Part 73

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.

“350 brooms, being an average of 5 brooms £. _s._ _d._ for each man 23 18 10 For carting 99 1 9 For advertising 65 0 0 For rent of store-room, 3_l._ 14_s._; Clerks’ salaries, 12_l._; Messengers, 5_l._ 5_s._; wooden clogs for men, 2_l._ 5_s._ 10_d._; expenses of washing wood pavement, 5_l._ 28 4 10 Expenses of barrows 24 14 0 Christmas dinner to men, foremen, and superintendents (97) 15 12 6 83 men (averaging at 2_s._ 6_d._ per day) for 9 weeks 573 15 0 4 superintendents at 25_s._ 4_d._, foreman at 18_s._, cart foreman 20_s._, storekeeper 18_s._, chief superintendents 2_l._, for 9 weeks 112 10 0 For various small articles, brushes, rakes, &c. 36 7 8 Petty expenses of the office, postages, &c., and stationery 6 0 0 --------------- Approximation to the total cost of the expense £987 4 7 ---------------

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.

------------------+----------------------+------------------------------ | Mode of Contracting, | | | whether Contracts for| Leading or Principal feature| Date. |Dusting and Scavenging| in the Regulations for | | were let separately | the Dusting and Cleansing. | | or together. | | ------------------+----------------------+-----------------------------+ Year ending | | | Michaelmas, 1841| separately |Main streets of largest | | | traffic running east and | | | west cleansed _daily_, | | | other principal streets | | | _every other day_, the | „ 1842| separately | whole of the remainder | | | of the public ways _twice_ | | | a week; dust to be | | | removed at least _twice_ a | „ 1843| together | week. | | | | | | | | | | | | | „ 1844| separately |Main 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_| „ 1845| separately | a week. | | | | | | | | | | | | | „ 1846| separately | | | | | „ 1847| separately | | | |_Daily cleansing_ throughout | „ 1848| separately | every public way of | | | every description; dust | „ 1849| together | to be removed twice a | | | week. | „ 1850| together | | | | | „ 1851| together | | | | | | | | ------------------+----------------------+-----------------------------+

------------------------+--------------------------+----------------------- | | | |Sum paid for Scavenging|Sum received by Commission| Total Disbursements | and Dusting, or | for the Sale of | by the Commission for | for Scavenging only | Dust when the Contracts |Scavenging and Dusting. | during the year. | were let separately. | +-----------------------+--------------------------+----------------------- | £ _s._ _d._ | £ _s._ _d._ | £ _s._ _d._ | 4590 6 0 | | 4590 6 0 | | | | | | | | Amounts paid | | | and received | | 3633 7 0 | are balanced | 3633 17 0 | | | | | | | | | | 2084 4 6 | | 2084 4 6 | | +----------------------- | Average per Annum for 3 Years.| 3436 2 6 | | +----------------------- | | +----------------------- | 3826 12 6 | | 3826 12 6 | | | | | Amounts paid | | | and received | | | are balanced | | | | | 2033 2 0 | | 2833 2 0 | | +----------------------- | Average per Annum of the 2 Years.| 3329 17 3 | | +----------------------- | | +----------------------- | 6034 6 0 | 1354 5 0 | 4680 1 0 | | | | 8014 2 0 | 4455 5 0 | 3558 17 0 | | | | 7226 1 6 | 1328 15 0 | 5897 6 6 | | | | 7486 11 6 | 7486 11 6 | | | | | 6779 16 0 | 6779 16 0 | | | | | 6328 17 0 | 6328 17 0 | | | | | Average per Annum of the last 6 Years.| 5788 11 6 +--------------------------------------------------+-----------------------

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 4_s._ 7_d._, 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 7_s._ 3_d._ 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 7_s._ 3_d._ 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 time 418,000 “And the area of the foot-way 316,000 ------- “Making a total of 734,000

“And the area of the carriage-way cleaned by the street-orderlies was 30,670 “And the area of the foot-way 18,590 ------- “Making a total of 49,260

“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 52,052_l._

“It will be seen that there is a remarkable difference between this estimate of 52,052_l._ per annum and that of 18,000_l._ 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, 1528_l._ 18_s._ Now if the expense of cleansing 47,000 superficial yards upon the continuous method was 1529_l._, then, according to Cocker, 770,157 yards (the total area of the public ways of the City) would cost 25,054_l._; and, adding to this 6328_l._ for the sum paid to the contractors for the daily scavaging, we have only 31,382_l._ 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 20,000_l._ 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 52,000_l._ per annum, for, by his own showing, it actually cost the authorities for the one year when it was tried there, only 1529_l._ for 47,000 superficial yards, at which rate 770,000 yards could not cost more than 31,500_l._, 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 32,000_l._, 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 20,000_l._ per annum might be the gross expense of continuously cleansing the City. Mr. Cochrane estimates it at 18,000_l._ 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 16_s._ to 12_s._ 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 1_s._ 1-1/2_d._ 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 16_s._ to 12_s._ 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 1_d._ _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 2_d._ per hour.” [This is at the rate of 2_s._ a day; did this most innocent Board _never_ hear of work yielding 1_s._ 6_d._ 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.