Part 72
I now come to _the cost of cleansing the streets upon the street-orderly system_, as compared with that of the ordinary modes of payment to contractors, &c. It will have been observed, from what has been previously stated, that the Council of the Association contend that far higher amounts may be realized for street manure when collected clean, according to the street-orderly plan. If, by a better mode of collecting the street dirt, it be kept unmixed, its increase in value and in price may be most positively affirmed.
Before presenting estimates and calculations of cost, I may remind the reader that, under the street-orderly system, no watering carts are required, and none are used where the system is carried out in its integrity. To be able to dispense with the watering of the streets is not merely to get rid of a great nuisance, but to effect a considerable saving in the rates.
I now give two estimates, both relating to the same district:--
COMPARATIVE EXPENSE OF CLEANING AND WATERING THE STREETS, &C., OF ST. JAMES’S PARISH; under the system now in operation by the Paving Board, and under the sanitary system of employing street-orderlies, as recommended by 779 ratepayers. It is assumed, from reasonable data, that the superficial contents of all the streets, lanes, courts, and alleys in the parish, do not amount to more than 80,000 square yards.
“_Present Annual Expense of Cleansing St. James’s Parish_:--
Paid to contractor for carrying away slop, including expense of brooms £800 0 0 Paid to 23 men, average wages, 10_s._ per week, 52 weeks 598 0 0 ----------- £1398 0 0
“_Annual Expense of Street-Orderly System_:--
30 men (including those with hand-barrows), at 10_s._ per week, 52 weeks £780 0 0 Expense of brooms 30 0 0 Cartage of slop 100 0 0 ----------- £910 0 0 ----------- £488 0 0 Saving by diminished expense of street-watering throughout the parish 450 0 0 ----------- Annual prospective saving £938 0 0
“Obs.--The sum of 800_l._ per annum was paid to the contractor on account of expenses incurred for the removal of slop. During the three years previous to 1849, the contractor paid money to the parish for permission to remove the house-ashes, the value of which was then 2_s._ per load; it is now 2_s._ 6_d._ In St. Giles’s and St. George’s parishes, whose surface is more than twice the extent of St. James’s, the expense of slop-cartage, in 1850, was 304_l._ 14_s._ 0_d._, whilst the sum received for cattle-manure collected by street-orderlies, was 73_l._ 14_s._ 0_d._; and the slop-expenses for the four months ending November 29, were 59_l._ 18_s._ 6_d._, whilst the manure sold for 21_l._ 6_s._ 0_d._ Thus has the slop-expense in these extensive united parishes been reduced to less than 120_l._ per annum. Since the preceding estimate was submitted to the Commissioners of Paving, the street-orderly system has been introduced into St. James’s parish; and it is confidently expected that the ‘Annual Prospective saving’ of 938_l._, will be fully realised.”
A similar estimate has just been sent into the authorities of the great parish of St. Marylebone, but its results do not differ from the one I have just cited.
I next present an estimate contrasting the expense of the street-orderly method with the cost of employing sweeping-machines:--
“COMPARATIVE EXPENSE OF CLEANSING AND WATERING THE STREETS, &C., OF ST. MARTIN’S PARISH, under the system now in operation by the Paving Board, and under the sanatory system of employing street-orderlies, as recommended by 703 ratepayers. It is assumed, from reasonable data, that the superficial contents of all the streets, lanes, courts, and alleys in the parish, amount to about 70,000 square yards.
“_Expenses by Machinery in St. Martin’s Parish._
£ _s._ _d._ Annual payment to street-machine proprietor 980 0 0 Watering rate (1847) 644 16 8-1/2 Salaries to clerks 391 0 0 Support of 28 able-bodied men in workhouse, thrown out of work, at 4_s._ 6_d._ per man 327 12 0 ------------------- £2343 8 8-1/2
“_Expenditure by the Employment of Street-Orderlies._
£ _s._ _d._ Maintenance of 28 street-orderlies to keep clean 70,000 yards (presumed contents), at 2500 yards each man, at 12_s._ per week 768 0 0 Two inspectors of orderlies, at 15_s._ per week 78 0 0 One superintendent of ditto, at 1_l._ per week 52 0 0 Wear and tear of brooms 36 8 0 Interest on outlay for barrows, brooms, and shovels 26 19 0 Watering rate (not required) .. .. .. Value of manure pays for cartage .. .. .. ----------------- 961 7 0 Annual saving by street-orderlies 1382 1 8-1/2 ------------------ 2343 8 8-1/2
I now give an estimate concerning a smaller district, _one of the divisions of St. Pancras parish_. It was embodied in a Report read at a meeting in Camden-town, on the desirableness of introducing the street-orderly system:--
The Report set forth that the Committee had “made a minute investigation into the present systems of street-cleansing, as adopted under the superintendence of Mr. Bird, the parish surveyor, and under that of the National Philanthropic Association.
“From the 26th of March, 1848, to the 26th of March, 1849, the _Directors of the Poor expended in paving and cleansing, &c., the three and a quarter miles under their charge_, 3545_l._ 19_s._ 7_d._; of this the following items were for cleansing, viz.--
£ _s._ _d._ Labour 249 13 0 Tools 10 12 0 Slop carting 496 0 0 Proportion of foreman’s salary 39 0 0 --------------- 795 5 0
“_The street-orderly system of cleansing_ the said roads in the most efficient manner would give the following expenditure per annum:--
£ _s._ _d._ Thirty-four men to cleanse 3-1/4 miles, at the rate of 2000 superficial yards each man, 12_s._ per week each 1060 16 0 Two inspectors of orderlies, at 15_s._ per week each 78 0 0 Superintendent 104 0 0 Cost of brooms, shovels, &c. 83 0 0 No allowance for slop-carting, the National Philanthropic Association holding that the manure, properly collected, will more than pay for its removal .. .. .. ---------------- 1325 16 0 Deduct cost of cleansing by the old mode 795 5 0 ---------------- 530 11 0
“The apparent extra cost, therefore, would be 530_l._ 11_s._ The vestry, however, would see that the charge for supporting 34 able-bodied men in the workhouse is at least 5_s._ per week each, or 442_l._ per annum. This, therefore, must be deducted from the 530_l._ 11_s._, leaving the extra cost 88_l._ 11_s._ per annum. This sum, the committee were assured, will be not only repaid by the reduced outlay for repairs, which the new system will effect; but a very great saving will be the result of the thorough cleansed state in which the roads will be constantly maintained. Under the late system, to find the roads in a cleansed state was the exception, not the rule; and when all the advantages likely to result from the new system were taken into consideration, the committee did not hesitate to recommend it for adoption in its most efficient form.”
Concerning the _expense of cleansing the City by the street-orderly system_, Mr. Cochrane says:--
“The number required for the whole surface (including the footways, courts, &c.) would be about 250 men and boys.
“Upon the present system this number would be formed in three divisions:--
“First division.--170 to begin work at 6 a.m., and end 6 p.m. Second division, called relief and aids.--30 boys from 12 at noon to 10. Third division--50 men from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. Total, 250.
“The men and boys are now working at from 6_s._ to 12_s._ per week.
These 250 men and boys would cost for wages during the year about £5100 Twelve foremen, at 40_l._ per annum 480 Two superintendents at 50_l._ each 100 Brooms, &c. 325 Barrows 100 Two clerks, at 100_l._ each 200 Manager 100 ----- £6405
“No items are given for slopping or cartage, as, if the streets are properly attended to, there ought to be no slop, whilst the value of the manure may be more than equivalent for the expense of its removal.
“Some slop-carts will, however, be occasionally required for Smithfield-market and similar localities; making, therefore, ample allowance for contingencies, it is confidently considered that the expense for cleansing the whole of the city of London by street-orderlies would not exceed 8000_l._ per annum.”
“_Expenses of Cleansing and Watering the Streets, &c., of the City of London, on the old system of Scavaging, from June, 1845, to June, 1846._
Annual Expense. To scavaging contractors £6040 Value of ashes and dust of the city of London, given gratis to the above contractors in the year ending 1846, and now purchased by them for the year ending 1847 5500 Estimated contributions levied for watering streets 4000 Salaries to surveyors, inspectors, beadles, clerks, &c., of Sewers’ Office, according to printed account, March 3, 1846 2485 Expense for cleaning out sewers and gully-holes (not known) ------- Annual expense under the imperfect system of street-cleansing £18,025
“Number of men employed, 58.
“State of the Streets:--Inhabitants always complaining of their being muddy in winter and dusty in summer.”
Two estimates, then, show an expectation of a yearly saving of no less than 2320_l._ to the rate-payers of two parishes alone; 938_l._ to St. James’s, and 1382_l._ to St. Martin’s. And this, too, if all that be augured of this system be realized, with a freedom from street dust and dirt unknown under other methods of scavagery. I think it right, however, to express my opinion that even in the reasonable prospect of these great savings being effected, it is a paltry, or rather a false, because miscalled, economy to speculate on the payment of 10_s._ and 12_s._ a week to street-labourers in the parishes of St. James and St. Martin respectively, when so many of the contractors pay their men 16_s._ weekly. If this low hire be justifiable in the way of an experiment, it can never be justifiable as a continuance of the _reward_ of labour.
If the street-orderly system is to be the means of _permanently_ reducing the wages of the regular scavagers from 16_s._ to 12_s._ a week, then we had better remain afflicted with the physical dirt of our streets, than the moral filth which is sure to proceed from the poverty of our people--but if it is to be a means of elevating the pauper to the dignity of the independent labour, rather than dragging the independent labourer down to the debasement of the pauper, then let all who wish well to their fellows encourage it as heartily and strenuously as they can--otherwise the sooner it is denounced as an insidious mode of defrauding the poor of one-fourth of their earnings the better; and it is merely in the belief that Mr. Cochrane and the Council of the Association _mean_ to keep faith with the public and increase the men’s wages to those of the regular trade, that the street-orderly system is advocated here. If our philanthropists are to reduce wages 25 per cent., then, indeed, the poor man may cry, “_save me from my friends_.”
As to the positive and definite working of the street-orderly system as an _economical_ system, no information can be given beyond the estimates I have cited, as it has never been duly tested on a sufficiently large scale. Its working has been, of necessity, desultory. It has, however, been introduced into St. George’s, Bloomsbury; St. James’s, Westminster; and is about to be established in St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields; and in the course of a year or two it seems that it will be sufficiently tested. That its working has hitherto been desultory is a necessity in London, where “vested interests” look grimly on any change or even any inquiry. That it deserves a full and liberal testing seems undeniable, from the concurrent assent of all parishioners who have turned their attention to it.
It remains to show the expenses of the Philanthropic Association, for I am unable to present an account of street-orderlyism separately. The two following tables fully indicate to what an extent the association is indebted to the private purse of Mr. Cochrane, who by this time has advanced between 6000_l._ and 7000_l._
“BALANCE SHEET.
_Receipts and Expenditure of the National Philanthropic Association, for the Promotion of Social and Sanatory Improvements and the Employment of the Poor, from 29th September, 1846, to 29th September, 1849._
DR. £ _s._ _d._ To subscriptions and donations from the 29th September, 1846, to 29th September, 1849 1393 16 7 Balance due to president, 29th September, 1849 5739 19 9 ------------- 7133 16 4
CR. £ _s._ _d._ By balance due to president, as per Balance Sheet, Sept. 29, 1846 2935 17 9 Secretary’s salary 300 0 0 Rent of offices, &c. 248 10 0 Salaries to clerks, messengers, &c. 371 19 4 Do. to collectors 312 18 1 Commission to do. 130 5 6 Printing and stationery 556 17 0 Hire of rooms for public meetings 60 10 0 Advertisements and newspapers 244 5 3 Bill posting 8 12 6 Salaries to persons in charge of free lavatories in Ham-yard, Great Windmill-st., St. James’s 10 18 2 Brooms, barrows, and shovels, for the use of street-orderlies 86 8 0 Charges of contractors and others for removal of street slop, &c. 58 9 6 Food, lodging, and wages to street-orderlies, domiciled in Ham-yard, Great Windmill-street, St. James’s 980 11 4 Clothing for the street-orderlies 13 3 2 Baths provided for do. 5 15 10 Sundry expenses for offices, including postage-stamps, &c. 92 7 11 Law expenses 8 10 10 Builder’s charges for free lavatories in Ham-yard 95 13 10 Amount advanced to the late secretary for improving the dwellings of the poor 20 0 0 Farther advances made by president on various occasions for the general purposes of the Association 592 2 4 -------------- 7133 16 4
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, was 1298 Ditto during winter, per man per diem, was 1016 The average of both summer and winter months was, per man per diem 1139 ------ The cost of the experiment was for daymen (including brooms, barrows, shovels, cartage, &c.)[29] £1450 18 One Foreman at 78 0 -------- And the total cost of the experiment £1528 18
“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.