of degrading the independent labourers to the level of paupers, by reducing the wages of the regular scavagers from 16s. to 12s. per week. The avowed object of the street-orderly system is to provide employment for able-bodied men, and so to prevent them becoming a burthen to the parish. But is not a reduction of the scavager’s wages to the extent of 25 per cent. a week, more likely to encourage than to prevent such a result? This is the weak point of the orderly system, and one which gentlemen calling themselves philanthropists should really blush to be parties to.

After all, the opinion to which I am led is this—the street-orderly system is incomparably the best mode of scavaging, and the payment of the men by “honourable” masters the best mode of employing the scavagers. The evils of the scavaging trade appear to me to spring chiefly from the parsimony of the parish authorities—either employing their own paupers without adequate remuneration, or else paying such prices to the contractors as almost necessitates the under-payment of the men in their employ. Were I to fill a volume, this is all that could be said on the matter.

Of the “Jet and Hose” System of Scavaging.

There appears at the present time a bent in the public mind for an improved system of scavagery. Until the ravages of the cholera in 1832, and again in 1848, roused the attention of Government and of the country, men seemed satisfied to dwell in dirty streets, and to congratulate themselves that the public ways were dirtier in the days of their fathers; a feeling or a spirit which has no doubt existed in all cities, from the days of those original scavagers, the vultures and hyenas of Africa and the East, the adjutants of Calcutta, and the hawks—the common glades or kites of this country—and which, we are told, in the days of Henry VIII. used to fly down among the passengers to remove the offal of the butchers and poulterers’ stalls in the metropolitan markets, and in consideration of which services it was forbidden to kill them—down to the mechanical sweeping of the streets of London, and even to Mr. Cochrane’s excellent street-orderlies.

Besides the plan suggested by Mr. Cochrane, whose orderlies cleanse the streets without wetting, and consequently without dirtying, the surface by the use of the watering-cart, there is the opposite method proposed by Mr. Lee, of Sheffield, and other gentlemen, who recommend street-cleansing by the hose and jet, that is to say, by flushing the streets with water at a high pressure, as the sewers are now flushed; and so, by washing rather than sweeping the dirt of the streets into the sewers, through the momentum of the stream of water, dispensing altogether with the scavager’s broom, shovel, and cart.

In order to complete this account of the scavaging of the streets of London, I must, in conclusion, say a few words on this method, advocated as it is by the Board of Health, and sanctioned by scientific men. By the application of a hose, with a jet or water pipe attached to a fire-plug, the water being at high pressure, a stream of fluid is projected along the street’s surface with force enough to wash away all before it into the sewers, while by the same apparatus it can be thrown over the fronts of the houses. This mode of street-cleansing prevails in some American cities, especially in Philadelphia, where the principal thoroughfares are said to be kept admirably clean by it; while the fronts of the houses are as bright as those in the towns of Holland, where they are washed, not by mechanical appliances, but by water thrown over them out of scoops by hand labour—one of the instances of the minute and indefatigable industry of the Dutch.

It is stated in one of the Reports of the Board of Health, that “unless cleansing be general and simultaneous, much of the dirt of one district is carried by traffic into another. By the subdivision of the metropolis into small districts, the duty of cleansing the public carriage-way is thrown upon a number of obscure and irresponsible authorities; while the duty of cleansing the public footways, which are no less important, are charged upon multitudes of private individuals.” [The grammar is the Board of Health’s grammar.] “It is a false pecuniary economy, in the case of the poorest inhabitants of court or alley, who obtain their livelihood by any regular occupation, to charge upon each family the duty of cleansing the footway before their doors. The performance of this service daily, at a rate of 1d. per week per house or per family, would be an economy in soap and clothes to persons the average value of whose time is never less than 2d. per hour.” [This is at the rate of 2s. a day; did this most innocent Board never hear of work yielding 1s. 6d. a week? But the sanitary authorities seem to be as fond as teetotallers of “going to extremes.”]

In another part of the same Report the process and results are described. It is also stated that for the success of this method of street purification the pavement must be good; for “a powerful jet, applied by the hose, would scoop out hollows in unpaved places, and also loosen and remove the stones in those that are badly paved.” As every public place ought to be well-paved, this necessity of new and good pavement is no reasonable objection to the plan, though it certainly admits of a question as to the durability of the roads—the macadamized especially—under this continual soaking. Sir Henry Parnell, the great road authority, speaks of wet as the main destroyer of the highways.

It is stated in the Report, after the mention of experiments having been made by Mr. Lovick, Mr. Hale, and Mr. Lee (Mr. Lee being one of the engineering inspectors of the Board), that

“Mr. Lovick, at the instance of the Metropolitan Commissioners of Sewers, conducted his experiments with such jets as could be obtained from the water companies’ mains in eligible places; but the pressure was low and insufficient. Nevertheless, it appeared that, taking the extra quantity of water required at the actual expense of pumping, the paved surfaces might be washed clean at one-half the price of the scavagers’ manual labour in sweeping. Mr. Lee’s trials were made at Sheffield, with the aid of a more powerful and suitable pressure, and he found that with such pressure as he obtained the cleansing might be effected in one-third the time, and at one-third the usual expense, of the scavagers’ labour of sweeping the surface with the broom.” [This expense varies, and the Board nowhere states at what rate it is computed; the scavagers’ wages varying 100 per cent.]

“The effect of this mode of cleansing in close courts and streets,” it is further stated, “was found to be peculiarly grateful in hot weather. The water was first thrown up and diffused in a thin sheet, it was then applied rapidly to cleansing the surface and the side walls, as well as the pavements.” Mr. Lovick states that the immediate effect of this operation was to lower the temperature, and to produce a sense of freshness, similar to that experienced after a heavy thunder-shower in hot weather. But there is nothing said as to the probable effect of this state of things in winter—a hard frost for instance. The same expedient was resorted to for cooling the yards and outer courts of hospitals, and the shower thrown on the windows of the wards afforded great relief. Mr. Lovick, in his Report on the trial works for cleansing courts, states:—

“The importance of water as an agent in the improvement and preservation of health being in proportion to the unhealthiness or depressed condition of districts, its application to close courts and densely-populated localities, in which a low sanitary condition must obtain, is of primary importance. Having shown the practicability of applying this system (cleansing by jets of water) to the general cleansing of the streets, my further labours have been, and are now, directed to this end.

“For the purpose of ascertaining the effect produced by operations of this nature upon the atmosphere, two courts were selected: Church-passage, New Compton-street, open at both ends, with a carriage-way in the centre, and footway on each side; and Lloyd’s-court, Crown-street, St. Giles’s, a close court, with, at one entrance, a covered passage about 40 feet in length: both courts were in a very filthy condition; in Church-passage there were dead decaying cats and fish, with offal, straw, and refuse scattered over the surface; at one end an entrance to a private yard was used as a urinal; in every part there were most offensive smells.

“Lloyd’s-court was in a somewhat similar condition, the covered entrance being used as a general urinal, presenting a disgusting appearance; the whole atmosphere of the court was loaded with highly-offensive effluvia; in the covered entrance this was more particularly discernible.

“The property of water, as an absorbent, was rendered strikingly apparent in the immediate and marked effects of its application, a purity and freshness remarkably contrasted to the former close and foul condition prevailing throughout. A test of this, striking and unexpected, was the change at different periods in the relative condition of atmosphere of the courts and of the contiguous streets. In their ordinary condition, as might have been expected, the atmosphere was purer in the streets than in the courts; it was to be inferred that the cleansing would have more nearly assimilated these conditions. This was not only the case, but it was found to have effected a complete change; the atmosphere of the courts at the close of the operations being far fresher and purer than the atmosphere of the streets. The effect produced was in every respect satisfactory and complete; and was the theme of conversation with the lookers-on, and with the men who conducted the operations.

“The expense of these operations, including water, would be, for—

“Church-passage (time, five minutes), 1½d.

“Lloyd’s-court (time, ten minutes), 3¼d.

“Mr. Hale, another officer, gave a similar statement.”

Other experiments are thus detailed:—

“Lascelles-court, Broad-street, St. Giles’s. This court was pointed out to me as one of the worst in London. Before cleansing it smelt intolerable,” [sic] “and looked disgusting. Besides an abundance of ordinary filth arising from the exposure of refuse, the surface of the court contained heaps of human excrement, there being only one privy to the whole court, and that not in a state to be publicly used.... The cleansing operations were commenced by sprinkling the court with deodorising fluid, mixed with 20 times its volume of water; a great change, from a very pungent odour to an imperceptible smell, was immediately effected; after which the refuse of the court was washed away, and the pavement thoroughly cleansed by the hose and jet; and now this place, which before was in a state almost indescribable, presented an appearance of comparative comfort and respectability.”

It is stated as the result of another experiment in “an ordinary wide street with plenty of traffic,” that “water-carts and ordinary rains only create the mud which the jet entirely removes, giving to the pavement the appearance of having been as thoroughly cleansed as the private stone steps in front of the houses.”

With respect to Mr. Lee’s experiments in Sheffield, I find that Messrs. Guest, of Rotherham, are patentees of a tap for the discharge of water at high pressures, and that they had adapted their invention to the purpose of a fire-plug and stand pipe suitable for street-cleansing by the hose and jet. Church-street, one of the principal thoroughfares, was experimentally cleansed by this process: “The carriage-way is from 20 to 24 feet wide, and about 150 yards long. It was washed almost as clean as a house-floor in five minutes.” Mr. Lee expresses his conviction that, by the agency of the hose and jet, every street in that populous borough might be cleansed at about 1s. per annum for each house. “The principal thoroughfares,” he states, “could be thus made perfectly clean, three times every week, before business hours, and the minor streets and lanes twice, or once per week, at later hours in the day, by the agency of an abundant supply of water, at less than half the sum necessary for the cartage alone of an equal quantity of refuse in a solid or semi-fluid condition.”

The highways most frequented in Sheffield constitute about one-half of the whole extent of the streets and roads in the borough, measuring 47 miles. This length, Mr. Lee computes, might be effectually cleansed with the hose and jet, ten miles of it three times a week, 21 miles twice a week, and 16 miles once a week, a total of 88 miles weekly, or 4576 miles yearly. The quantity of Water required would be 3000 gallons a mile, or a yearly total of 13,728,000 gallons. This water might be supplied, Mr. Lee opines, at 1d. per 1000 gallons (57l. 4s. per annum), although the price obtained by the Water-works Company was 6½d. per 1000 gallons (371l. 16s. per annum). “I now proceed,” he says, “to the cost of labour: 4576 miles per annum is equal to 14⅔ miles for each working day, or to six sets of two men cleansing 2½ miles per day each set. To these must be added three horses and carts, and three carters, for the removal of such débris as cannot be washed away and for such parts of the town as cannot be cleansed by this system, making a total of fifteen men. Their wages I would fix at 50l. per annum each. The estimate is as follows:—

£

“Annual interest upon the first cost of hose and pipes, three horses and carts30

Fifteen men’s wages750

Three horses’ provender150

Wear, tear, and depreciation of hose, &c.250

Management and incidentals, say120

£1300.”

The estimate, it will be seen, is based on the supposition that the water supply should be at the public cost, and not a specific charge for the purposes of street-cleansing.

The 47 miles of highway of Sheffield is but three miles less than those of the city of London, the cost of cleansing which is, according to the estimate before given, no less than 18,000l.

The Sheffield account is divested of all calculations as to house-dust and ashes, and the charge for watering-carts; but, taking merely the sum paid to scavaging contractors, and assigning 1000l. (out of the 2485l.), as the proportion of salaries, &c., under the department of scavagery in the management of the City Commissioners, we find that while the expense of street-cleansing by the Sheffield hose and jet was little more than 34l., in London, by the ordinary mode, it was upwards of 140l. per mile, or more than four times as much. The hose and jet system is said to have washed the streets of Sheffield as clean as a house-floor, which could not be said of it in London. The streets of the City, it should also be borne in mind, are now swept daily; Mr. Lee proposes only a periodical cleaning for Sheffield, or once, twice, and thrice a week. Of the cost of the experiments made in London with the hose and jet, in Lascelles-court, &c., nothing is said.

Street-cleansing by the hose and jet is, then, as yet but an experiment. It has not, like the street-orderly mode, been tested continuously or systematically; but the experiments are so curious and sometimes so startling in their results that it was necessary to give a brief account of them here, in order to render this account of the cleansing of the streets of the metropolis as comprehensive as possible. For my own part, I must confess the street-orderly system appears to excel all other modes of scavagery, producing at once the greatest cleanliness with the greatest employment to the poor. Nor am I so convinced as the theoretic and crotchety Board of Health as to the healthfulness of dampness, or the daily evaporation of a sheet of even clean water equal in extent to the entire surface of the London streets. It is certainly doubtful, to say the least, whether so much additional moisture might improve the public health, which the Board are instituted to protect; rain certainly contributes to cleanliness, and yet no one would advocate continued wet weather as a source of general convalescence.

I shall conclude this account of the scavaging of London, with the following brief statement as to the mode in which these matters are conducted abroad.

In Paris, where our system of parochial legislation and management is unknown, the scavaging of the streets—so frequently matters of private speculation with us—is under the immediate direction of the municipality, and the Government publish the returns, as they do of the revenue of their capital from the abattoirs, the interments, and other sources.

In the Moniteur for December 10, 1848, it is stated that the refuse of the streets of Paris sells for 500,500 francs (20,020l.), when sold by auction in the mass; and 3,800,000 francs (equal to 152,000l.) when, after having lain in the proper receptacles, until fit for manure, it is sold by the cubic foot. In 1823, the streets of Paris were leased for 75,000 francs (3000l.) per annum; in 1831 the value was 166,000 francs (6640l.); and since 1845 the price has risen to the sum first named, viz., 500,500 francs (20,020l.); from which, however, is to be deducted the expense of cleansing, &c. I may add, that the receptacles alluded to are large places provided by Government, where the manure is deposited and left to ferment for twelve or eighteen months.

Of the Cost and Traffic of the Streets of London.

I have, at page 183 of the present volume, given a brief statement of the annual cost attending the keeping of the streets of the metropolis in working order.

The formation of the streets of a capital like London, the busiest in the world—streets traversed daily by what Cowper, even in his day, described as “the ten thousand wheels” of commerce—is an elaborate and costly work.

In my former account I gave an estimate which referred to the amount dispensed weekly in wages for the labour of the workmen engaged in laying down the paved roads of the metropolis. This was at the rate of 100,000l. per week; that is to say, calculating the operation of relaying the streets to occupy one year in every five, there is no less than 5,200,000l. expended in that time among the workpeople so engaged. The sum expended in labour for the continued repairs of the roads, after being so relaid, appears to be about 20,000l. per week[30], or, in round numbers, about 1,000,000l. a year; so that the gross sum annually disbursed to the labourers engaged in the construction of the roads of London would seem to be about 2,250,000l., that is to say, 1,000,000l. for repairing the old roads, and 1,250,000l. per annum for laying down new ones in their place.

It now remains for me to set forth the gross cost of the metropolitan highways, that is to say, the sum annually expended in both labour and materials, as well for relaying as for repairing the roads.

The granite-built streets cost, when relaid, about 11,000l. the mile, of ten yards’ width, which is at the rate of 12s. 6d. the square yard, materials and labour included, the granite (Aberdeen) being 1l. 5s. per ton, and one ton of “seven-inch” being sufficient to cover about three square yards.

The average cost of a macadamized road, materials and labour included, if constructed from the foundation, is about 4400l. per street mile (ten yards wide)—5s. the superficial yard being a fair price for materials and labour.

Wood pavement, on the other hand, costs about 9680l. a mile of ten yards’ width for materials and labour, which is at the rate of 11s. the superficial yard.

The cost of repairs, materials and labour included, is, for granite pavement about 1½d. per square yard, or 100l. the street mile of ten yards wide; for “Macadam” it is from 6d. to 3s. 6d., or an average of 1s. 6d. per superficial yard, which is at the rate of 1320l. the street mile; while the wood pavement costs about the same for repairs as the granite.

The total cost of repairing the streets of London, then, may be taken as follows:—

£

Repairing granite-built streets, per mile of ten yards wide100

Repairing macadamized roads, per street mile1320

Repairing wood pavement, per street mile100

Or, as a total for all London,—

Repairing 400 miles of granite-built streets, at 100l. per mile40,000

Repairing 1350 miles of macadamized streets, at 1320l. per mile1,782,000

Repairing five miles of wood, at 100l. per mile500

£1,822,500

The following, on the other hand, may be taken as the total cost of reconstructing the London streets:—

£

Granite-built streets, per mile ten yards wide11,000

Macadamized streets, per street mile4,400

Wood „ „9,680

Or, as a total for the entire streets and roads of London,—

£

Relaying 400 miles of granite-built streets, at 11,000l. per mile4,400,000

Relaying 1350 miles of macadamized streets, at 4400l. per mile5,940,000

Relaying five miles of wood-built streets, at 9680l.48,400

£10,388,400

But the above refers only to the road, and besides this, there is, as a gentleman to whom I am much indebted for valuable information on the subject, reminds me, the foot paving, granite curb, and granite channel not included. The usual price for paving is 8d. per foot superficial, when laid—granite curb 1s. 7d. per foot run, and granite channel 12s. per square yard.

“Now, presuming that three-fourths of the roads,” says my informant, “have paved footpaths on each side at an average width of six feet exclusive of curb, and that one-half of the macadamized roads have granite channels on each side, and that one-third of all the roads have granite curb on each side; these items for 400 miles of granite road, 1350 macadamized, and 5 miles of wood—together 1755 miles—will therefore amount to

£s.d.

Three-fourths of 1755 miles of streets paved on each side, six feet wide, at 8d. per foot superficial2,779,39200

One-half of 1350 miles of macadamized roads with one foot of granite channel on each side, at 12s. per yard square458,53745

One-third of 1755 miles of road with granite curb on each side, at 1s. 7d. per foot run489,06000

3,726,98945

Cost of constructing 1755 miles of roadway10,388,40000

Total cost of constructing the streets of London£14,115,38945

“Accordingly the original cost of the metropolitan pavements exceeds fourteen millions sterling, and, calculating that this requires renewal every five years, the gross annual expenditure will be at the rate of 2,500,000l. per annum, which, added to 1,822,500l., gives 4,322,500l., or upwards of four millions and a quarter sterling for the entire annual cost of the London roadways.

“From rather extensive experience,” adds my informant, “in building operations, and consequently in making and paying for roads, I am of opinion that the amount I have shown is under rather than above the actual cost.

“In a great many parts of the metropolis the roads are made by the servants of a body of Commissioners appointed for the purpose; and from dear-bought experience I can say they are a public nuisance, and would earnestly caution speculating builders against taking building ground or erecting houses in any place where the roads are under their control. The Commissioners are generally old retired tradesmen, and have very little to occupy their attention, and are often quite ignorant of their duties; I have reason to believe, too, that some of them even use their little authority to gratify their dislike to some poor builder in their district, by meddling and quibbling, and while that is going on the houses which have been erected can neither be let nor sold; so that as the bills given for the materials keep running, the builder, when they fall due, is ruined, for his creditors will not take his unlet houses for their debts, and no one else will purchase them until let, for none will rent them without proper accesses. I feel certain that in those parts where the roads are made by Commissioners three times more builders, in proportion to their number, get into difficulties than in the districts where they are permitted to make the roads themselves.”

The paved ways and roads of London, then, it appears, cost in round numbers 10,000,000l. sterling, and require nearly 2,000,000l. to be expended upon them annually for repairs.

But this is not the sole expense attendant upon the construction of the streets of the metropolis. Frequently, in the formation of new lines of thoroughfare, large masses of property have to be bought up, removed, and new buildings erected at considerable cost. In a return made pursuant to an order of the Court of Common Council, dated 23rd October, 1851, for “An account of all moneys which have been raised for public works executed, buildings erected, or street improvements effected, out of the Coal Duties receivable by the Corporation of London in the character of trustees for administration or otherwise, since the same were made chargeable by Parliament for such purposes in the year 1766,” the following items are given relating to the cost of the formation of new streets and improvements of old ones:—

Street Improvements forming New Thoroughfares.

Amount raised for Public Works, &c.

£.s.d.

Building the bridge across the river Thames, from Blackfriars, in the city of London, to Upper Ground-street, in the county of Surrey, now called Blackfriars Bridge, and forming the avenues thereto, and embanking the north abutment of the said bridge—(Entrusted to the Corporation of the city of London)210,00000

Making a new line of streets from Moorfields, opposite Chiswell-street, towards the east into Bishopsgate-street (now Crown-street and Sun-street), also from the east end of Chiswell-street westward into Barbican—(Corporation of the city of London)16,50000

Making a new street from Crispin-street, near Spitalfields Church, into Bishopsgate-street (now called Union-street), in the city of London and in the county of Middlesex—(Commissioners named in Act 18, George III., c. 78)9,00000

Opening communications between Wapping-street and Ratcliffe-highway, and between Old Gravel-lane and Virginia-street, all in the county of Middlesex—(Commissioners appointed under Act 17, Geo. III., c. 22)1,00000

Formation of Farringdon-street, removal of Fleet-market, and erection of Farringdon-market, in the city of London—(Corporation of the city of London)250,00000

Formation of a new street from the end of Coventry-street to the junction of Newport-street and Long-acre (Cranbourn-street), continuing the line of street from Waterloo Bridge, already completed to Bow-street (Upper Wellington-street), and thence northward into Broad-street, Holborn, and thence to Charlotte-street, Bloomsbury, extending Oxford-street in a direct line through St. Giles’s, so as to communicate with Holborn at or near Southampton-street (New Oxford-street); also widening the northern and southern extremities of Leman-street, Goodman’s-fields, and forming a new street from the northern side of Whitechapel to the front of Spitalfields Church (Commercial-street), and forming a new street from Rosemary-lane to East Smithfield, near to the entrance of the London-docks; also formation of a street from the neighbourhood of the Houses of Parliament towards Buckingham Palace, in the city of Westminster (Victoria-street), all in the county of Middlesex; also formation of a line of new street between Southwark and Westminster Bridges, in the county of Surrey—(Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues)665,00000

Note.—The Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Woods have been authorised to raise further moneys on the credit of the duty of 1d. per ton for further improvements in the neighbourhood of Spitalfields, but the Chamberlain is not officially cognizant of the amount.

Forming a new street from the northern end of Victoria-street, Holborn (formed by the Corporation to Clerkenwell-green, all in the county of Middlesex)—(Clerkenwell Improvement Commissioners)25,00000

Formation of a new line of streets from King William-street, London Bridge, to the south side of St. Paul’s Cathedral, by widening and improving Cannon-street, making a new street from Cannon-street, near Bridge-row, to Queen-street, and another street from the west side of Queen-street, in a direct line to St. Paul’s-churchyard, and widening Queen-street, from the junction of the said new street to Southwark Bridge; also improving Holborn Bridge and Field-lane, and effecting an improvement in Gracechurch-street and Ship Tavern-passage, all in the city of London—(Corporation of the city of London)500,00000

Finishing the new street left incomplete by the Clerkenwell Improvement Commissioners, from the end of Victoria-street, Farringdon-street, to Coppice-row, Clerkenwell, all in the county of Middlesex—(Corporation of the City of London)88,00000

Total cost of forming the above-mentioned new thoroughfares1,764,50000

Improving existing Thoroughfares.

Improving existing approaches, and forming new approaches to new London Bridge, viz., in High-street, Tooley-street, Montague-close, Pepper-alley, Whitehorse-court, Chequer-court, Chaingate, Churchyard-passage, St. Saviour’s churchyard, Carter-lane, Boar’s-head-place, Fryingpan-alley, Green Dragon-court, Joyner-street, Red Lion-street, Counter-street, Three Crown-court, and the east front of the Town Hall, all in the Borough of Southwark; also ground and premises at the north-west foot of London Bridge, Upper Thames-street, Red-cross-wharf, Mault’s-wharf, High Timber-street and Broken-wharf, Swan-passage, Churchyard-alley, site of Fishmonger’s Hall, Great Eastcheap, Little Eastcheap, Star-court, Fish-street-hill, Little Tower-street, Idol-lane, St. Mary-at-hill, Crooked-lane, Miles-lane, Three Tun-alley, Warren-court, Cannon-street, Gracechurch-street, Bell-yard, Martin’s-lane, Nicholas-lane, Clement’s-lane, Abchurch-lane, Sherborne-lane, Swithin’s-lane, Cornhill, Lombard-street, Dove-court, Fox Ordinary-court, Old Post Office Chambers, Mansion-house-street, Princes-street, Coleman-street, Coleman-street-buildings, Moorgate-street, London Wall, Lothbury, Tokenhouse-yard, King’s Arms-yard, Great Bell-alley, Packer’s-court, White’s-alley, Great Swan-alley, Crown-court, George-yard, Red Lion-court, Cateaton-street, Gresham-street, Milk-street, Wood-street, King-street, Basinghall-street, Houndsditch, Lad-lane, Threadneedle-street, Aldgate High-street, and Maiden-lane, all in the City of London—(Corporation of the City of London)1,016,421181

Widening and improving the entrance into London near Temple-bar, improving the Strand and Fleet-street, and formation of Pickett-street, and for making a new street from the east end of Snow-hill to the bottom of Holborn-hill, now called Skinner-street—(Corporation of the City of London)246,30000

Widening and improving Dirty-lane and part of Brick-lane, leading from Whitechapel to Spitalfields, and for paving Dirty-lane, Petticoat-lane, Wentworth-street, Old Montague-street, Chapel-street, Princes-row, &c., all in the county of Middlesex—(Commissioners appointed by the Act 18, Geo. III., c. 80)1,50000

Widening the avenues from the Minories, through Goodman’s-yard into Prescott-street, and through Swan-street and Swan-alley into Mansell-street, and from Whitechapel through Somerset-street into Great Mansell-street, all in the county of Middlesex—(Commissioners named in Act 18, George III., c. 50)1,50000

Total cost of improving the above-mentioned thoroughfares1,265,721131

Paving.

Paving the road from Aldersgate Bars to turnpike in Goswell-street, in the county of Middlesex—(Commissioners Sewers, &c., of the City of London)5,50000

Completing the paving of the town borough of Southwark and certain parts adjacent—(Commissioners for executing Act 6, George III., for paving town and borough of Southwark)4,00000

Total cost of paving the above-mentioned thoroughfares9,50000

Hence the aggregate expense of the preceding improvements has been upwards of 3,000,000l. sterling.

I have now, in order to complete this account of the cost of paving and cleansing the thoroughfares of the metropolis, only to add the following statement as to the traffic of the principal thoroughfares in the city of London, for which I am indebted to Mr. Haywood, the City Surveyor.

By the subjoined Return it will be seen that there are two tides as it were in the daily current of locomotion in the City—the one being at its flood at 11 o’clock A.M., after which it falls gradually till 2 o’clock, when it is at its lowest ebb, and then begins to rise, gradually till 5 o’clock, when it reaches its second flood, and then begins to decline once more. The point of greatest traffic in the City is London-bridge, where the conveyances passing and repassing amount to 13,099 in the course of twelve hours[31]. Of these it would appear, that 9351 consist of one-horse vehicles and equestrians, 3389 of two-horse conveyances, and only 359 of vehicles drawn by more than two horses. The one-horse vehicles would seem to be between two and three times as many as the two-horse, which form about one-fourth of the whole, while those drawn by more than two horses constitute about one-sixtieth of the entire number.

The Return does not mention the state of the weather on the several days and hours at which the observations were made, nor does it tell us whether there was any public event occurring on those days which was likely to swell or diminish the traffic beyond its usual proportions. The table, moreover, it should be remembered, is confined to the observations of only one day in each locality, so that we must be guarded in receiving that which records a mere accidental set of circumstances as an example of the general course of events. It would have been curious to have extended the observations throughout the night, and so have ascertained the difference in the traffic; and also to have noted the decrease in the number of vehicles passing during a continuously wet as well as a showery day. The observations should be further carried out to different seasons, in order to be rendered of the highest value. Mr. Haywood and the City authorities would really be conferring a great boon on the public by so doing.

Of the Rubbish Carters.

The public cleansing trade, I have before said, consists of as many divisions as there are distinct species of refuse to be removed, and these appear to be four. There is the house-refuse, consisting of two different kinds, as (1) the wet house-refuse or “slops,” and “night-soil,” and (2) the dry house-refuse, or dust and soot; and there is the street-refuse, also consisting of two distinct kinds, as (3) the wet street-refuse, or mud and dirt; and (4) the dry street-refuse or “rubbish.”

I now purpose dealing with the labourers engaged in the collection and removal of the last-mentioned kind of refuse.

Technologically there are several varieties of “rubbish,” or rather “dirt,” for such appears to be the generic term, of which “rubbish” is strictly a species. Dirt, according to the understanding among the rubbish-carters, would seem to consist of any solid earthy matter, which is of an useless or refuse character. This dirt the trade divides into two distinct kinds, viz.:—

1. “Soft dirt,” or refuse clay (of which “dry dirt,” or refuse soil or mould, is a variety).

2. “Hard-dirt,” or “hard-core,” consisting of the refuse bricks, chimney-pots, slates, &c., when a house is pulled down, as well as the broken bottles, pans, pots, or crocks, and oyster-shells, &c., which form part of the contents of the dustman’s cart.

The phrase “hard-core”[32] seems strictly to mean all such refuse matter as will admit of being used as the foundation of roads, buildings, &c. “Rubbish,” on the other hand, appears to be limited, by the trade, to “dry dirt;” out of the trade, however, and etymologically speaking, it signifies all such dry and hard refuse matter as is rendered useless by wear and tear[33]. The term dirt, on the other hand, is generally applied to soft refuse matter, and dust to dry refuse matter in a state of minute division, while slops is the generic term for all wet or liquid refuse matter. I shall here restrict the term rubbish to all that dry and hard refuse matter which is the residuum of certain worn-out or “used-up” earthen commodities, as well as the surplus earth which is removed whenever excavations are made, either for the building of houses, the cutting of railways, the levelling of roads, the laying down of pipes or drains, and the sinking of wells.

STREET TRAFFIC.

TABLE SHOWING THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES AND HORSES PASSING THROUGH CERTAIN THOROUGHFARES WITHIN THE CITY OF LONDON, BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 8 A.M. AND 8 P.M., UPON CERTAIN DAYS DURING THE YEAR 1850.

Date.Situation.Hour ending 9 A.M.

Vehicles drawn by

1 Horse and Equestrians.2 Horses.3 Horses or more.

8th July, 1850.Temple Bar Gate2306120A

9th „ „Holborn Hill, by St. Andrew’s Church2506512B

10th „ „Ludgate Hill, by Pilgrim-street2687617C

11th „ „Newgate-street, by Old Bailey2505911D

12th „ „Aldersgate-street, by Fann-street140208E

13th „ „Cheapside, by Foster-lane34511018F

15th „ „Poultry, by Mansion House28710324G

16th „ „Finsbury Pavement, by South-place1856314H

17th „ „Cornhill, by Royal Exchange98567I

18th „ „Threadneedle-street47474J

19th „ „Gracechurch-street, by St. Peter’s-alley202506K

20th „ „Lombard-street, by Birchin-lane121151L

22nd „ „Bishopsgate Within, by Great St. Helen’s194587M

23rd „ „London Bridge51913922N

24th „ „Bishopsgate-street With^t, by City bound^y148514O

25th „ „Aldgate High-street, by ditto3356822P

26th „ „Leadenhall-st., rear of East India House1934513Q

27th „ „Eastcheap, by Philpot-lane2743526R

29th „ „Tower-street, by Mark-lane1322215S

30th „ „Lower Thames-street, by Botolph-lane7972T

31st „ „Blackfriars Bridge2684217U

1st Aug. „Upper Thames-street, rear of Queen-street972815V

2nd „ „Smithfield Bars180167W

3rd „ „Fenchurch-street1752011X

501712566421

Date.Situation.Hour ending 10 A.M.

Vehicles drawn by

1 Horse and Equestrians.2 Horses.3 Horses or more.

8th July, 1850.Temple Bar Gate29219242A

9th „ „Holborn Hill, by St. Andrew’s Church3801666B

10th „ „Ludgate Hill, by Pilgrim-street29017016C

11th „ „Newgate-street, by Old Bailey36015513D

12th „ „Aldersgate-street, by Fann-street1985211E

13th „ „Cheapside, by Foster-lane48330121F

15th „ „Poultry, by Mansion House43731510G

16th „ „Finsbury Pavement, by South-place25212310H

17th „ „Cornhill, by Royal Exchange17217715I

18th „ „Threadneedle-street67771J

19th „ „Gracechurch-street, by St. Peter’s-alley2009923K

20th „ „Lombard-street, by Birchin-lane87282L

22nd „ „Bishopsgate Within, by Great St. Helen’s25314411M

23rd „ „London Bridge74433945N

24th „ „Bishopsgate-street With^t, by City bound^y19712111O

25th „ „Aldgate High-street, by ditto29111120P

26th „ „Leadenhall-st., rear of East India House27214116Q

27th „ „Eastcheap, by Philpot-lane2934013R

29th „ „Tower-street, by Mark-lane180375S

30th „ „Lower Thames-street, by Botolph-lane117103T

31st „ „Blackfriars Bridge2807823U

1st Aug. „Upper Thames-street, rear of Queen-street1724312V

2nd „ „Smithfield Bars206186W

3rd „ „Fenchurch-street198604X

64212997339

Date.Situation.Hour ending 11 A.M.

Vehicles drawn by

1 Horse and Equestrians.2 Horses.3 Horses or more.

8th July, 1850.Temple Bar Gate44823521A

9th „ „Holborn Hill, by St. Andrew’s Church4801819B

10th „ „Ludgate Hill, by Pilgrim-street45426113C

11th „ „Newgate-street, by Old Bailey43318411D

12th „ „Aldersgate-street, by Fann-street1504414E

13th „ „Cheapside, by Foster-lane70338536F

15th „ „Poultry, by Mansion House65439819G

16th „ „Finsbury Pavement, by South-place3301387H

17th „ „Cornhill, by Royal Exchange25221017I

18th „ „Threadneedle-street162973J

19th „ „Gracechurch-street, by St. Peter’s-alley30811318K

20th „ „Lombard-street, by Birchin-lane140124L

22nd „ „Bishopsgate Within, by Great St. Helen’s32316413M

23rd „ „London Bridge95533443N

24th „ „Bishopsgate-street With^t, by City bound^y3101343O

25th „ „Aldgate High-street, by ditto29211510P

26th „ „Leadenhall-st., rear of East India House38819611Q

27th „ „Eastcheap, by Philpot-lane3404612R

29th „ „Tower-street, by Mark-lane2203210S

30th „ „Lower Thames-street, by Botolph-lane153157T

31st „ „Blackfriars Bridge4099910U

1st Aug. „Upper Thames-street, rear of Queen-street1262811V

2nd „ „Smithfield Bars180166W

3rd „ „Fenchurch-street205417X

84153478315

Date.Situation.Hour ending 12 A.M.

Vehicles drawn by

1 Horse and Equestrians.2 Horses.3 Horses or more.

8th July, 1850.Temple Bar Gate50522230A

9th „ „Holborn Hill, by St. Andrew’s Church53015414B

10th „ „Ludgate Hill, by Pilgrim-street4202106C

11th „ „Newgate-street, by Old Bailey3671375D

12th „ „Aldersgate-street, by Fann-street1473613E

13th „ „Cheapside, by Foster-lane76839011F

15th „ „Poultry, by Mansion House69037317G

16th „ „Finsbury Pavement, by South-place2501298H

17th „ „Cornhill, by Royal Exchange2701847I

18th „ „Threadneedle-street160504J

19th „ „Gracechurch-street, by St. Peter’s-alley32017512K

20th „ „Lombard-street, by Birchin-lane17414..L

22nd „ „Bishopsgate Within, by Great St. Helen’s27714310M

23rd „ „London Bridge82027430N

24th „ „Bishopsgate-street With^t, by City bound^y1701097O

25th „ „Aldgate High-street, by ditto28714510P

26th „ „Leadenhall-st., rear of East India House3401505Q

27th „ „Eastcheap, by Philpot-lane3203418R

29th „ „Tower-street, by Mark-lane2203912S

30th „ „Lower Thames-street, by Botolph-lane9078T

31st „ „Blackfriars Bridge3938934U

1st Aug. „Upper Thames-street, rear of Queen-street1604221V

2nd „ „Smithfield Bars254149W

3rd „ „Fenchurch-street298396X

82303159297

Hour ending 1 P.M.Hour ending 2 P.M.Hour ending 3 P.M.Hour ending 4 P.M.

Vehicles drawn byVehicles drawn byVehicles drawn byVehicles drawn by

1 Horse and Equestrians.2 Horses.3 Horses or more.1 Horse and Equestrians.2 Horses.3 Horses or more.1 Horse and Equestrians.2 Horses.3 Horses or more.1 Horse and Equestrians.2 Horses.3 Horses or more.

A4602181341523019550231104962374

B453160104351581337350122701007

C5302563330180440022172882421

D39015693771555390167752520112

E1654091804961503212172407

F6803346664336966533847303397

G6803585595337954832165753305

H2431156223118418410722151284

I2752084253180830518532761723

J160501120322164462157371

K29587103308112360931137512318

L1609..21515222791283201

M2601251116470432011362871405

N77529623765255287932842484530530

O19111242439632859782311031

P3001351024912372601121727412213

Q4151681138517173531581438717210

R340271130028153103820345408

S26026627039152523442262610

T832111008..100153130134

U3657822253651830273103406610

V1603510120319125336160449

W252186232194305209250116

X240458223397220466267546

81323077199744128152107941292320481043065182

Hour ending 1 P.M.Hour ending 2 P.M.

Vehicles drawn byVehicles drawn by

1 Horse and Equestrians.2 Horses.3 Horses or more.1 Horse and Equestrians.2 Horses.3 Horses or more.

A4602181341523019

B4531601043515813

C53025633301804

D39015693771555

E165409180496

F68033466643369

G68035855953379

H24311562231184

I27520842531808

J160501120322

K29587103308112

L1609..215152

M26012511164704

N7752962376525528

O1911124243963

P300135102491237

Q415168113851717

R34027113002815

S2602662703915

T832111008..

U36578222536518

V1603510120319

W252186232194

X240458223397

8132307719974412815210

Hour ending 3 P.M.Hour ending 4 P.M.

Vehicles drawn byVehicles drawn by

1 Horse and Equestrians.2 Horses.3 Horses or more.1 Horse and Equestrians.2 Horses.3 Horses or more.

A550231104962374

B37350122701007

C40022172882421

D390167752520112

E1503212172407

F66533847303397

G54832165753305

H18410722151284

I30518532761723

J164462157371

K360931137512318

L22791283201

M32011362871405

N7932842484530530

O2859782311031

P2601121727412213

Q3531581438717210

R3103820345408

S2523442262610

T100153130134

U30273103406610

V125336160449

W305209250116

X220466267546

7941292320481043065182

Hour ending 5 P.M.Hour ending 6 P.M.Hour ending 7 P.M.Hour ending 8 P.M.

Vehicles drawn byVehicles drawn byVehicles drawn byVehicles drawn by

1 Horse and Equestrians.2 Horses.3 Horses or more.1 Horse and Equestrians.2 Horses.3 Horses or more.1 Horse and Equestrians.2 Horses.3 Horses or more.1 Horse and Equestrians.2 Horses.3 Horses or more.

A4702551343521917329200840519811

B63925125330111461520917219926

C3752359360220433021032142024

D3901775415142633712642501368

E187361218540817544101414611

F67142786453031648231972712129

G565381105053101045534432922994

H340135830015916242142161401013

I2552067242180817717611861401

J1504531574531153037731..

K3021352431011313253796250756

L22320..18026311515..9412..

M38015011320123727012772221203

N97533633970305336802641851025830

O309113830512682031128177993

P248141162761101522010011190963

Q29516653901831529213962601526

R34043152805811230595109163

S230391319534913725294164

T143232100156521434042

U4501031744687153618913265666

V18552162415417139251271139

W30517626520426910914514..

X300577215368193533516281

87273543273806730192566671291117551382426133

Hour ending 5 P.M.Hour ending 6 P.M.

Vehicles drawn byVehicles drawn by

1 Horse and Equestrians.2 Horses.3 Horses or more.1 Horse and Equestrians.2 Horses.3 Horses or more.

A4702551343521917

B639251253301114

C37523593602204

D39017754151426

E1873612185408

F671427864530316

G5653811050531010

H340135830015916

I25520672421808

J150453157453

K3021352431011313

L22320..180263

M380150113201237

N9753363397030533

O30911383051268

P2481411627611015

Q295166539018315

R34043152805811

S2303913195349

T143232100156

U450103174468715

V18552162415417

W305176265204

X300577215368

8727354327380673019256

Hour ending 7 P.M.Hour ending 8 P.M.

Vehicles drawn byVehicles drawn by

1 Horse and Equestrians.2 Horses.3 Horses or more.1 Horse and Equestrians.2 Horses.3 Horses or more.

A329200840519811

B61520917219926

C33021032142024

D33712642501368

E17544101414611

F48231972712129

G45534432922994

H242142161401013

I17717611861401

J1153037731..

K253796250756

L11515..9412..

M27012772221203

N6802641851025830

O2031128177993

P22010011190963

Q29213962601526

R230595109163

S13725294164

T521434042

U3618913265666

V139251271139

W26910914514..

X193533516281

6671291117551382426133

TABLE SHOWING TOTALS OF EVERY DESCRIPTION OF VEHICLE PASSING PER HOUR AND PER DAY OF 12 HOURS THROUGH CERTAIN STREETS WITHIN THE CITY OF LONDON.

Date.Situation.Hours EndingTotal of 12 HoursAverage per Hour.

9 A. M.10 A. M.11 A. M.12 Noon1 P. M.2 P. M.3 P. M.4 P. M.5 P. M.6 P. M.7 P. M.8 P. M.

1850.

July 8Temple Bar Gate3115267047576916647917377386715376147741645

„ 9Holborn-hill, by St. And. Ch.3275526706986236065353779154458413176906575

„ 10Ludgate-hill, by Pilgrim-st.3614767286367895146285316195845434206829569

„ 11Newgate-st., by Old Bailey3205286285095555375647385725634673946375531

„ 12Aldersgate-st., by Fann-st.1682612081962142351942192352332291982590215

„ 13Cheapside by Foster-lane473805112411691020100910071076110696480849211053921

„ 15Poultry, by Mansion House41476210711080104394187591095682580259510274856

„ 16Finsbury-pave., by South-pl2623854753873643452933474834754002444460371

„ 17Cornhill, by Roy. Exchange1613644794614874414934514684303543274916409

„ 18Threadneedle-street981452622142111542121951982051481082150179

„ 19Gracech-st., by St. Pet.-alley2583224395073924234645164614363383314887407

„ 20Lombard-st., by Birchin-la1371171561881692322373042432091301062228185

„ 22Bishopsg.-st., by Gt St. Hel.2594085004303962384394325414504043454842403

„ 23London Bridge680112813321124109410481101118013441308962798130991091

„ 24Bishp.-st. out, by Cy. Bound2033294472863073423903354304393232794110342

„ 25Aldgate High-street by Cy. Bound4254224174424453793894094054013312894754396

„ 26Leadenhall-st., E. I. House2514295954955945635255694665884374185930494

„ 27Eastcheap, by Philpot-lane3353463983723783433683933983492941284102341

„ 29Tower-street, by Mark-lane1692222622712923242902622822381641142890240

„ 30L. Thames-st, by Botolph-la8813017510510510811814716812169461380115

„ 31Blackfriars Bridge3273815185164653363854165705484633375262438

Aug. 1U. Thames-st., rear of Qn.-st140227165223205160164213253312176932331194

„ 2Smithfield Bars2032302022772762553342673282892881593108259

„ 3Fenchurch-street2062622533432932692723273642592495453642303

6576975712208116861140810466110681135112543113429757769712585910488

Date.Situation.Hours Ending

9 A. M.10 A. M.11 A. M.12 Noon1 P. M.2 P. M.

1850.

July 8Temple Bar Gate311526704757691664

„ 9Holborn-hill, by St. And. Ch.327552670698623606

„ 10Ludgate-hill, by Pilgrim-st.361476728636789514

„ 11Newgate-st., by Old Bailey320528628509555537

„ 12Aldersgate-st., by Fann-st.168261208196214235

„ 13Cheapside by Foster-lane4738051124116910201009

„ 15Poultry, by Mansion House414762107110801043941

„ 16Finsbury-pave., by South-pl262385475387364345

„ 17Cornhill, by Roy. Exchange161364479461487441

„ 18Threadneedle-street98145262214211154

„ 19Gracech-st., by St. Pet.-alley258322439507392423

„ 20Lombard-st., by Birchin-la137117156188169232

„ 22Bishopsg.-st., by Gt St. Hel.259408500430396238

„ 23London Bridge68011281332112410941048

„ 24Bishp.-st. out, by Cy. Bound203329447286307342

„ 25Aldgate High-street by Cy. Bound425422417442445379

„ 26Leadenhall-st., E. I. House251429595495594563

„ 27Eastcheap, by Philpot-lane335346398372378343

„ 29Tower-street, by Mark-lane169222262271292324

„ 30L. Thames-st, by Botolph-la88130175105105108

„ 31Blackfriars Bridge327381518516465336

Aug. 1U. Thames-st., rear of Qn.-st140227165223205160

„ 2Smithfield Bars203230202277276255

„ 3Fenchurch-street206262253343293269

6576975712208116861140810466

Date.Situation.Hours EndingTotal of 12 HoursAverage per Hour.

3 P. M.4 P. M.5 P. M.6 P. M.7 P. M.8 P. M.

1850.

July 8Temple Bar Gate7917377386715376147741645

„ 9Holborn-hill, by St. And. Ch.5353779154458413176906575

„ 10Ludgate-hill, by Pilgrim-st.6285316195845434206829569

„ 11Newgate-st., by Old Bailey5647385725634673946375531

„ 12Aldersgate-st., by Fann-st.1942192352332291982590215

„ 13Cheapside by Foster-lane10071076110696480849211053921

„ 15Poultry, by Mansion House87591095682580259510274856

„ 16Finsbury-pave., by South-pl2933474834754002444460371

„ 17Cornhill, by Roy. Exchange4934514684303543274916409

„ 18Threadneedle-street2121951982051481082150179

„ 19Gracech-st., by St. Pet.-alley4645164614363383314887407

„ 20Lombard-st., by Birchin-la2373042432091301062228185

„ 22Bishopsg.-st., by Gt St. Hel.4394325414504043454842403

„ 23London Bridge1101118013441308962798130991091

„ 24Bishp.-st. out, by Cy. Bound3903354304393232794110342

„ 25Aldgate High-street by Cy. Bound3894094054013312894754396

„ 26Leadenhall-st., E. I. House5255694665884374185930494

„ 27Eastcheap, by Philpot-lane3683933983492941284102341

„ 29Tower-street, by Mark-lane2902622822381641142890240

„ 30L. Thames-st, by Botolph-la11814716812169461380115

„ 31Blackfriars Bridge3854165705484633375262438

Aug. 1U. Thames-st., rear of Qn.-st164213253312176932331194

„ 2Smithfield Bars3342673282892881593108259

„ 3Fenchurch-street2723273642592495453642303

110681135112543113429757769712585910488

TABLE SHOWING THE TOTAL NUMBER OF EACH DESCRIPTION OF VEHICLE PASSING THROUGH CERTAIN STREETS WITHIN THE CITY OF LONDON, BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 8 A.M. AND 8 P.M. (12 Hours.)

Date.Situation.Total Number of Vehicles drawn byTotal of the whole.Average Number per Hour.Average of the whole.

1 Horse and Equestrians.2 Horses.3 Horses or more.1 Horse and Equestrians.2 Horses.3 Horses or more.

8th July, 1850.Temple Bar Gate50352498208774141920617645

9th „Holborn Hill, by St. Andrew’s Church49741797135690641414911575

10th „Ludgate Hill, by Pilgrim-street425924838768293542077569

11th „Newgate-street, by Old Bailey448417959663753731498531

12th „Aldersgate-street, by Fann-street199047912125901654010215

13th „Cheapside, by Foster-lane710737941521105359231612921

15th „Poultry, by Mansion House628338691221027452333210856

16th „Finsbury Pavement, by South-place290414589844602421218371

17th „Cornhill, by Royal Exchange276120748149162301727409

18th „Threadneedle-street1536587272150128492179

19th „Gracechurch-st., by St. Peter’s-alley35051223159488729210213407

20th „Lombard-street, by Birchin-lane2019195142228168161185

22nd „Bishopsgate-st., by Great St. Helen’s327014779548422721238403

23rd „London Bridge9351338935913099779282301091

24th „Bishopsgate-st., out, by City Boundy27691273684110301065342

25th „Aldgate High-street, by City Boundy32221378154475426811412396

26th „Leadenhall-street, East India House39701841119593033015310494

27th „Eastcheap, by Philpot-lane348146415741022903813341

29th „Tower-street, by Mark-lane24163691052890201308240

30th „Lower Thames-st., by Botolph-lane118715241138098123115

31st „Blackfriars Bridge413293519552623447816438

1st Aug.Upper Thames-st., rear of Queen-st.175642814723311463512194

2nd „Smithfield Bars2843193723108237166259

3rd „Fenchurch-street3050518743642254436303

883043466928861258597358288924010488

Date.Situation.Total Number of Vehicles drawn byTotal of the whole.

1 Horse and Equestrians.2 Horses.3 Horses or more.

8th July, 1850.Temple Bar Gate503524982087741

9th „Holborn Hill, by St. Andrew’s Church497417971356906

10th „Ludgate Hill, by Pilgrim-street42592483876829

11th „Newgate-street, by Old Bailey44841795966375

12th „Aldersgate-street, by Fann-street19904791212590

13th „Cheapside, by Foster-lane7107379415211053

15th „Poultry, by Mansion House6283386912210274

16th „Finsbury Pavement, by South-place29041458984460

17th „Cornhill, by Royal Exchange27612074814916

18th „Threadneedle-street1536587272150

19th „Gracechurch-st., by St. Peter’s-alley350512231594887

20th „Lombard-street, by Birchin-lane2019195142228

22nd „Bishopsgate-st., by Great St. Helen’s32701477954842

23rd „London Bridge9351338935913099

24th „Bishopsgate-st., out, by City Boundy27691273684110

25th „Aldgate High-street, by City Boundy322213781544754

26th „Leadenhall-street, East India House397018411195930

27th „Eastcheap, by Philpot-lane34814641574102

29th „Tower-street, by Mark-lane24163691052890

30th „Lower Thames-st., by Botolph-lane1187152411380

31st „Blackfriars Bridge41329351955262

1st Aug.Upper Thames-st., rear of Queen-st.17564281472331

2nd „Smithfield Bars2843193723108

3rd „Fenchurch-street3050518743642

88304346692886125859

Date.Situation.Average Number per Hour.Average of the whole.

1 Horse and Equestrians.2 Horses.3 Horses or more.

8th July, 1850.Temple Bar Gate41920617645

9th „Holborn Hill, by St. Andrew’s Church41414911575

10th „Ludgate Hill, by Pilgrim-street3542077569

11th „Newgate-street, by Old Bailey3731498531

12th „Aldersgate-street, by Fann-street1654010215

13th „Cheapside, by Foster-lane59231612921

15th „Poultry, by Mansion House52333210856

16th „Finsbury Pavement, by South-place2421218371

17th „Cornhill, by Royal Exchange2301727409

18th „Threadneedle-street128492179

19th „Gracechurch-st., by St. Peter’s-alley29210213407

20th „Lombard-street, by Birchin-lane168161185

22nd „Bishopsgate-st., by Great St. Helen’s2721238403

23rd „London Bridge779282301091

24th „Bishopsgate-st., out, by City Boundy301065342

25th „Aldgate High-street, by City Boundy26811412396

26th „Leadenhall-street, East India House33015310494

27th „Eastcheap, by Philpot-lane2903813341

29th „Tower-street, by Mark-lane201308240

30th „Lower Thames-st., by Botolph-lane98123115

31st „Blackfriars Bridge3447816438

1st Aug.Upper Thames-st., rear of Queen-st.1463512194

2nd „Smithfield Bars237166259

3rd „Fenchurch-street254436303

7358288924010488

The commodities whose residuum goes to swell the annual supply of rubbish, are generally of an earthy nature. Such commodities as are made of fibrous or textile materials, go, when “used up,” chiefly to form manure if of an animal nature, and to be converted into paper if of a vegetable origin. The refuse materials of our woollen clothes, our old coats and trousers, are either torn to pieces and re-manufactured into shoddy, or become the invigorators of our hop and other plants; whereas those of our linen or cotton garments, our old shirts and petticoats, form the materials of our books and letters; while our old ropes, &c., are converted into either brown paper or oakum. Those commodities, on the other hand, which are made of leathern materials, become, when worn out, the ingredients of the prussiate of potash and other nitrogenised products manufactured by our chemists. Our old wooden commodities, again, are used principally to kindle our fires; while the refuse of our fires themselves, whether the soot which is deposited in the chimney above, or the ashes which fall below, are employed mainly to increase the fertility of our land. Our worn-out metal commodities, on the other hand, are newly melted, and go to form fresh commodities when the metals are of the scarcer kind, as gold, silver, copper, brass, lead, and even iron; and when of the more common kind, as is the case with old tin, and occasionally iron vessels, they either become the ingredients in some of our chemical manufactures, or else when formed of tin are cut up into smaller and inferior commodities. Even the detritus of our streets is used as the soil of our market gardens. All this we have already seen, and we have now to deal more particularly with the refuse of the sole remaining materials, viz., those of an earthy kind, and out of which are made our bricks, our earthenware and porcelain, as well as our glass, plaster, and stone commodities. What becomes of all these materials when the articles made of them are no longer fit for use? The old glass is, like the old metal, re-melted and made into new commodities; some broken bottles are used for the tops of walls as a protection against trespassers; and the old bricks, when sound, are employed again for inferior brick-work; but what becomes of the rest of the earthen materials—the unsound bricks or “bats,” the old plaster and mortar, the refuse slates and tiles and chimney-pots, the broken pans, and dishes, and other crocks—in a word, the potsherds and pansherds[34], as the rubbish-carters call them—what is done with these?

But rubbish, as we have seen, consists not only of refuse earthen commodities, but of refuse earth itself: such as the soil removed during excavations for the foundations of houses, for the cuttings of railways, the levelling of roads, the formation of parks, the laying down of pipes or drains, and the sinking of wells. For each and all of these operations there is necessarily a certain quantity of soil removed, and the question that naturally occurs to the mind is, what is done with it?

There is, moreover, a third kind of rubbish, which, though having an animal origin, consists chiefly of earthy matter, and that is the shells of oysters, and other shell-fish. Whence go they, since these shells are of a comparatively indestructible nature, and thousands of such fish are consumed annually in the metropolis? What, the inquirer asks, becomes of the refuse bony coverings of such fish?

Let us first, however, endeavour to estimate what quantity of each of these three kinds of rubbish is annually produced in London, beginning with the refuse earthen commodities.

There is no published account of the quantity of crockeryware annually manufactured in this country. Mr. McCulloch tells us, “It is estimated, that the value of the various sorts of earthenware produced at the potteries may amount to about 1,700,000l. or 1,800,000l. a year; and that the earthenware produced at Worcester, Derby, and other parts of the country, may amount to about 850,000l. or more, making the whole value of the manufacture 2,550,000l. or 2,650,000l. a year.” What proportion of this quantity may fall to the share of the metropolis, and what proportion of the whole may be annually destroyed, I know of no means of judging. We must therefore go some other way to work in order to arrive at the required information. Now, it has been before shown, that the quantity of “dust,” or dry refuse from houses, annually collected, amounts to 900,000 tons or chaldrons yearly; and I find, on inquiry at the principal “yards,” that the average quantity of Potsherds and broken crockery is at the rate of about half a bushel to every load of dust, or say 1 per cent. out of the entire quantity collected. At other yards, I find the proportion of sherds to be about the same, so that we may fairly assume that the gross quantity of broken earthenware produced in London is in round numbers 9000 loads or tons per annum. The sherds run about 250 pieces to the bushel, and assuming every five of such pieces to be the remains of an entire article, there would be in each bushel the fragments of fifty earthenware vessels; and thus the total quantity of crockeryware destroyed yearly in the metropolis will amount to 18,000,000 vessels.

As to the quantity of refuse bricks, the number annually produced, which is between 1,500,000,000 and 2,000,000,000, will give us no knowledge of the quantity yearly converted into rubbish. In order to arrive at this, we must ascertain the number of houses pulled down in the course of the twelvemonth; and I find, by the Returns of the Registrar-General, that the buildings removed between 1841 and 1851 have been as follows:—

Decrease in the Number of Houses throughout London between 1841 and 1851.

Total Decrease in 10 Years.Annual Average Decrease.

St. Martin’s11611·6

St. James’s, Westminster13013·0

St. Giles’s18118·1

Strand38938·9

Holborn868·6

East London111·1

West London26526·5

London, City of59259·2

Whitechapel2·2

St. Saviour’s, Southwark464·6

St. Olave’s15815·8

Total1976197·6

Thus, then, we perceive that there have been, upon an average, very nearly 200 houses annually pulled down in London within the last ten years, and I find, on inquiry among those who are likely to be the best-informed on such matters, that each house so pulled down will yield from 40 to 50 loads of rubbish; so that, altogether, the quantity of refuse bricks, slates, tiles, chimney-pots, &c., annually produced in London must be no less than 8000 loads.

But the above estimate refers only to those houses which have been pulled down and never rebuilt; so that, in order to arrive at the gross quantity of this kind of rubbish yearly produced in the metropolis, we must add to the preceding amount the quantity accruing from such houses as are pulled down and built up again, or newly fronted and repaired, which are by far the greater number. These, I find, may be estimated at between 5 and 10 per cent. of the gross number of houses in the metropolis. In some quarters (the older parts of London, for instance,) the proportion is much higher, while in the suburbs, or newer districts, it is scarcely half per cent. Each of the houses so new-fronted or repaired may be said to yield, on an average, 10 loads of rubbish, and, at this rate, the yearly quantity of refuse bricks, mortar, &c., proceeding from such a source, will be 150,000 loads per annum; so that the total amount of rubbish produced in London by the demolition and reparation of houses would appear to be about 160,000 loads yearly.

The quantity of refuse oyster shells may easily be found by the number of oysters annually sold in Billingsgate-market. These, from the returns which I obtained from the market salesmen, and printed at p. 63 of the first volume of this work, appear to be, in round numbers, 500,000,000; and, calculating that one-third of this quantity is sent into the country, the total number of shells remaining in the metropolis may be estimated at about 650,000,000. Reckoning, then, that 500 shells go to the bushel (the actual number was found experimentally to be between 525 and 550), and consequently that 20,000 are contained in every load, we may conclude that the gross quantity of refuse oyster shells annually produced in London average somewhere about 30,000 loads. That this is an approximation to the true quantity there can be little doubt, for, on inquiry at one of the largest dust-yards, I was informed by the hill-man that the quantity of oyster-shells collected with the refuse dust from houses in the vicinity of Shoreditch, Whitechapel, and other localities at the east-end of the metropolis, averages 6 bushels to the load of dust; about the west-end, however, half a bushel or a bushel to each load is the average ratio; while from the City there is none, the house “dust” there being free from oyster-shells. In taking one district, however, with another, I am assured that the average may be safely computed at 2 bushels of oyster-shells to every 3 loads of dust; hence, as the gross amount of house-dust is equal to 900,000 tons or loads per annum, the quantity of refuse oyster-shells collected yearly by the dustmen may be taken at 15,000 loads. But, besides these, there is the quantity got rid of by the costermongers, which seldom or never appear in the dust-bins. The costers sell about 124,000,000 oysters per annum, and thus the extra quantity of shells resulting from these means would be about 12,400 loads; so that the gross quantity of refuse oyster-shells actually produced in London may be said to average between 25,000 and 30,000 loads per annum.

There still remains the quantity of refuse earth to be calculated; this may be estimated as follows:—

1. Foundations of Houses.—Each house that is built requires the ground to be excavated from two to three yards deep, the average area of each being about nine yards square. This gives between 160 and 200 cubic yards of earth removed from the foundation of each house. A cubic yard of earth is a load, so that there are between 160 and 200 loads of earth displaced in the building of every new house.

The following statement shows—

The Number of Houses Built throughout London between 1841 and 1851.

Total No. of Houses built in 10 Years.Average No. of Houses built per Year.

West Districts9,624962·4

North Districts13,7781377·8

Central Districts34934·9

East Districts8,343834·3

South Districts14,8071480·7

Total46,9014690·1

Hence, estimating the number of new houses built yearly in the metropolis at 4500, the total quantity of earth removed for the foundations of the buildings throughout London would be 800,000 loads per annum.

2. The Cuttings of Railways.—The railways formed within the area of the metropolis during the last ten years have been—the Great Northern; the Camden Town, and Bow; the West India Docks and Bow; and the North Kent Lines. The extension of the Southampton Railway from Vauxhall to Waterloo-bridge, as well as the Richmond Line, has also been formed within the same period, but for these no cuttings have been made.

The Railway Cuttings made within the area of the Metropolis Proper during the last ten years have been to the following extent:—

Railways.Length of Cutting.Width of Cutting.Depth of Cutting.Quantity of earth Removed.

At top.At bottom.

Miles.Yards.Yards.Yards.Loads.

Great Northern1½121010290,400

Camden Town and Bow1½121010290,400

West India Docks and Bow2151012528,000

North Kent2151012528,000

Hence, the gross quantity of earth removed from railway cuttings within the last ten years has been 1,636,800 loads, or say, in round numbers, 160,000 loads per annum.

3. The Cutting of Roads and Streets.—According to a Return presented to Parliament, there were 200 miles of new streets formed within the metropolitan police district between the years 1839-49; but in the formation of these no earth has been taken away; on the contrary a considerable quantity has been required for their construction. In the case of the lowering of Holborn-hill, that which was removed from the top was used to fill up the hollow.

4. The Formation of Parks.—The only park that has been constructed during the last ten years in the metropolis is Victoria Park, at the east end of the town; but I am informed that, in the course of the works there, no earth was carted away, the soil which was removed from one part being used for the levelling of another.

5. Pipe and Sewer Works.—The earth displaced in the course of these operations is usually put back into the ground whence it was taken, excepting in the formation of some new sewer, and then a certain proportion has to be carted away. Upon inquiry among those who are likely to be best informed, I am assured that 1000 loads may be taken as the quantity carted away in the course of the last year.

6. Well-sinking.—In this there has been but little done. Those who are best informed assure me that within the last ten years no such works of any magnitude have been executed.

The account as to the quantity of rubbish removed in London, then, stands thus:—

Refuse Earthen Materials.Loads per Annum.

Potsherds and Pansherds9,000

Old bricks, tiles, slates, mortar, &c.160,000

Oyster-shells25,000

Refuse Earth.

Foundations of houses800,000

Railway cuttings160,000

Pipe and sewer laying1,000

1,155,000

Thus, then, we perceive that the gross quantity of rubbish that has to be annually removed throughout the metropolis is upwards of 1,000,000 loads per annum.

Now what is done with the vast amount of refuse matter? Whither is it carried? How is it disposed of?

The rubbish from the house building or removing is of no value to the master carter, and is shot gratuitously wherever there is the privilege of shooting it; this privilege, however, is very often usurped. Great quantities used to be shot in what were, until these last eight years, Bishop Bonner’s Fields, but now Victoria Park. At the present time this sort of rubbish is often slily deposited in localities generally known as “the ruins,” being places from which houses, and indeed streets, have been removed, and the sites left bare and vacant.

But the main localities for the deposition of this kind of refuse are in the fields round about the metropolis. Each particular district appears to have its own special “shoot,” as it is called, for rubbish, of which the following are the principal.

Rubbish shoots.

The rubbish of Kensington and Chelsea is shot in the Pottery Grounds and Kensington-fields.

The rubbish of St. George’s Hanover-square, Marylebone, and Paddington, is shot in the fields about Notting-hill and Kilburn.

The rubbish of Westminster, Strand, Holborn, St. Martin’s, St. Giles’s, St. James’s, Westminster, West London, and Southwark, is shot in Cubitt’s fields at Millbank and Westminster improvements.

The rubbish of Hampstead is shot in the fields at back of Haverstock-hill.

The rubbish of Saint Pancras is shot in the Copenhagen-fields.

The rubbish of Islington, Clerkenwell, and St. Luke’s, is shot in the Eagle Wharf-road and Shepherdess-fields.

The rubbish of East London and City is shot in the Haggerstone-fields.

The rubbish of Whitechapel, St. George’s in the East, and Stepney, is shot in Stepney fields.

The rubbish of Hackney, Bethnal-green, and Shoreditch, is shot in the Bonkers-pond, Hackney-road.

The rubbish of Poplar is shot in the fields at back of New Town, Poplar.

The rubbish of Bermondsey is shot in the Bermondsey fields.

The rubbish of Newington, Camberwell, and Lambeth, is shot in Walworth-common and Kennington-fields.

The rubbish of Wandsworth is shot in Potters-hole, Wandsworth-common.

The rubbish of Greenwich and Lewisham is shot in Russia-common, near Lewisham.

The rubbish of Rotherhithe is used for ballast.

The quantity of rubbish annually shot in each of the above-mentioned localities appears to range from 5000 up to as high as 30,000 and 40,000 loads.

Of the earth removed in forming the foundation of new houses, between one-fourth and one-sixth of the whole is used to make the gardens at the back, and the bed of the roads in front of them, while the entire quantity of the soil displaced in the execution of the “cuttings” of railways is carted away in the trucks of the company to form embankments in other places. Hence there would appear to be about from 160,000 to 200,000 loads of refuse bricks, potsherds, pansherds, and oyster-shells, and about 600,000 loads of refuse earth deposited every year in the fields or “shoots” in the vicinity of the metropolis.

The refuse earth displaced in forming the foundations of houses is generally carted away by the builders’ men, so that it is principally the refuse bricks, &c., that the rubbish-carters are engaged in removing; these they usually carry to the shoots already indicated, or to such other localities where the hard core may be needed for forming the foundation of roads, or the rubbish be required for certain other purposes.

The principal use to which the “rubbish” is put is for levelling, when the hollow part of any newly-made road has to be filled up, or garden or lawn ground has to be levelled for a new mansion. Rubbish, at one time, was in demand for the ballasting of small coasting vessels. For such ballasting 2d. a ton has to be paid to the corporation of the Trinity House. This rubbish has been used, but sometimes surreptitiously, for ballast, unmixed with other things. It is, however, light and inferior ballast, and occupies more space than the gravel ballast from the bed of the Thames.

Suppose that a collier requires ballast to the extent of 60 tons; if house rubbish be used it will occupy the hold to a greater height by about 10 inches than would the ballast derived from the bed of the Thames. The Thames ballast is supplied at 1s. a ton; the rubbish-ballast, however, was only 3d. to 6d. a ton, but now it is seldom used unless to mix with manure, which might be considered too wet and soft, and likely to ferment on the voyage to a degree unpleasant even to the mariners used to such freights. The rubbish, I am told, checks the fermentation, and gives consistency to the manure.

I am assured by a tradesman, who ships a considerable quantity of stable manure collected from the different mews of the metropolis, that comparatively little rubbish is now used for ballast (unless in the way I have stated); even for mixing, but a few tons a week are required up and down the river, and perhaps a small quantity from the wharfs on the several canals. Nothing was ever paid for the use of this rubbish as ballast, the carters being well satisfied to have the privilege of shooting it. Two of the principal shoots by the river side were at Bell-wharf, Shadwell, and off Wapping-street. The rubbish of Rotherhithe, it will be seen, is mainly “shot” as ballast.

The “hard-core” is readily got rid of; sometimes it is shot gratuitously (or merely with a small gratuity for beer to the men); but if it have to be carted three or four miles, it is from 2s. 6d. to 3s. a load. This is used for the foundations of houses, the groundwork of roads, and other purposes where a hard substratum is required. The hard-core on a new road is usually about nine inches deep. There are on an average 20 miles of streets, 15 yards wide, formed annually in London. Hence there would be upwards of 100,000 loads of hard-core required for this purpose alone. Where the soil is of a gravelly nature, but little hard rubbish is needed. Oyster-shells did form a much greater portion than they do now of the hard substratum of roads. Eight or nine years ago the costermongers could sell their oyster-shells for 6d. a bushel. Now they cannot, or do not, sell them at all; and the law not only forbids their deposit in any place whatever, but forbids their being scattered in the streets, under a penalty of 5l. But as the same law provides no place where these shells may be deposited, the costermongers are in what one of them described to me as “a quandary.” One man, who with his wife kept two stalls in Tottenham Court-road, one for fish (fresh and dried) and for shell-fish, and the other for fruit and vegetables, told me that he gave “one of those poor long-legged fellows who were neither men nor boys, and who were always starving and hanging about for a two-penny job, two-pence to carry away a hamper-full of shells and get rid of them as he best could. O, where he put them, sir,” said the man, “I don’t know, I wouldn’t know; and I shouldn’t have mentioned it to you, only I saw you last winter and know you’re inquiring for an honest purpose.”

Another costermonger who has a large barrow of oysters and mussels, and sometimes of “wet fish” near King’s-cross, and at the junction of Leather-lane with Back-hill, Hatton-garden, was more communicative: “If you’ll walk on with me, sir,” he said, “I’ll show you where they’re shot. You may mention my name if you like, sir; I don’t care a d—— for the crushers; not a blessed d——.” He accordingly conducted me to a place which seemed adapted for the special purpose. At the foot of Saffron-hill and the adjacent streets runs the Fleet-ditch, now a branch of the common sewers; not covered over as in other parts, but open, noisome, and, as the dark water flows on, throwing up a sickening stench. The ditch is indifferently fenced, so that any one with a little precaution may throw what he pleases into it. “There, sir,” said my companion, “there’s the place where more oyster-shells is thrown than anywhere in London. They’re thrown in in the dark.” Assuredly the great share of blame is not to those who avail themselves of such places for illegal purposes, but to those who leave such filthy receptacles available. The scattered oyster-shells along all the approaches, on both sides, to this part of the open Fleet-ditch, evince the use that is made of it in violation of the law. Many of the costers, however, keep the shells by them till they amount to several bushels, and then give the rubbish-carters a few pence to dispose of them for them.

Some of the costermongers, again, obtain leave to deposit their oyster-shells in the dustmen’s yards, where quantities may be seen whitening the dingy dust-heaps, and a large quantity are collected with the house-dust and ashes, together with the broken crockery from the dust-bins of the several houses. The oyster-shells are carted away with the pansherds, &c., for the purposes I have mentioned.

I now come to deal with the rubbish-carters, that is to say, with the labourers engaged in the removal of the “hard” species of refuse; of which we have seen there are between 160,000 and 200,000 loads annually carted away; the refuse earth, or “soft dirt,” being generally removed by the builders’ men, and the refuse, crockeryware, &c., by the dustmen, when collecting the dust from the “bins” of the several houses.

The master Rubbish-Carters are those who keep carts and horses to be hired for carting away the old materials when houses or walls are pulled down. They are also occasionally engaged in carrying away the soil or rubbish thrown up from the foundations of buildings; the excavations of docks, canals, and sewers; the digging of artesian wells, &c. This seems to comprise what in this carrying or removing trade is accounted “rubbish.”

Perhaps not one of these tradesmen is solely a rubbish-carter, for they are likewise the carters of new materials for the use of builders, such as lime, bricks, stone, gravel, slates, timber, iron-work, chimney-pieces, &c. Some of them are public carmen; licensed carmen if they work, or ply, in the City; but beyond the City boundaries no licence is necessary. This complication perplexes the inquiry, but I purpose to confine it, as much as possible, to the rubbish-carters proper, having defined what may be understood by “rubbish.” These carters are also employed in digging, pick-axing, &c., at the buildings, the rubbish of which they are engaged to remove.

Among the conveyors of rubbish are no distinctions as to the kind. Any of them will one week cart old bricks from a house which has been pulled down, and the next week be busy in removing the soil excavated where the foundations and cellars of a new mansion have been dug.

From inquiries made in each of the different districts of the metropolis, there appear to be from 140 to 150 tradesmen who, with the carting of bricks, lime, and other building commodities, add also that of rubbish-carting. These “masters” among them find employment for 840 labouring men, some of whom I find to have been in the service of the same employer upwards of 20 years.

The Post-Office Directory, under the head of rubbish-carters, gives the names of only 35 of the principal masters, of whom several are marked as scavagers, dust-contractors, nightmen, and road-contractors. The occupation abstract of the census, on the other hand, totally ignores the existence of any such class of workmen, masters as well as operatives. I find, however, by actual visitation and inquiry in each of the metropolitan districts, and thus learning the names of the several masters as well as the number of men in their employment, that there may be said to be, in round numbers, 150 master rubbish-carters, employing among them 840 operatives throughout London.

A large proportion of this number of labouring men, however, are casual hands, who have been taken on when the trade was busy during the summer (which is the “brisk season” of rubbish-cartage), and who are discharged in the slack time; during which period they obtain jobs at dust-carting or scavaging, or some such out-door employment. Among the employers there are scarcely any who are purely rubbish-carters, the large majority consisting of dust and road-contractors, carmen, dairymen, and persons who have two or three horses and carts at their disposal. When a master builder or bricklayer obtains a contract, he hires horses and carts to take away any rubbish which may previously have been deposited. The contract of the King’s Cross Terminus of the Great Northern Railway, for instance, has been undertaken by Mr. W. Jay, the builder; and, not having sufficient conveyances to cart the rubbish away, he has hired horses and carts of others to assist in the removal of it. The same mode is adopted in other parts of the metropolis, where any improvements are going on. The owners of horses and carts let them out to hire at from 7s. for one horse, to 14s. for two per day. If, however, the job be unusually large, the master rubbish-carters often take it by contract themselves.

Although the operative rubbish-carters may be classed among unskilled labourers, they are, perhaps, less miscellaneous, as a body, than other classes of open-air workers. Before they can obtain work of the best description it is necessary that they should have some knowledge of the management of a horse in the drawing of a loaded carriage, or of the way in which the animal should be groomed and tended in the stable. I was told by an experienced carman, that he, or any one with far less than his experience, could in a moment detect, merely by the mode in which a man would put the harness on a horse and yoke him to the cart, whether he was likely to prove a master of his craft in that line or not. My informant had noticed, more especially many years ago, when labour was not so abundantly obtainable as it was last year, that men out of work would offer him their services as carmen even if they had never handled a whip in their lives, as if little more were wanted than to walk by the horse’s side. An experienced carter knows how to ease and direct the animal when heavily burdened, or when the road is rugged; and I am assured by the same informant, that he had known one of his horses more fatigued after traversing a dozen miles with a “yokel” (as he called him), or an incompetent man, than the animal had been after a fifteen miles’ journey with the same load under the care of a careful and judicious driver. This knowledge of the management of a horse is most essential when men are employed to work “single-handed,” or have confided to them singly a horse and cart; when they work in gangs it is not insisted upon, except as regards the “carman,” or the man having charge of the horse or the team.