Chapter XXIX: Appendix (19)

The nuisances which favoured the introduction and spread of the cholera were for the most part evils within the cognizance of the Leets, and could not have existed had their powers been properly exercised, yet so complete was the desuetude of the machinery of these Courts that it appeared nowhere to be thought of as applicable, and the new and special machinery of the Boards of Health were created for the purpose of meeting the pestilence. There are no funds provided by which the common remedy by indictment could now be prosecuted: and since the most offensive and injurious nuisances are those supported by large capital, redress for the private injury is practically available only to persons who can afford to risk large sums in litigation. In one instance in Scotland, where the stream which supplied a village was discoloured and rendered disagreeable to the taste by some dye-works, a gentleman who took up the defence of the villagers, who were mostly his tenants, stated to me that the litigation incurred by an obstinate defence involved an expenditure of no less a sum than 4,000_l._, the whole of which he did not recover, and that from his own experience he was clearly of opinion no one who had not most inflexible determination, as well as ample means, would be warranted in entering upon such a contest. Powerful influence was used to induce him to stay the suit, and he was by persons of his own class regarded as the persecutor of the author of the nuisance.

The complication of various nuisances in some of the larger manufacturing districts has frequently become so great as to put them beyond any existing legal remedy, whether private or public, by placing out of the apparent possibility of distinct technical proof any injury or particular effect arising from any one. An instance of this is stated by Messrs. Paris and Fonblanque, where two indictments were preferred; the one preferred against the proprietor of a Prussian-blue manufactory; the other against a black-ash manufacturer; both of these works were situated in Seward-street, Goswell-street, London. The counsel for the defendant, in his cross-examination of the witnesses for the prosecution of the Prussian-blue maker, drew from them an account of the noisome vapours of the black-ash manufactury; while in the latter trial the same barrister made the witnesses declare the extreme stench of the Prussian-blue manufactory; so that in both cases the defendants obtained a verdict, because in neither case could the witnesses for the Crown unequivocally prove from which of the manufactories the nuisance complained of arose.

_State of the Local Executive Authorities for the Erection and
Maintenance of Drains and other Works for the Protection of the Public
Health._

Having shown the state of the existing local authority for reclaiming the execution of the law, for _causing_ that to be done “which the common good requires,” and those things not to be done which tend “to the annoyance of all the king’s subjects,” I proceed to describe the general state of the executive authority, charged with the _doing_ of so much of these things as is comprehended in town and road drainage; the sewerage for house and street drainage, and the provisions for the surface cleansing of streets.

The extent of the areas to be drained determines arbitrarily the extent of the operations of drainage, whether public or private, which shall combine efficiency and economy. If these areas are occupied by different parties, they cannot be cleared separately at an expense proportioned to the extent cleared. In general they are only to be won by agreement amongst the parties holding the property, to place the operations under the guidance of science; these labours will then be rewarded by production, whilst disease and pestilence, as well as sterility, are the effects of the ignorance and selfish rapacity which impede such union for the common advantage. The early history of the attempts of the separate owners of portions of the tract of country included in the Bedford Level to drain their property separately, is a history of expensive failures, of attempts to get rid of the surplus water only by flooding the lands of neighbours, and scenes of wretched animosities. These continued until the whole tract was put under one strong authority and scientific guidance, when productiveness and health arose as described in the account of the sanitary condition of the Isle of Ely. Had the natural district formed by the geological basin of that level been subdivided for drainage operations into districts co-extensive with districts for municipal, ecclesiastical, or parochial and civil administrative purposes; or had it been divided into districts according to property or occupation; had the commissions charged with the drainage of these subdivisions acted independently by ill-paid and ill-qualified officers, without any competent control, instead of acting on one comprehensive plan in subordination to an engineer of science adequate to its design and execution, vast sums of money might have been spent, and the land would still have remained a pestilential marsh occupied by a miserable population.

The amount of surface-water on those lands made the expediency of enlarged operations obvious, and their necessity pressing. Besides the towns and tracts of country oppressed with surface-water, as described in such evidence as that cited from the sanitary reports from populous districts, the extent of country which is unhealthy as well as comparatively unproductive, from the want of systematic under-drainage, appears to be extensive and immense beyond any conception that could be formed _à priori_, from the more conspicuous instances of enterprize, intelligence, and science manifest amongst the population. What the tract of country belonging to the Bedford Level, so subdivided and inefficiently and expensively managed once was, large urban and rural districts are now found to be in degree. The circumstances which govern what is called the private drainage will illustrate the nature of the administrative obstacles to efficient public drainage, and it is necessary to consider them in connexion, for they are inseparably connected by nature.

Although the larger share of the land-drainage redounds to the pecuniary profit of private individuals, yet it is proved so far to affect, the public health beneficially, and contribute to the productive employment of the labouring classes, and to other general public advantages, that such works fairly come within the description of _publicum in privato_, and as such entitled to collective and legislative care. Drainage appears to be the primary, and in many cases the principal, operation for the efficient construction and economical maintenance of roads. But an efficient system of sewerage, and general town and road-drainage, has an additional value as removing serious impediments to the general land drainage. The following portion of the evidence of _Mr. Roe_ affords an exemplification of the extent to which the private land-drainage is commonly affected by such operations:

“Have you found the sewerage produce any effect in the drainage of the
surrounding land?—Yes, we have found it lower the water in the wells,
often at great distances. For instance, in forming a sewer in the
City-road, we found that it lowered by four feet a well nearly a
quarter of a mile distance. The only remedy we could advise to the
parties was to lower the well: they did so. We afterwards had occasion
to lower the same sewer three feet, when the well was lowered again in
proportion; so that the construction of the sewer, in this instance,
drained an area of 40 or 50 acres on that side, and perhaps further.
The water is sometimes in such quantities, and so strong in the
land-springs, as to require openings to be left in the side of the
sewer for its passages.”

The first obstacles to the general land-drainage have already been adverted to in the small occupancies. To these must be added the want of capital. The legislature has recently given to the owners of life estates the power of charging the inheritance with the contributions to the cost of permanent improvements by drainage. This power does not meet the case of the smaller holdings; and drainage operations to be effectual must, in general, be on a scale too large to be within the habits of thought or action of small owners or occupiers, of varying interests, and wanting confidence in each other to combine, make, or manage immediate outlays for such purposes. But above all these is to be added the circumstance of the power which the possession of a small part of a district gives to one individual, to thwart those operations of the majority which are for the common advantage, and consequently the temptation which the possession of such power gives and almost ensures, of its use to exact unjust and exorbitant conditions. When expressing to a gentleman who has actively promoted improvements in agricultural production in Scotland, my surprise at the large extent of marshy district allowed to continue in a state of comparative sterility, sources of rheumatism, and fevers and other diseases, he directed my attention to the following among other exemplifications:—

About a mile and a half distant, from one of the towns in Scotland, there is a moss about seven miles long, with a small stream running through it, with a fall of about 25 feet. At the outlet of this stream there is an old corn-mill, which yields a rental of about 25_l._ per annum. By the water being dammed up to turn this mill, the whole run is impeded; and the consequent sluggishness of the stream occasions it to be choked up with weeds. Whenever a fall of rain takes place, the banks are overflowed, and not only is every improvement rendered impracticable, but on several harvests as much as 500_l._ worth of hay has been destroyed at a time when a heavy fall of rain has occurred and occasioned an overflow.

It so happens that the proprietor of the mill would himself clearly gain more than the value of the mill from the drainage that would be effected on his own lands by the removal of the dam. The other proprietors, however, offered to him for its removal the full rental that he now derives from the mill. The property is in the hands of a factor, who is ignorant and obstinate, and the offer was refused. Now the land which would be affected beneficially by the removal of the dam, is a tract of seven or eight miles long, with an average width of two miles and a half. The expense of an Act of Parliament, if it were resisted, as it most probably would be, renders an appeal to the legislature valueless. Thus one individual is enabled to exercise a despotic caprice against the health and prosperity of the surrounding population, to inflict an extensive loss of labour and wages on the working man, the loss of produce and profit to the occupiers, the loss of rent to the other owners, and at the same time to inflict on all who may live on the spot, or come within reach of the marsh, the ill health and hazards of disease from the miasma which it emits!

The like despotic powers are found in every district in the way of the public health, as well as of the private advantage.

The passenger who enters Birmingham from the London railway may perceive, just before the terminus, a black sluggish stream, which is the river Rea, made the receptacle of the sewers of the town. _Mr. Hodgson_, and the committee of physicians of that town, state, in their sanitary report, that—

“The stream is sluggish, and the quantity of water which it supplies
is not sufficient to dilute and wash away the refuse which it receives
in passing through the town, and that in hot weather it is
consequently very offensive, and in some situations in these seasons
is covered with a thick scum of decomposing matters; and this filthy
condition of the river near the railway station is a subject of
constant and merited animadversions, and that it requires especial
attention lest it should become a source of disease,” &c.

The fatally dangerous sluggishness of this river is occasioned by the diversion and abstraction of its water to turn a mill, “a fact which will amply account for the deficiency and sluggishness of the current in the very places where the contrary condition is the most wanted.” _Captain Vetch_, who has been engaged in engineering operations in that part of the country which have led him to observe the spot, states that—

“The remedy is as easy as the evil is great; all obstruction being
removed from the course of the brook, and the water restored to its
original bed, the object would be effected; as to the value of the
mill-power which would thus be subverted, it cannot be a matter of
much amount, in a place where coals and steam-engines are so cheap,
and where the constant and regular work of the mill must be an object
of some importance.”

After describing the means of the removal, he states—

“In this manner, and by reserving the whole body of the water of the
Rea for cleansing its own bed, I have no doubt that this main sewer of
Birmingham would become as conspicuous for its wholesome and efficient
action as it now is for the contrary.”

Birmingham presents an example such as indeed is common in most towns, of the stoppage of a main current of air by a private building carried across one end of a main street. The effects likely to result from the obstruction to the invisible current are not dissimilar to those which result from the obstruction to the stream of water, and the cost and difficulty of relief from them are perhaps much greater. _Captain Vetch_ refers, as another example of the condition of many of the towns in respect to these chief streams, as described in the sanitary reports, to the case of Haddington.

“In the town of Haddington a mill-dam crosses the river Tyne in its
passage through the place, and into the mill-pool the main sewer is
discharged with a diminished and sluggish descent; and on occasion of
floods in the river, the water passes up the sewers and occasionally
lays the lowest part of the town under water. It would not be
difficult to direct the main sewer into the bed of the river below the
dam or weir, and by the additional declivity give some current to the
water of the sewer, which, from the pending up of the river at its
present outlet, has rendered it almost stagnant, so much so, that in
hot weather, and where it is not covered over, the exhalations are
very offensive; but was the sewer improved by the alteration
mentioned, still the pooling up of the river for the mill keeps the
lower part of the town damp, and even subjects it to partial
inundations.

“One of the medical officers reports, that when ‘fever has been at any
time prevalent in the town, it has been most so in a portion of it
called the Nungate, lying close by the river, when during the summer
and autumn it is occasionally almost stagnant, and where there is a
considerable decomposition of vegetable matter.’

“Another medical gentleman, speaking of the main sewer, says, ‘this
small burn is a receptacle of the privies and refuse of vegetable
matters from the houses near which it passes; and in those parts where
it is uncovered, it forms an excellent index of the weather; previous
to rain the smell is intolerable.’

“The same gentleman proposes, as a remedy, that another small burn
having a parallel course at a short distance, should be turned into
the sewer to aid the sewerage. From my knowledge of the locality, the
recommendation, I should say, is judicious; but in this manner, though
the supply of water would be increased, the declivity or rather want
of declivity of the sewer would remain the same, and could only be
improved by removing the mill-dam, or directing the sewer into the bed
of the river below it, as already mentioned. Unquestionably from the
penning up of the river, the lower part of the town is at present very
ill drained, and it is somewhat remarkable that it was the first site
in Scotland visited by the Asiatic cholera.

“In reference to the two cases cited, and to others of a similar
nature, it should be remarked, that the vicinities of the nuisances
are chiefly inhabited by the poorer classes, and who, from want of
influence in their own parts, are the more necessarily thrown under
the protection of state regulations.”

It does not appear that any improvements have been suggested to the inhabitants, or any question raised in respect to the compensation to the owners of these obstructions. They are, however, enabled to refuse a liberal compensation for removing from their property, and discontinuing proceedings so injurious by the agency of invisible miasma, that if the miseries were brought about by direct manual or visible operations, it would be deemed the most horrible tyranny. In many, if not in most such cases, the use of the property, with such attendant consequences, would be found to be in contravention of the existing public rights; but the expense and delay and uncertainty of the legal procedure practically sustain such invasions on the surrounding property and on the public health.

The powers of continuing such evils amidst large masses of the population, and against specific representations of the attendant evils, are terrible when the extent of those evils are examined. For example, it is stated in the records of the proceedings before adverted to, with which _Dr. Currie_, of Liverpool, was connected, that,—

“In the beginning of the year 1802, the corporation of Liverpool,
being about to apply to Parliament for powers to improve the streets
and the police of the town, requested the physicians of the infirmary
and dispensary to suggest to them ‘such alterations as might
contribute to the health and comfort of the inhabitants,’ in order
that, where necessary, they might include in the Bill about to be
brought into Parliament the powers requisite to carry such alterations
into effect. The physicians took this request into serious
consideration, and presented a report of considerable extent,
including a view of the causes of the uncommon sickliness of the two
preceding years, and of the measures requisite to prevent its
recurrence, and to remove the frequency of contagion in the
habitations of the poor. To lessen as much as possible the
contamination of the atmosphere, they recommended that lime should be
prevented from being burnt within a certain distance of inhabited
houses; that soaperies, tan-yards, and other offensive manufactories,
should in future be prevented from being established in the town; and
where now established, and authorized by usage, that they should,
whenever practicable, be purchased by the body corporate, and the
space they occupy be converted to other purposes. The same
recommendation they extended to slaughter-houses, and to all other
offensive trades or manufactories. They recommend, that in all cases
where fire-engines, or steam-engines, are necessarily employed in the
town or its vicinity, the burning of smoke should be enforced, as well
as in all other practicable cases where large volumes of smoke are
emitted.

“They pointed out the necessity of enforcing cleanliness in the
streets, to which end an improvement of the pavement was represented
to be essential; and they particularly advised a general review of the
common sewers, and an improvement of their structure, on the
principles of a report on this particular subject addressed by them to
the mayor and magistrates in 1788. They further advised that effectual
provision should be made for draining the grounds within the
liberties, and particularly to the north of the town. ‘Repeated
remonstrances (I quote the words of the report) have been made for the
last twenty years on the collections of standing water, including
filth of every kind, which are suffered to remain in the district
which extends along the termination of the streets from St.
Paul’s-square to Byrom-street, and to which the low fevers which, in
the autumnal months especially, infest these streets, are principally
to be imputed. These remonstrances have been passed over, on the
ground, as we are informed, that the proprietors of the lands will not
agree to the plan necessary for draining them.’”

Some of the most important improvements that might be accomplished in the poorer and most infected districts of the larger towns by pulling down the present tenements and erecting tenements of a superior order, would, there is little doubt, amply repay any large capitalist or single proprietor. In the course of our examination of the most wretched and overcrowded wynds of Glasgow and Edinburgh, we were informed by persons apparently of competent local information that, if they could be purchased at a fair price for the public to be pulled down, there would be a gain in the prevention of the charges of sickness and crime arising from them; and that if they were simply rebuilt on a good plan, the necessary outlay would be repaid by the improved rental from the superior order of tenements. Each flat or story, however, frequently belonged to a different owner, and the property in which the most afflicted classes lived appeared to be extensively subdivided amongst persons of different interests, of different degrees of permanency, and with no power of co-operation, and with little or no capital.

Now the class of persons whose feelings, state of intelligence, and modes of action are displayed in the evidence on the drainage redounding to private profit, are the class from amongst whom are necessarily taken the members of the local boards, to whose uncontrolled direction and choice of officer the structural works essential to the public health are confided.

The natural districts for public drainage are so capriciously subdivided and departed from, as frequently to render economical and efficient drainage impracticable.

The municipal authorities who obtained powers for drainage, only thought of the surface drainage of their own jurisdictions. Some towns are at the bottom of basins and others on elevations, and the operations for effectual drainage must often be commenced at a distance. It is stated by persons of competent skill in drainage, as an example, a town situate on one side of a hill will be drained dry by tapping or opening a spring on the other side. The manifest defect in the areas of operations for drainage is noticed in the report of the Committee of the House of Commons, which in the year 1834 inquired into the administration of the sewers’ rate in the metropolis, where perhaps the most money has been expended in imperfect sewerage and cleansing of any part of the kingdom. They reported that a primary defect of their constitution—

“Is the want of system or combination between the different trusts
which have now, as before observed, each an independent action. The
inconveniences in this are palpable, for where the line of
communication with the Thames is not complete within each district,
the very improvements in the one trust may prove injurious to the
others. It appears by the evidence that a case of this kind occurred
not long ago in the city of Loudon, through which a part of the
Holborn and Finsbury sewerage is conducted to the river. The sewers of
the Holborn and Finsbury division having been greatly improved and
enlarged, the city sewers became inadequate to carry off their
contents, and a number of houses in the vicinity of the river were
inundated after each fall of rain, the contents of their own drains,
in addition to the waters from the high lands of the neighbouring
trust, being actually forced back into their houses from the volume of
water which occupied the main sewer. This has now been remedied at a
great expense to the city of London district, and by dint of much
labour and time; but if anything like combination had existed
previously, the improvements would have been carried on
simultaneously, and the inconvenience would never have occurred.”

The surveyor of the City sewers under the management of the corporation, speaks in a tone of grievance and oppression, that the waters of the county would run into the municipal jurisdiction. Speaking of the formation of a particular sewer, he says,—

“The commissioners under the power of the Act of Parliament carried
the sewer, in the first instance, along their own pavement and for
their own drainage. It was thence continued up to Finsbury-place to
Bunhill-fields, then called Tyndal’s burial-ground, and is so
described in the Act; the county then communicated with it, and sent
their surplus water, or an immense run of it, into that sewer. The
city for its own drainage also built a sewer in Whitecross-street; the
county somehow or other got possession of that, and the water that
runs down Whitecross street is quite overpowering.”

He speaks of some other drains which were formed by the city, and the effects of the waters let in upon them from the county.

“The Commissioners find themselves very much annoyed by the quantity
of water poured in from the county, which water communicates with the
city in Bishopsgate-street, through Shoreditch. * * * The county then
made another sewer, which takes water from the Tower Hamlets, and is
continued up the Kingsland-road, so that a very large portion of that
water has been thrown into that sewer, and annoyed this Irongate sewer
(the only communication with the Thames) very sorely; and the
Commissioners had been put to an enormous expense in rebuilding it,
and that was increased by houses being built over it with very high
stacks of chimneys. In consequence of the immense flood of water that
pours down all those different sewers from the county, the inhabitants
of the city, in the neighbourhood of Moorfields especially, have been
most dreadfully annoyed, so much so that their cellars became useless.

“By the county, you mean the Holborn and Finsbury division?—Yes;
everything out of the boundary of the city. In order to meet the
difficulty for which there was no other cure, the commissioners have
built a sewer for the New London Bridge, which is ten feet by eight
feet at the mouth; they are continuing it up to the new street, eight
feet six inches by seven feet, and it is intended to take it up the
New Road to Moorfields, to continue the sewer along Princes-street and
up that new street; and I confidently expect I shall get from eight to
ten feet additional depth, and that then the whole of Moorfields will
be effectually relieved.

“The necessity for this new sewer of this large dimension, arises from
the large quantity of water which flows in upon you from the
county?—Certainly.

“You conceive yourself on the other side to derive some benefit from
these waters, because they cleanse and scour your sewers down?—Yes, as
far as the direct run goes they do, but beyond that they do an injury
that is incalculable; in this way the water runs right a-head, and an
immense quantity is brought in, it fills it, and the collateral sewers
cannot bear up against it, they are driven back and the sediment is
deposited, and when it falls that is left behind.”

It need scarcely be pointed out that this municipal division had, until they chose to drain, operated as a barrier to all the water described, which was kept back to the injury of the county; to the injury indeed of the health of those merchants and traders, clerks and men of business, the population whose private residences are in the county, and beyond their residences to the injury of the city, in so far as their obstructions to drainage injured the pasturage and land cultivated for the supply of the city.

But a considerable portion of the city was itself imperfectly drained. The chairman was asked,—

“539. Do you conceive there is any large portion of the City left
without deriving direct advantage from the sewerage,—meaning, by
direct advantage, some underground communication with the sewers so as
to carry off the soil of the house?—There is a large part of the City
of London in that state.”

It was stated, as an example, that Cheapside had no sewer. This was accounted for from the circumstance, that the

“whole form of that part of the city is like a tortoise’s back.
Cheapside and Leadenhall-street are the back-bone; and that accounts
for Cheapside, being the highest ground, never having had occasion for
a sewer for the surface drainage; the water all flows northward and
southward, so that accounts for the apparent contradiction of
Cheapside, a main street, having no sewer in it.

“As far as _surface_ drainage is concerned?—Yes; the inhabitants of
Cheapside, generally speaking, have got cesspools: they perforated the
yellow clay or loam and got into the gravel, and whatever is thrown
into the cesspool mixes with the water and the earth: that is for the
benefit of the water-drinkers!”

Thirty old streets in Westminster had no sewers. Other considerable and ancient streets were also without sewers, although the inhabitants contributed to the rates.

Nor does there appear to be any conception as to the objects of the service; and illegal fees, that must operate as exclusions to the poorer inhabitants from the advantages which it is most desirable to confer, were allowed to be exacted by the officers. Thus the chairman of the City Commission was asked,—

“574. Your clerks at the office take no fees?—I cannot say that they
take no fees; there is an ancient fee allowed, that any person who
communicates with the sewer shall pay a guinea; that is divided among
the clerks, the surveyor, and inspector, who see that the
communication is properly made: they pay a guinea for that purpose.

“575. Are your clerks paid by those fees?—No, by fixed salary; the
fees are very trifling, for till lately they did not amount to 100_l._
a-year.

“576. The aggregate of the fees?—Yes, nor to 50_l._ a-year: if a party
applies to communicate with a sewer, and the Commissioners have no
objection, they call upon him to pay the estimate of the surveyor, and
the charges are made at the contract price, and in addition to that
they pay one guinea as a fee.”

In another Commission the surveyor’s fee for the privilege is stated to be one guinea.

Before the Committee _Mr. James Peake_, the surveyor of the Commissioners for the Tower Hamlets, states (Committee on Health of Towns), “that in making a communication to the common sewers, the parties who have to make the drain, besides doing it at their own expense, have to pay 17_s._ 6_d._ for the first three feet of sewer. And they,” the Commissioners of Sewers, “do that for this reason:—if they were not to resort to that measure, the sewers would be destroyed. _Every one would make a hole in the sewer_,” _i. e._, every one would _use_ the sewer.

_Mr. Samuel Byles_, another witness examined before the same Committee, was asked—

“193. You state that a great deal of disease is generated by the want
of ventilation and sewerage; is there any power in the Sewer
Commissioners to oblige the parties inhabiting the district to
communicate with the sewer if they made one?—No; and there is
unfortunately a paradox; there is a penalty on any person
communicating from his house into the common sewer.

“194. If they are assessed to it that is not the case, is it?—Yes; it
appears to be a complete paradox; if privies are known to empty
themselves into the common sewer, the person is liable to a penalty.”

No arrangements are made to bring the effects of the absence of drainage to the knowledge of those bodies for their guidance in the performance of their duties, nor does it appear to enter into their conception that the protection of the public health forms any part of the objects of their service. _Mr. James Peake_, the surveyor of the Commissioners of the Tower Hamlets, was questioned on this point—

“2012. It is stated to the Committee, that ‘in a direct line from
Virginia-row to Shoreditch, a mile in extent, all the lanes, courts,
and alleys in the neighbourhood pour their contents into the centre of
the main street, where they stagnate and putrefy;’ is that the case?—I
perceive by an inspection of the plan that there is no sewer about
Virginia-row; there is none nearer to it than Princes-street.

“2013. It is stated that in some or other of those houses fever is
always prevalent; do you know the district so as to be aware whether
that is the case?—I cannot speak as to the state of the inhabitants; I
know it is very wretched. The whole of this land was excavated for
brick-making, and has been reduced to an unnatural level, so that the
sewers are hardly available. I believe many of those houses have
ditches round their gardens, and flowers and roots and stems are
thrown into the ditches, where they remain and stagnate; we are
working up, and shall be able to get the sewer in some parts five feet
lower than it was.

“2014. It is stated to the Commissioners that in Whitechapel parish,
Essex-street and its numerous courts, as Martin’s-court, Moor’s-court,
Essex-court, Elgar-square, George-yard, and New-court, Crown-court,
Wentworth-street, and many parts of that street, there is no sewer
passes up?—There is none.

“2015. Are the people very much in want of some mode of cleansing in
consequence?—It is the filthiest place which can be imagined.

“2316. Is it thickly inhabited?—Yes, very densely populated.

“2028. Do you not think that the want of such provision is very
injurious to the health of the inhabitants?—I do not think that sewers
have the effect which is attributed to them.

“2029. You disagree with the medical men who think that the neglect of
this underground drainage is prejudicial to the health of the
community?—I cannot see how, if they have a good surface drainage,
they can be improved by an underground drainage, in nine cases out of
ten.

“2064. Do you consider it your duty to alter a sewer, or carry up a
sewer, with reference to the health of the inhabitants?—Certainly not.

“2065. Any alteration in the form of the sewerage, or any change
respecting it, is with reference to property, not with reference to
the health of the inhabitants?- Certainly.”

_Mr. Unwin_, the clerk to the Commissioners of Sewers for the Tower Hamlets, was thus examined before the Committee:—

“1433. Do you know Hare-street-fields?—I do; that is not very densely
populated: there are a number of houses, but very few persons living
in them.

“1434. Do you know that in wet weather a large portion of that
neighbourhood is completely inundated; that in all the houses forming
the square, and in the neighbouring streets, fever is constantly
breaking out, and that the character of the fever in the neighbourhood
has lately been very malignant?—I never heard that before.

“1435. Then if that has occurred in the midst of your district, it is
a matter you never heard of?—Just so.

“1436. Do you know Baker’s-Arms-alley?—That is in the parish of
Hackney; that is in our district; but it is a very open place.

“1437. If it is the fact that there is a narrow court with a dead wall
about two yards from the houses, as high as the houses; that the
principal court is intersected by other courts extremely narrow, in
which it is scarcely possible for air to penetrate close to the dead
wall; that between the wall and the houses there is a gutter, in which
is always present a quantity of stagnant fluid full of all sorts of
putrefying matter, the effluvia from which are most offensive, and the
sense of closeness extreme; that all the houses are dark, gloomy, and
extremely filthy; that at the top of the innermost courts are the
privies, which are open and uncovered, the soil of which is seldom
removed, and the stench of which is abominable; you have not heard of
that?—No, I have not heard of any of those circumstances; I have heard
of very few complaints of fever in the Tower Hamlets.

“1440. Do you not recollect that there are most fearful accounts of
fever prevailing in that district?—No, I had a report sent to me,
which I understood came from Dr. Southwood Smith, and there was a
communication I think from the Secretary of State upon it.”

At the very time that this witness had heard of few complaints of fever in the Tower Hamlets, the Board found themselves compelled, on account of the appalling prevalence of fever amongst the poor resident in that district, to direct the special inquiry by Dr. Arnott, Dr. Kay, and Dr. Southwood Smith, as to the causes of the fever which led to the present extended inquiry. The description given in the question of the narrow court, with the dead wall about two yards from the houses was taken from one of those reports. That self-same court was the Bakers’-Arms alley, named in the preceding question; but instead of being situate, as described by the witness, in the parish of Hackney, two or three miles from the office of the Commissioners of Sewers, it is in Rosemary-lane, distant from that office only the length of a street, and that not a very long one—Leman-street.

On the subject of the escapes of gas from the sewers there is no one point on which medical men are so clearly agreed, as on the connexion of exposure of persons to the miasma from sewers, and of fever as a consequence. It appears that the evils of these escapes, on which several medical men to whose testimony we have alluded gave evidence before the Committee of 1834, may be prevented, and one of them prepared a plan for this purpose. He states that the Commissioners having expressed their doubts as to whether they were justified in trying the experiment at the public expense, he said—

“Very well, gentlemen, I suppose you are quite right there; I will
enter into an undertaking with you to do it at my own expense, to a
limited extent, in any part that the surveyor of the sewers will say
he thinks it will fail; at the worst part that he can point out I will
try it; and moreover, in that undertaking I engaged to replace the
things in _statu quo_ if they failed. I entered into that
understanding, and, as I was given to understand, the parish sent
their bond, with a copy of the request, to the Commissioners. Some
time elapsed and I heard nothing of it, and in fact I thought the
thing was so simple, and as I heard nothing to the contrary, I began
to make inquiries as to getting these traps cast, when one morning the
parish surveyor brought me the model back, with a verbal message,
which was, that ‘whether it would answer or not, it should not be
tried;’ the Commissioners had made up their minds that the stink
should not be kept down.”

The reply made to this before the Committee on behalf of the Commissioners, by one of the officers, was, “The sewers must have vent somewhere; if you stop the vent in the street, it will penetrate into the houses; also the danger from the gas-explosions are continually taking place, and our people are frequently sent to the hospital. Our surveyor can show a specimen of an entire new skin to his hand, and he had an entire new skin to his face, and laid up in a very dangerous state. This was from an explosion in the sewers. This is a danger the Commissioners must of necessity look to.” “The gas always ascends from its lightness. If the air-trap was put at the upper end of the gully-drain, that would be the place where the gas would lodge, and any candle brought near to this outlet into the upper part would occasion an explosion.”

Now it is precisely because “the gas always ascends from its lightness” that men of competent science declare, without reference to the particular plan proposed in this instance, that by means of a shaft or chimney properly placed, private houses as well as the workmen may be relieved from the dangers of the escapes of this gas, which is becoming more deleterious from the increasing drainage from private houses as well as from the escapes of gas from the gas-pipes, into the sewers of which very strong instances are stated in the evidence.

In the map of Leeds, where the cholera track is pourtrayed, it will be observed that it followed closely the fever track; and were such maps so far improved as to show at a view the condition of a district in respect to dwelling and drainage, the marks to denote sites where the drainage was imperfect would at the same time denote the seats of epidemic disease. This had been so far observed by medical men that there was, perhaps, no point on which they were more anxious and urgent than that increased sewerage and cleansing should be adopted as preventives of the cholera. Yet in one extensive densely populated district, the Commissioners, because they had observed no effects on their own men, who were accustomed to the sewers, took upon themselves to disregard all the precautions advised by persons of complete knowledge. “At the time of the cholera the arching over the sewers was very much applied for” in the Ravensbourne Commission; “but,” says the officer of the commission, “I do not think there was anything done on account of the cholera, because the court held a different feeling on that point. Out of all the men employed by the Commissioners of Sewers, and who were constantly in those sewers, there was not one of those attacked by the cholera.”

All this incompleteness as to the extent of the districts drained, and the imperfection in the mode of executing the works, appears from the complaints and evidence given before the Committee to be accompanied by disproportionate and oppressive assessments and extravagant expenditure.

The rates were complained of as levied on property which was undrained, and derived no benefit from them; and by equal assessments on houses which derive benefit by direct communications with the sewers, and on houses which have no communication with them, and only derive benefit from the surface drainage, and in some cases on houses which were unoccupied. These unequal charges, sometimes for long periods, and for large and permanent works, fell upon a fluctuating tenancy. “We should claim,” says one witness, “20 years’ rate from the incoming tenant (122), or we might have sold the premises” (129).

In respect to the existing expenditure, very strong statements of mismanagement were made in the majority of the town districts; but I prefer referring on this topic to the evidence taken before the Committee of the House of Commons. One marked character of the expenditure is the greater amount paid to the clerk of the Board, and for office expenses, than for any skill or science in the superintendence of the work. Thus in the district where the Commissioners, on the example of their own workmen, adjudged that the applications for arching over the sewers on the ground that they created a predisposition to the spread of the epidemic were unfounded, the payments to the clerk of the Board for his salary and office was 750_l._, assistant-clerk 100_l._, and three surveyors were paid each 50_l._ (besides commission on works executed, and a fee of a guinea for communicating with the drain.) In another subdivision the expenses of the clerks, messengers, &c., exclusive of collection, were 15,737_l._ for 20 years, while for the same period the expense of surveyors, inspectors, and clerks of the works was 14,928_l._ In another division the tavern expenses for 20 years were 7,935_l._ In one district the cost of the commission, compared with the beneficial outlay on the works, appeared to be 200 per cent. In regard to another level, it is stated that there was laid out on works the sum of 17,455_l._ 18_s._ 10_d._; and—

£. _s._ _d._
In working the commission 9,003 18 7
Commission on collection 1,635 10 9½
——————— —— ——
Total £10,639 9 4½
======= == ==

The proportion of the cost of management to the expenditure on work appears to have been similar in others of these administrative bodies. The Committee stated as a principal defect of these bodies—“The want of publicity and responsibility systematically enforced.” There were several of the trusts in which the Courts have not been open to the public, the right of the ratepayers to inspect the accounts not admitted, and “where consequently a real responsibility in money matters can hardly be said to exist.”

_Mr. W. Fowler_, a Commissioner, says—

“If they are to go from year’s end to year’s end without being subject
to any control, I feel the money will be expended as I believe it now
is, and dribbled away, not expended fairly in carrying the ostensible
works into execution.”

Another defect resulting from the capricious constitution of these trusts, on which the Committee reported, was the want of uniformity.

“There are no two districts in which the law does not vary, or where,
if the law be the same, the commissioners do not interpret some parts
of in a different manner.

“Thus, a man having property in Finsbury and in Westminster, or in the
City and in the Tower Hamlets, may find himself placed under different
systems, and may be led by his knowledge of the regulations of the one
district to violate the regulations of the other.”

Such being the unfavourable constitution of these bodies as described in the Parliamentary Reports, and the evidence taken before the Committees, the accounts given of the qualifications of many of the officers of these trusts for the execution of any work of magnitude requiring scientific attainments are equally unfavourable. The following general account of them is given by an architect of eminence, who has conducted large works in the metropolis and in various parts of the country, and is corroborated by several other engineers of extensive practice.

“In the rural districts, the men appointed as surveyors by the local
Commissioners are very little better than common labourers, men with
no idea of construction or of management; that is the description of
men I have met with in the country places: they are commonly a sort of
foremen of the labourers who are called ‘ditch casters.’ In the towns
the men appointed are frequently decayed builders, or tradesmen whose
knowledge is limited to common artificers’ work, such as bricklayers’
and carpenters’ work. Some may be capable of drawing: only a few. They
have neither education, nor salary, nor station, to place them above
bribery, and the consequences are notoriously such as might be
expected of public services performed by such an agency. In some
instances there are very good exceptions; that is, where the
remuneration is adequate to ensure the service of a respectable
persons, and where, as occasionally happens, a person of
respectability has the local influence to obtain the appointment. The
district surveyors in the metropolis are in general respectable and
well-qualified public officers. In local matters no thought is ever
had of combining duties. The chief concern of the Commissioner of
sewers, where he holds property of his own, is to drain his own
property.”

Another description of the persons usually appointed as surveyors is given in the following terms by a gentleman who is himself a surveyor of extensive practice:—

“As regards the appointment of surveyors to the Commissioners of
Sewers, I would observe that, in my opinion, very few of them are
properly qualified by education or otherwise to perform the important
duties entrusted to them in an effective and proper manner. A man to
be a good surveyor of sewers should be a practical civil engineer, in
which science is comprehended levelling in all its branches, and other
matters requisite and necessary in the construction of drains and
sewers: in proof of this, an instance recently occurred in one of the
divisions (which I need not particularize) in the construction of a
sewer, that after it had proceeded for a considerable distance, from
an error in taking the levels, was found to be below the level of the
outlet, and was in consequence obliged to be all destroyed, and
another sewer constructed upon a proper level. This error was so
clearly traced to the want of practical knowledge on the part of the
surveyor, or the application of it, that he was amerced in the greater
part of the cost.”

A builder of extensive experience in the wealthy districts of the metropolis states, that in making drains and executing works which communicate with the sewers on which large sums have been expended, he has not found one main sewer in three properly made; and the strongest statements of the extravagant nature of the expenditure was made by witnesses who had themselves acted as members of the bodies directing it.

The office business of two of the commissions appeared to me to be very respectably conducted. But in the structural arrangements, in only one commission do any of the works executed approach the existing state of science. In that one, the Holborn and Finsbury trust, they happened to obtain a surveyor, having science and practical experience as an engineer, whose advice was acted upon, and that officer effected the only considerable improvements of a scientific character that have been made in the sewerage of the metropolis. These improvements for preventing the accumulations of deposits in the sewers, and the generation of malaria, and at the same time reducing the expenses of cleansing more than one-half, must be considered improvements of a very high order. But though they are demonstrated, and in full and successful action, they appear to have been imitated only in one other adjacent district. In the others they go on constructing sewers which are the latent sources of pestilence and death. This officer was asked the following questions:—

“If the public, who may be ignorant of the science of sewerage and of
what it may accomplish, make no complaints, and do not call for the
adoption of any improved system, in how long a time do you think the
improvements demonstrated in the Holborn and Finsbury divisions would
reach the other ends of the metropolis by the force of imitation and
voluntary adoption?—From the apathy shown and prejudice against
anything new, however valuable it may be as an improvement, and the
various interests affected, such as the contractors for cleansing, I
do not expect that they would become general in the metropolis during
my life-time. The public are passive, and the adverse interests are
active.

“You know the description of persons engaged as surveyors of various
descriptions in the rural districts and in the smaller towns?—Yes, I
do.

“Unless care be taken, is it to be apprehended that any new
expenditure will be made on imperfect and unwholesome drains with flat
bottoms and on false principles at a disproportionate
expense?—Undoubtedly, except they have to act on rule, it will
certainly be so throughout the country. The drainage that I have seen
in the country districts is worse than in the metropolis.”

The consideration of these circumstances, in respect to the past expenditure in this branch of local administration, appears to be necessary for meeting the objections and opposition to any future expenditure, and especially of any apparent increase required for the successful removal of the physical causes of bodily suffering, and the moral degradation of the labouring classes. In the towns and districts where the chief evils in question are admitted, but where anything wearing the appearance of a new expenditure for any purpose is unpopular, and will be thwarted or yielded unwillingly, the objections when examined are found to consist mainly of a rooted distrust of the money being equally levied, or carefully and efficiently expended for the attainment of the professed objects of public advantage. From such evidence as that already adduced from the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons, but presented in greater extent and strength in the course of the present inquiry—of instances of disease and death occasioned by miasma from badly made and sluggish or stagnant drains that pervade whole towns, it will be seen that it cannot fairly be said that the distrust is not well founded.

A due examination, however, of the experience even of voluntary and private expenditure on the wealthy districts where water is laid on, and the main drainage is complete for the removal of refuse, appears to establish the conclusion that only a part of the work is then attained, and that for the economical attainment of the general objects of protecting the least protected classes, that which is generally deemed the private and subordinate work, namely, the house drainage, must form part of the same general system, and be executed under the same general superintendence.