3. Sweeps, or those who remove the soot from the chimneys._London Labour and the London Poor, Vol. 2

4. Scavengers, or those who remove the dirt from the streets, roads,

and markets.

Let me, however, before proceeding further with the subject, lay

before the reader the following important return as to the extent and

contents of this prodigious city: for this document I am indebted to

the Commissioners of Police, gentlemen from whom I have derived the

most valuable information since the commencement of my inquiries, and

to whose courtesy and consideration I am anxious to acknowledge my many

obligations.

RETURN SHOWING THE EXTENT, POPULATION, AND POLICE FORCE IN THE

METROPOLITAN POLICE DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF LONDON IN SEPTEMBER, 1850.

-----------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+------------+-------------

| Metropolitan Police District[6]. | |

+------------+-----------+--------------+ City of | Grand

-----------------------------------------+------------+-----------+--------------+------------+-------------

Area (in square miles) | 91 | 609-1/2| 700-1/2 | 1-3/4 | 702-1/4

Parishes | 82 | 136 | 218 | 97 | 315

Streets, Roads, &c. (length of, in miles)| 1,700 | 1,936 | 3,636 | 50 | 3,686

Number of Houses inhabited | 289,912 | 59,995 | 349,907 | 15,613 | 365,520

„ „ uninhabited | 11,868 | 1,437 | 13,305 | 387 | 13,692

„ „ being built | 4,634 | 1,097 | 5,731 | 23 | 5,754

Population | 1,986,629 |350,331 |2,336,960 |125,000 |2,461,960

Police Force | 4,844 | 660 | 5,504 | 568 | 6,072

-----------------------------------------+------------+-----------+--------------+------------+----------

_18th September, 1850._

The total here given can hardly be considered as the dimensions of the

metropolis; though, where the capital begins and ends, it is difficult

to say. If, however, London be regarded as concentring within the

Inner Police District, then, adding the extent and contents of that

district to those of the City, as above detailed, we have the subjoined

statement as to the dimensions and inhabitants of the

_Metropolis Proper._

Area 92-3/4 square miles.

Parishes 179

Length of street, roads, &c. 1750 miles.

Number of inhabited houses 305,525

Ditto uninhabited 12,255

Ditto being built 4657

Population 2,111,629

Police force 5412

But if the extent of even this “inner district” be so vast as almost

to overpower the mind with its magnitude--if its population be greater

than that of the entire kingdom of Hanover, and almost equal to that of

the republic of Switzerland--if its houses be so numerous that placed

side by side they would form one continuous line of dwellings from its

centre to Moscow--if its streets and roads be nearly equal in length to

one quarter of the diameter of the earth itself,--what a task must the

cleansing of such a bricken wilderness be, and yet, assuredly, though

it be by far the greatest, it is at the same time by far the cleanest

city in the world.

The removal of the refuse of a large town is, perhaps, one of the

most important of social operations. Not only is it necessary for the

well-being of a vast aggregation of people that the ordure should be

removed from both within and around their dwellings as soon as it is

generated, but nature, ever working in a circle and reproducing in the

same ratio as she destroys, has made this same ordure not only the

cause of present disease when allowed to remain within the city, but

the means of future health and sustenance when removed to the fields.

In a leading article in the _Morning Chronicle_, written about two

years since, I said--

“That man gets his bones from the rocks and his muscles from the

atmosphere, is beyond all doubt. The iron in his blood and the lime in

his teeth were originally in the soil. But these could not be in his

body unless they had previously formed part of his food. And yet we can

neither live on air nor on stones. We cannot grow fat upon lime, and

iron is positively indigestible in our stomachs. It is by means of the

vegetable creation alone that we are enabled to convert the mineral

into flesh and blood. The only apparent use of herbs and plants is to

change the inorganic earth, air, and water, into organic substances

fitted for the nutrition of animals. The little lichen, which, by means

of the oxalic acid that it secretes, decomposes the rocks to which it

clings, and fits their lime for ‘assimilation’ with higher organisms,

is, as it were, but the primitive bone-maker of the world. By what

subtle transmutation inorganic nature is changed into organic, and dead

inert matter quickened with life, is far beyond us even to conjecture.

Suffice it that an express apparatus is required for the process--a

special mechanism to convert the ‘_crust_ of the earth,’ as it is

called, into food for man and beast.

“Now, in Nature everything moves in a circle--perpetually changing,

and yet ever returning to the point whence it started. Our bodies are

continually decomposing and recomposing--indeed, the very process of

breathing is but one of decomposition. As animals live on vegetables,

even so is the refuse of the animal the vegetable’s food. The carbonic

acid which comes from our lungs, and which is poison for us to inhale,

is not only the vital air of plants, but positively their nutriment.

With the same wondrous economy that marks all creation, it has been

ordained that what is unfitted for the support of the superior

organisms, is of all substances the best adapted to give strength and

vigour to the inferior. That which we excrete as pollution to our

system, they secrete as nourishment to theirs. Plants are not only

Nature’s scavengers but Nature’s purifiers. They remove the filth

from the earth, as well as disinfect the atmosphere, and fit it to be

breathed by a higher order of beings. Without the vegetable creation

the animal could neither have been nor be. Plants not only fitted the

earth originally for the residence of man and the brute, but to this

day they continue to render it habitable to us. For this end their

nature has been made the very antithesis to ours. The process by which

we live is the process by which they are destroyed. That which supports

respiration in us produces putrefaction in them. What our lungs throw

off, their lungs absorb--what our bodies reject, their roots imbibe.

“Hence, in order that the balance of waste and supply should be

maintained--that the principle of universal compensation should be kept

up, and that what is rejected by us should go to the sustenance of

plants, Nature has given us several instinctive motives to remove our

refuse from us. She has not only constituted that which we egest the

most loathsome of all things to our senses and imagination, but she has

rendered its effluvium highly pernicious to our health--sulphuretted

hydrogen being at once the most deleterious and offensive of all gases.

Consequently, as in all other cases where the great law of Nature has

to be enforced by special sanctions, a double motive has been given us

to do that which it is necessary for us to do, and thus it has been

made not only advantageous to us to remove our refuse to the fields,

but positively detrimental to our health, and disgusting to our senses,

to keep it in the neighbourhood of our houses.

“In every well-regulated State, therefore, an effective and rapid

means for carrying off the ordure of the people to a locality where

it may be fruitful instead of destructive, becomes a most important

consideration. Both the health and the wealth of the nation depend upon

it. If to make two blades of wheat grow where one grew before is to

confer a benefit on the world, surely to remove that which will enable

us at once to do this, and to purify the very air which we breathe,

as well as the water which we drink, must be a still greater boon

to society. It is, in fact, to give the community not only a double

amount of food, but a double amount of health to enjoy it. We are now

beginning to understand this. Up to the present time we have only

thought of removing our refuse--the idea of using it never entered our

minds. It was not until science taught us the dependence of one order

of creation upon another, that we began to see that what appeared worse

than worthless to us was Nature’s capital--_wealth set aside for future

production_.”

In connection with this part of the subject, viz., the use of human

refuse, I would here draw attention to those erroneous notions, as

to the multiplication of the people, which teach us to look upon the

increase of the population beyond certain limits as the greatest

possible evil that can befall a community. Population, it is said,

multiplies itself in a geometrical ratio, whereas the produce of the

land is increased only in arithmetical proportion; that is to say,

while the people are augmented after the rate of--

2 4 8 16 32 64

the quantity of food for them can be extended only in the following

degrees:--

2 4 6 8 10 12

The cause of this is said to be that, after a certain stage in the

cultivation of the soil, the increase of the produce from land is not

in proportion to the increase of labour devoted to it; that is to say,

doubling the labour does not double the crop; and hence it is asserted

that the human race increasing at a quicker rate than the food,

insufficient sustenance must be the necessary lot of a portion of the

people in every densely-populated community.

That men of intelligence and education should have been persuaded by

so plausible a doctrine at the time of its first promulgation may be

readily conceived, for then the notions concerning organic chemistry

were vague in the extreme, and the great universal law of Waste

and Supply remained to be fully developed; but that men pretending

to the least scientific knowledge should in these days be found

advocating the Population Theory is only another of the many proofs

of the indisposition of even the strongest minds to abandon their pet

prejudices. Assuredly Malthus and Liebig are incompatible. If the new

notions as to the chemistry of vegetation be true, then must the old

notions as to population be utterly unfounded. If what we excrete

plants secrete--if what we exhale they inspire--if our refuse is their

food--then it follows that to increase the population is to increase

the quantity of manure, while to increase the manure is to augment

the food of plants, and consequently the plants themselves. If the

plants nourish us, we at least nourish them. It seems never to have

occurred to the economists that plants themselves required sustenance,

and consequently they never troubled themselves to inquire whence they

derived the elements of their growth. Had they done this they would

never have even expected that a double quantity of mere labour upon the

soil should have doubled the produce; but they would rather have seen

that it was utterly impossible for the produce to be doubled without

the food in the soil being doubled likewise; that is to say, they would

have perceived that plants could not, whatever the labour exerted upon

their cultivation, extract the elements of their organization from the

earth and air, unless those elements previously existed in the land and

atmosphere in which they grew, and that such elements, moreover, could

not exist there without some organic being to egest them.

This doctrine of the universal Compensation extending throughout the

material world, and more especially through the animal and vegetable

kingdom, is, perhaps, one of the grandest and most consoling that

science has yet revealed to us, making each mutually dependent on the

other, and so contributing each to the other’s support. Moreover it is

the more comforting, as enabling us almost to demonstrate the falsity

of a creed which is opposed to every generous impulse of our nature,

and which is utterly irreconcilable with the attributes of the Creator.

“Thanks to organic chemistry,” I said two years ago in the _Morning

Chronicle_, “we are beginning to wake up. Science has taught us that

the removal of the ordure of towns to the fields is a question that

concerns not only our health, but, what is a far more important

consideration with us, our breeches pockets. What we, in our ignorance,

had mistaken for refuse of the vilest kind, we have now learned to

regard as being, with reference to its fertilizing virtues, ‘a precious

ore, running in rich veins beneath the surface of our streets.’

Whereas, if allowed to reek and seethe in cesspools within scent of

our very hearths, or to pollute the water that we use to quench our

thirst and cook our food, it becomes, like all wealth badly applied,

converted into ‘poison:’ as Romeo says of gold to the apothecary--

‘Doing more murders in this loathsome world

Than those poor compounds which thou mayst not sell.’

“Formerly, in our eagerness to get rid of the pollution, we had

literally not looked beyond our noses: hence our only care was to carry

off the nuisance from the immediate vicinity of our own residences.

It was no matter to us what became of it, so long as it did not taint

the atmosphere around us. This the very instincts of our nature had

made objectionable to us; so we laid down just as many drains and

sewers as would carry our night-soil to the nearest stream; and thus,

instead of poisoning the air that we breathed, we poisoned the water

that we drank. Then, as the town extended--for cities, like mosaic

work, are put together piecemeal--street being dovetailed to street,

like county to county in our children’s geographical puzzles--each new

row of houses tailed on its drains to those of its neighbours, without

any inquiry being made as to whether they were on the same level or

not. The consequence of this is, that the sewers in many parts of our

metropolis are subject to an ebb and flood like their central stream,

so that the pollution which they remove at low-water, they regularly

bring back at high-water to the very doors of the houses whence they

carried it.

“According to the average of the returns, from 1841 to 1846, we

are paying two millions every year for guano, bone-dust, and other

foreign fertilizers of our soil. In 1845, we employed no fewer than

683 ships to bring home 220,000 tons of animal manure from Ichaboe

alone; and yet we are every day emptying into the Thames 115,000 tons

of a substance which has been proved to be possessed of even greater

fertilizing powers. With 200 tons of the sewage that we are wont to

regard as refuse, applied to the irrigation of one acre of meadow

land, seven crops, we are told, have been produced in the year, each

of them worth from 6_l._ to 7_l._; so that, considering the produce to

have been doubled by these means, we have an increase of upwards of

20_l._ per acre per annum effected by the application of that refuse

to the surface of our fields. This return is at the rate of 10_l._

for every 100 tons of sewage; and, since the total amount of refuse

discharged into the Thames from the sewers of the metropolis is, in

round numbers, 40,000,000 tons per annum, it follows that, according to

such estimate, we are positively wasting 4,000,000_l._ of money every

year; or, rather, _it costs us that amount to poison the waters about

us_. Or, granting that the fertilizing power of the metropolitan refuse

is--as it is said to be--as great for arable as for pasture-lands,

then for every 200 tons of manure that we now cast away, we might have

an increase of at least 20 bushels of corn per acre. Consequently

the entire 40,000,000 tons of sewage, if applied to fatten the land

instead of to poison the water, would, at such a rate of increase,

swell our produce to the extent of 4,000,000 bushels of wheat per

annum. Calculating then that each of these bushels would yield 16

quartern loaves, it would follow that we fling into the Thames no less

than 246,000,000 lbs. of bread every year; or, still worse, by pouring

into the river that which, if spread upon our fields, would enable

thousands to live, we convert the elements of life and health into the

germs of disease and death, changing into slow but certain poisons that

which, in the subtle transmutation of organic nature, would become

acres of life-sustaining grain.” I shall have more to say subsequently

on this waste and its consequences.

These considerations show how vastly important it is that in the best

of all possible ways we should _collect_, _remove_, and _use_ the

scavengery and excrementitious matter of our streets and houses.

Now the removal of the refuse of London is no slight task, consisting,

as it does, of the cleansing of 1750 miles of streets and roads; of

collecting the dust from 300,000 dust-bins; of emptying (according to

the returns of the Board of Health) the same number of cesspools, and

sweeping near upon 3,000,000 chimneys.

A task so vast it might naturally be imagined would give employment to

a number of hands, and yet, if we trusted the returns of the Occupation

Abstract of 1841, the whole of these stupendous operations are

performed by a limited number of individuals.

RETURN OF THE NUMBER OF SWEEPS, DUSTMEN, AND NIGHTMEN IN THE

METROPOLIS, ACCORDING TO THE CENSUS OF 1841.

------------------------+------+----------------------+----------------------

| | Males. | Females.

| +------------+---------+------------+---------

------------------------+------+------------+---------+------------+---------

Chimney Sweepers | 1033 | 619 | 370 | 44 |

Scavengers and Nightmen | 254 | 227 | 10 | 17 |

------------------------+------+------------+---------+------------+---------

I am informed by persons in the trade that the “females” here

mentioned as chimney-sweepers, and scavengers, and nightmen, must be

such widows or daughters of sweeps and nightmen as have succeeded to

their businesses, for that no women _work_ at such trades; excepting,

perhaps, in the management and care of the soot, in assisting to empty

and fill the bags. Many females, however, are employed in sifting dust,

but the calling of the dustman and dustwoman is not so much as noticed

in the population returns.

According to the occupation abstract of the previous decennial period,

the number of males of 20 years and upwards (for none others were

mentioned) pursuing the same callings in the metropolis in 1831, were

as follows:--

Soot and chimney-sweepers 421

Nightmen and scavengers 130

Hence the increase in the adult male operatives belonging to these

trades, between 1831 and 1841, was, for Chimney-sweeps, 198; and

Scavengers and Nightmen, 97.

But these returns are preposterously incorrect. In the first place

it was not until 1842 that the parliamentary enactment prohibiting

the further employment of climbing-boys for the purpose of sweeping

chimneys came into operation. At that time the number of inhabited

houses in the metropolis was in round numbers 250,000, and calculating

these to have contained only eight rooms each, there would have been at

the least 2,000,000 chimneys to sweep. Now, according to the government

returns above cited--the London climbing-boys (for the masters did not

and could not climb) in 1841 numbered only 370; at which rate there

would have been but one boy to no less than 5400 chimneys! Pursuing

the same mode of testing the validity of the “official” statements, we

find, as the nightmen generally work in gangs of four, that each of

the 63, or say 64, gangs comprised in the census returns, would have

had 4000 cesspools to empty of their contents; while, working both

as scavengers and nightmen (for, according to the census, they were

the _only_ individuals following those occupations in London), they

would after their nocturnal labours have had about 27 miles of streets

and roads to cleanse--a feat which would certainly have thrown the

scavengering prowess of Hercules into the shade.

Under the respective heads of the dustmen, nightmen, sweeps, and

scavengers, I shall give an account of the numbers, &c., employed, and

a resumé of the whole. It will be sufficient here to mention that my

investigations lead to the conclusion that, of men working as dustmen

(a portion of whom are employed as nightmen and scavengers) there are

at present about 1800 in the metropolis. The census of 1841, as I have

pointed out, mentions no dustman whatever!

But I have so often had instances of the defects of this national

numbering of the people that I have long since ceased to place much

faith in its returns connected with the humbler grades of labour. The

costermongers, for example, I estimate at about 10,000, whereas the

government reports, as has been before mentioned, ignore the very

existence of such a class of people, and make the entire hawkers,

hucksters, and pedlars of the metropolis to amount to no more than

2045. Again, the London “coal labourers, heavers, and porters” are

said, in the census of 1841, to be only 1700 in number; I find,

however, that there are no less than 1800 “registered” coal-whippers,

and as many coal porters; so that I am in no way inclined to give great

credence to the “official enumerations.” The difficulties which beset

the perfection of such a document are almost insuperable, and I have

already heard of returns for the forthcoming document, made by ignorant

people as to their occupations, which already go far to nullify the

facts in connection with the employment of the ignorant and profligate

classes of the metropolis.

Before quitting this part of the subject, viz., the extent of surface,

the length of streets, and the number of houses throughout the

metropolis requiring to be continually cleansed of their refuse, as

well as the number of people as continually engaged in so cleansing

them, let me here append the last returns of the Registrar General,

copied from the census of 1851, as to the dimensions and contents of

the metropolis according to that functionary, so that they may be

compared with those of the metropolitan police before given.

In Weale’s “_London Exhibited_,” which is by far the most comprehensive

description of the metropolis that I have seen, it is stated that it

is “only possible to adopt a general idea of the giant city,” as its

precise boundaries and extent cannot be defined. On the north of the

Thames, we are told, London extends to Edmonton and Finchley; on the

west it stretches to Acton and Hammersmith; on the east it reaches

Leyton and Ham; while on the south of the Thames the metropolis is said

to embrace Wandsworth, Streatham, Lewisham, Woolwich, and Plumstead.

“To each of these points,” says Mr. Weale, but upon what authority he

does not inform us, “continuous streets of houses reach; but the solid

mass of houses lies within narrow bounds--with these several long

arms extending from it. The greatest length of street, from east to

west,” he adds, “is about fourteen miles, and from north to south about

thirteen miles. The solid mass is about seven miles by four miles, so

that the ground covered with houses is not less than 20 square miles.”

Mr. McCulloch, in his “_London in 1850-51_,” has a passage to the

same effect. He says, “The continued and rapid increase of buildings

renders it difficult to ascertain the extent of the metropolis at any

particular period. If we include in it those parts only that present

a solid mass of houses, its length from east to west may be taken at

six miles, and its breadth from north to south at about three miles

and a half. There is, however, a nearly continuous line of houses

from Blackwall to Chelsea, a distance of about seven miles, and from

Walworth to Holloway, of four and a half miles. The extent of surface

covered by buildings is estimated at about sixteen square miles, or

above 10,000 acres, so that M. Say, the celebrated French economist,

did not really indulge in hyperbole when he said, ‘_Londres n’est plus

une ville: c’est une province couverte de maisons!_’ (London is no

longer a town: it is a province covered with houses).”

The Government authorities, however, appear to have very different

notions from either of the above gentlemen as to the extent of the

metropolis.

The limits of London, as at present laid down by the Registrar General,

include 176 parishes, besides several precincts, liberties, and

extra-parochial places, comprising altogether about 115 square miles.

According to the old bills of mortality, London formerly included only

148 parishes, which were located as follows:--

Parishes within the walls of the city 97

Parishes without the walls 17

Parishes in the city and liberties of Westminster 10

Out parishes in Middlesex and Surrey 24

---

148

The parishes which have been annexed to the above at different periods

since the commencement of the present century are:--

Parishes added by the late Mr. Rickman

(see Pop. Abstracts, 1801-31) (including

Chelsea, Kensington, Paddington, St.

Marylebone, and St. Pancras) 5

Parishes added by the Registrar General,

1838 (including Hammersmith, Fulham,

Stoke Newington, Stratford-le-Bow, Bromley,

Camberwell, Deptford, Greenwich, and

Woolwich) 10

Parishes added by the Registrar General

in 1844 (including Clapham, Battersea,

Wandsworth, Putney, Lower Tooting, and

Streatham) 6

Parishes added by the Registrar General in

1846 (comprising Hampstead, Charlton,

Plumstead, Eltham, Lee, Kidbroke, and

Lewisham) 7

---

Total number of parishes in the metropolis,

as defined by the Registrar General 176

The extent of London, according to the limits assigned to it at the

several periods above mentioned, was--

Stat. Acres. Sq. miles.

London within the old bills

of mortality, from 1726 21,080 32

London, within the limits

adopted by the late Mr.

Rickman, 1801-31 29,850 46

London, within the limits

adopted by the Registrar

General, 1838-43 44,850 70

London, within the limits

adopted by the Registrar

General, 1844-46 55,650 87

London, within the limits

adopted by the Registrar

General in 1847-51 74,070 115

“London,” observes Mr. Weale, “has now swallowed up many cities, towns,

villages, and separate jurisdictions. The four commonwealths, or

kingdoms, of the Middle Saxons, East Saxons, the South Rick, and the

Kentwaras, once ruled over its surface. It now embraces the episcopal

cities of London and Westminster, the towns of Woolwich, Deptford, and

Wandsworth, the watering places of Hampstead, Highgate, Islington,

Acton, and Kilburn, the fishing town of Barking, the once secluded and

ancient villages of Ham, Hornsey, Sydenham, Lee, Kensington, Fulham,

Lambeth, Clapham, Paddington, Hackney, Chelsea, Stoke Newington,

Newington Butts, Plumstead, and many others.”

The 176 parishes now included by the Registrar General within the

boundaries of the metropolis, are arranged by him into five districts,

of which the areas, population, and number of inhabited houses were on

the 31st of March, 1851, as undermentioned:--

TABLE SHOWING THE AREA, NUMBER OF INHABITED HOUSES, AND POPULATION OF

THE DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE METROPOLIS, 1841-51.

------------------------------+--------+-----------------------+-------------------

| | Population. | Inhabited Houses.

DIVISIONS OF METROPOLIS. |Statute +-----------+-----------+---------+---------

| Acres. | 1841. | 1851. | 1841. | 1851.

------------------------------+--------+-----------+-----------+---------+---------

Kensington | 7,860 | 74,898 | 119,990 | 10,962 | 17,292

Chelsea | 780 | 40,243 | 56,543 | 5,648 | 7,629

St. George’s, Hanover-square | 1,090 | 66,657 | 73,207 | 7,630 | 8,795

Westminster | 840 | 56,802 | 65,609 | 6,439 | 6,647

St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields | 260 | 25,132 | 24,557 | 2,439 | 2,323

St. James’s, Westminster | 165 | 37,457 | 36,426 | 3,590 | 3,460

| | | | |

Marylebone | 1,490 | 138,383 | 157,679 | 14,169 | 15,955

Hampstead (added 1846) | 2,070 | 10,109 | 11,986 | 1,411 | 1,719

Pancras | 2,600 | 129,969 | 167,198 | 14,766 | 18,731

Islington | 3,050 | 55,779 | 95,154 | 8,508 | 13,558

Hackney | 3,950 | 42,328 | 58,424 | 7,192 | 9,861

| | | | |

St Giles’s | 250 | 54,378 | 54,062 | 4,959 | 4,778

Strand | 163 | 43,667 | 44,446 | 4,327 | 3,938

Holborn | 188 | 44,532 | 46,571 | 4,603 | 4,517

Clerkenwell | 320 | 56,799 | 64,705 | 6,946 | 7,259

St. Luke’s | 240 | 49,908 | 54,058 | 6,385 | 6,421

East London |}[9]230 | 39,718 | 44,407 | 4,796 | 4,785

West London |} | 29,188 | 28,829 | 3,010 | 2,745

London, City of |[10]370 | 56,009 | 55,908 | 7,921 | 7,329

| | | | |

Shoreditch | 620 | 83,564 | 109,209 | 12,642 | 15,433

Bethnal Green | 760 | 74,206 | 90,170 | 11,782 | 13,370

Whitechapel | 316 | 71,879 | 79,756 | 8,834 | 8,832

St George’s in the East | 230 | 41,416 | 48,375 | 5,985 | 6,151

Stepney | 2,518 | 90,831 | 110,669 | 14,364 | 16,346

Poplar | 1,250 | 31,171 | 47,157 | 5,066 | 6,882

| | | | |

St. Saviour’s, Southwark | [11]| 33,027 | 35,729 | 4,659 | 4,613

St. Olave’s, Southwark | [11]| 19,869 | 19,367 | 2,523 | 2,365

Bermondsey | 620 | 35,002 | 48,128 | 5,674 | 7,095

St. George’s, Southwark |[11]590 | 46,718 | 51,825 | 6,663 | 7,005

Newington | 630 | 54,693 | 64,805 | 9,370 | 10,468

Lambeth | 3,640 | 116,072 | 139,240 | 17,791 | 20,520

Wandsworth (added 1843) | 10,800 | 39,918 | 50,770 | 6,459 | 8,290

Camberwell | 4,570 | 39,931 | 54,668 | 6,843 | 9,417

Rotherhithe | 690 | 13,940 | 17,778 | 2,420 | 2,834

Greenwich | 4,570 | 81,125 | 99,404 | 11,995 | 14,423

Lewisham (added 1846) | 16,350 | 23,051 | 34,831 | 3,966 | 5,936

------------------------------+--------+-----------+-----------+---------+---------

Total London Division | 74,070 | 1,948,369 | 2,361,640 | 262,737 | 307,722

------------------------------+--------+-----------+-----------+---------+---------

In order to be able to compare the average density of the population

in the various parts of London, I have made a calculation as to the

number of persons and houses to the acre, as well as the number of

inhabitants to each house. I have also computed the annual rate of

increase of the population from 1841-51, in the several localities

here mentioned, and append the result. It will be seen that, while

what are popularly known as the suburbs have increased, both in houses

and population, at a considerable rate, some of the more central parts

of London, on the contrary, have decreased not only in the number of

people, but in the number of dwellings as well. This has been the case

in St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields, St. James’s, Westminster, St. Giles’s,

and the City of London.

TABLE SHOWING THE INCREASE OF THE POPULATION AND INHABITED HOUSES, AS

WELL AS THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE AND HOUSES TO EACH ACRE, AND THE NUMBER

OF PERSONS TO EACH HOUSE IN THE DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE METROPOLIS IN

1841-51.

--------------------------------+----------------+---------------+---------+---------+---------

| 1841-51. | 1841-51. | 1851. |the Acre,| House,

| | | | 1851. | 1851.

--------------------------------+----------------+---------------+---------+---------+---------

Kensington | 4,509·2 | 633·0 | 15·2 | 2·2 | 6·9

Chelsea | 1,630·0 | 198·1 | 72·4 | 9·7 | 7·4

Hanover-square | 655·0 | 11·6 | 67·1 | 8·0 | 8·3

Westminster | 880·7 | 20·8 | 80·4 | 8·2 | 9·8

St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields |_decr._ 57·5[12]|_decr._11·6[12]| 94·3 | 8·9 | 10·5

St. James’s, Westminster | 103·1[12]| 13·0[12]| 220·7 | 20·9 | 10·5

Marylebone | 1,926·6 | 178·6 | 105·8 | 10·3 | 9·8

Hampstead | 187·7 | 30·8 | 5·7 | ·8 | 6·9

St. Pancras | 3,722·9 | 396·5 | 64·3 | 7·2 | 8·9

Islington | 3,937·5 | 505·0 | 31·5 | 4·4 | 7·0

Hackney | 1,609·6 | 719·2 | 14·7 | 2·3 | 5·9

St. Giles’s | _decr._31·6[12]|_decr._18·1[12]| 216·2 | 19·1 | 11·3

Strand | 77·9 |_decr._38·9[12]| 272·2 | 24·1 | 11·2

Holborn | 203·9 |_decr._ 8·6[12]| 247·7 | 24·0 | 10·3

Clerkenwell | 790·6 | 31·3 | 202·2 | 22·6 | 8·9

St. Luke’s | 415·0 | 3·6 | 225·2 | 26·7 | 8·4

East and West London | 433·0 |_decr._27·6[12]| 318·4 | 32·7 | 9·7

London City |_decr._ 10·1[12]|_decr._59·2[12]| 151·0 | 19·8 | 7·6

Shoreditch | 2,564·5 | 279·1 | 176·1 | 24·8 | 7·0

Bethnal-green | 1,596·4 | 158·8 | 118·6 | 17·5 | 6·7

Whitechapel | 787·7 |_decr._ ·2[12]| 252·3 | 27·9 | 9·0

St. George’s-in-the-East | 695·9 | 16·6 | 210·3 | 26·7 | 7·8

Stepney | 1,983·8 | 198·2 | 43·9 | 6·4 | 6·7

Poplar | 1,598·6 | 181·6 | 37·7 | 5·5 | 6·8

St. George’s, Southwark | 730·7 | 13·8 | 181·2 | 23·7 | 7·6

Bermondsey | 1,312·6 | 142·1 | 77·6 | 11·2 | 6·7

Newington | 1,011·2 | 109·8 | 102·8 | 16·6 | 6·1

Lambeth | 2,316·8 | 272·9 | 38·2 | 5·6 | 6·7

Wandsworth | 1,085·2 | 183·1 | 4·7 | ·7 | 6·1

Camberwell | 1,473·7 | 257·4 | 12·4 | 2·0 | 5·8

Rotherhithe | 383·8 | 41·4 | 25·7 | 4·1 | 6·2

Greenwich | 1,827·9 | 242·8 | 21·7 | 3·1 | 6·8

Lewisham | 1,178·0 | 197·0 | 2·1 | ·3 | 5·6

--------------------------------+----------------+---------------+---------+---------+---------

Total for all London | 41,327·1 | 4,498·5 | 31·8 | 4·1 | 7·6

--------------------------------+----------------+---------------+---------+---------+---------

By the above table we perceive that St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields, St.

James’s, Westminster, St. Giles’s, the Strand, and the City have all

decreased both in population and houses since 1841. The population has

diminished most of all in St. James’s, and the houses the most in the

City. The suburban districts, however, such as Chelsea, Marylebone,

St. Pancras, Islington, Hackney, Shoreditch, Bethnal-green, Stepney,

Poplar, Bermondsey, Newington, Lambeth, Wandsworth, Camberwell,

Greenwich, and Lewisham, have all increased greatly within the last

ten years, both in dwellings and people. The greatest increase of the

population, as well as houses, has been in Kensington, where the yearly

addition has been 4500 people, and 630 houses.

The more densely-populated districts are, St. James’s, Westminster,

St. Giles’s, the Strand, Holborn, Clerkenwell, St. Luke, Whitechapel,

and St. George’s-in-the-East, in all of which places there are upwards

of 200 people to the acre, while in East and West London, in which

the population is the most dense of all, the number of people exceeds

300 to the acre. The least densely populated districts are Hampstead,

Wandsworth, and Lewisham, where the people are not more than six, and

as few as two to the acre.

The districts in which there are the greatest number of houses to

a given space, are St. James’s, Westminster, the Strand, Holborn,

Clerkenwell, St. Luke’s, Shoreditch, and St. George’s-in-the-East, in

all of which localities there are upwards of 20 dwellings to each acre

of ground, while in East and West London, which is the most closely

built over of all, the number of houses to each acre are as many as 32.

Hampstead and Lewisham appear to be the most open districts; for there

the houses are not more than eight and three to every ten acres of

ground.

The localities in which the houses are the most crowded with inmates

are the Strand and St. Giles’s, where there are more than eleven

people to each house, and St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields, and St. James’s,

Westminster, and Holborn, where each house has on an average ten

inmates, while in Lewisham and Wandsworth the houses are the least

crowded, for there we find only five people to every house.

Now, comparing this return with that of the metropolitan police,

we have the following results as to the extent and contents of the

Metropolis Proper:--

According

to According

Registrar to Metropolitan

General. Police.

Area (in statute acres) 74,070 58,880

Parishes 176 179

Number of inhabited houses 307,722 305,525

Population 2,361,640 2,111,629

Hence it will be seen that both the extent and contents of these two

returns differ most materially.

1st. The superficies of the Registrar General’s metropolis is very

nearly 13 square miles, or 15,190 statute acres, greater than the

metropolis of the police commissioners.

2nd. The number of inhabited houses is 2197 more in the one than in the

other.

3rd. The population of London, according to the Registrar General’s

limits, is 250,011, or a quarter of a million, more than it is

according to the limits of the metropolitan police.

It were much to be desired that some more definite and scientific

mode, not only of limiting, but of dividing the metropolis, were to be

adopted. At present there are, perhaps, as many different metropolises,

so to speak, and as many different modes of apportioning the several

parts of the whole into districts, as there are public bodies whose

operations are specially confined to the capital. The Registrar

General has, as we have seen, one metropolis divided into western,

northern, central, eastern, and southern districts. The metropolitan

police commissioners have another metropolis apportioned into its A

divisions, B divisions, and so forth; and the Post Office has a third

metropolis parcelled out in a totally different manner; while the

London City Mission, the Scripture Readers, the Ragged Schools, and the

many other similar metropolitan institutions, all seem to delight in

creating a distinct metropolis for themselves, thus tending to make the

statistical “confusion worse confounded.”