Dust and rubbish accumulate in houses from a variety of causes, but
principally from the residuum of fires, the white ash and cinders, or
small fragments of unconsumed coke, giving rise to by far the greater
quantity. Some notion of the vast amount of this refuse annually
produced in London may be formed from the fact that the consumption of
coal in the metropolis is, according to the official returns, 3,500,000
tons per annum, which is at the rate of a little more than 11 tons per
house; the poorer families, it is true, do not burn more than 2 tons
in the course of the year, but then many such families reside in the
same house, and hence the average will appear in no way excessive.
Now the ashes and cinders arising from this enormous consumption of
coal would, it is evident, if allowed to lie scattered about in such a
place as London, render, ere long, not only the back streets, but even
the important thoroughfares, filthy and impassable. Upon the Officers
of the various parishes, therefore, has devolved the duty of seeing
that the refuse of the fuel consumed throughout London is removed
almost as fast as produced; this they do by entering into an agreement
for the clearance of the “dust-bins” of the parishioners as often as
required, with some person who possesses all necessary appliances for
the purpose--such as horses, carts, baskets, and shovels, together with
a plot of waste ground whereon to deposit the refuse. The persons with
whom this agreement is made are called “dust-contractors,” and are
generally men of considerable wealth.
The collection of “dust,” is now, more properly speaking, the removal
of it. The collection of an article implies the voluntary seeking
after it, and this the dustmen can hardly be said to do; for though
they parade the streets shouting for the dust as they go, they do so
rather to fulfil a certain duty they have undertaken to perform than in
any expectation of profit to be derived from the sale of the article.
Formerly the custom was otherwise; but then, as will be seen hereafter,
the residuum of the London fuel was far more valuable. Not many
years ago it was the practice for the various master dustmen to send
in their tenders to the vestry, on a certain day appointed for the
purpose, offering to pay a considerable sum yearly to the parish
authorities for liberty to collect the dust from the several houses.
The sum formerly paid to the parish of Shadwell, for instance, though
not a very extensive one, amounted to between 400_l._ or 500_l._ per
annum; but then there was an immense demand for the article, and the
contractors were unable to furnish a sufficient supply from London;
ships were frequently freighted with it from other parts, especially
from Newcastle and the northern ports, and at that time it formed an
article of considerable international commerce--the price being from
15_s._ to 1_l._ per chaldron. Of late years, however, the demand has
fallen off greatly, while the supply has been progressively increasing,
owing to the extension of the metropolis, so that the Contractors
have not only declined paying anything for liberty to collect it, but
now stipulate to receive a certain sum for the removal of it. It need
hardly be stated that the parishes always employ the man who requires
the least money for the performance of what has now become a matter
of duty rather than an object of desire. Some idea may be formed of
the change which has taken place in this business, from the fact, that
the aforesaid parish of Shadwell, which formerly received the sum
of 450_l._ per annum for liberty to collect the dust, now pays the
Contractor the sum of 240_l._ per annum for its removal.
The Court of Sewers of the City of London, in 1846, through the
advice of Mr. Cochrane, the president of the National Philanthropic
Association, were able to obtain from the contractors the sum of
5000_l._ for liberty to clear away the dirt from the streets and the
dust from the bins and houses in that district. The year following,
however, the contractors entered into a combination, and came to a
resolution not to bid so high for the privilege; the result was, that
they obtained their contracts at an expense of 2200_l._ By acting
on the same principle in the year after, they not only offered no
premium whatever for the contract, but the City Commissioners of Sewers
were obliged to pay them the sum of 300_l._ for removing the refuse,
and at present the amount paid by the City is as much as 4900_l._!
This is divided among four great contractors, and would, if equally
apportioned, give them 1250_l._ each.
I subjoin a list of the names of the principal contractors and the
parishes for which they are engaged:--
DISTRICTS CONTRACTED NAMES OF
FOR. CONTRACTORS.
{ Redding.
Four divisions of the City. { Rook.
{ J. Sinnott.
{ J. Gould.
Finsbury-square J. Gould.
St. Luke’s H. Dodd.
Shoreditch Ditto.
Norton Folgate J. Gould.
Bethnal-green E. Newman.
Holborn Pratt and Sewell.
Hatton-garden Ditto.
Islington Stroud, Brickmaker.
St. Martin’s Wm. Sinnott, Junior.
St. Mary-le-Strand J. Gore.
St. Sepulchre Ditto.
Savoy Ditto.
St. Clement Danes Rook.
St. James’s, Clerkenwell H. Dodd.
St. John’s, ditto J. Gould.
St. Margaret’s, Westminster W. Hearne.
St. John’s, ditto Stapleton and Holdsworth.
Lambeth W. Hearne.
Chelsea C. Humphries.
St. Marylebone J. Gore.
Blackfriars-bridge Jenkins.
St. Paul’s, Covent-garden W. Sinnott.
Piccadilly H. Tame.
Regent-street and Pall-mall W. Ridding.
St. George’s, Hanover-sq. H. Tame.
Paddington C. Humphries.
Camden-town Milton.
St. Pancras, S.W. Division W. Stapleton.
Southampton estate C. Starkey.
Skinner’s ditto H. North.
Brewer’s ditto C. Starkey.
Cromer ditto Ditto.
Calthorpe ditto Ditto.
Bedford ditto Gore.
Doughty ditto Martin.
Union ditto J. Gore.
Foundling ditto Pratt and Sewell.
Harrison ditto Martin.
St. Ann’s, Soho J. Gore.
Whitechapel Parsons.
Goswell-street Redding.
Commercial-road, East J. Sinnott.
Mile-end Newman.
Borough Hearne.
Bermondsey The parish.
Kensington H. Tame.
St. Giles’s-in-the-Fields and
St. George’s, Bloomsbury Redding.
Shadwell Westley.
St. George’s-in-the-East Ditto.
Battle-bridge Starkey.
Berkeley-square Clutterbuck.
St. George’s, Pimlico Redding.
Woods and Forests Ditto.
St. Botolph Westley.
St. John’s, Wapping Ditto.
Somers-town H. North.
Kentish-town J. Gore.
Rolls (Liberty of the) Pratt and Sewell.
Edward-square, Kensington C. Humphries.
All the metropolitan parishes now pay the contractors various amounts
for the removal of the dust, and I am credibly informed that there is
a system of underletting and jobbing in the dust contracts extensively
carried on. The contractor for a certain parish is often a different
person from the master doing the work, who is unknown in the contract.
Occasionally the work would appear to be subdivided and underlet a
second time.
The parish of St. Pancras is split into no less than 21 districts, each
district having a separate and independent “Board,” who are generally
at war with each other, and make separate contracts for their several
divisions. This is also the case in other large parishes, and these
and other considerations confirm me in the conclusion that of large
and small dust-contractors, job-masters, and middle-men, of one kind
or the other, throughout the metropolis, there cannot be less than the
number I have stated--90. With the exception of Bermondsey, there are
no parishes who remove their own dust.
It is difficult to arrive at any absolute statement as to the gross
amount paid by the different parishes for the removal of the entire
dust of the metropolis. From Shadwell the contractor, as we have seen,
receives 250_l._; from the city the four contractors receive as much
as 5000_l._; but there are many small parishes in London which do not
pay above a tithe of the last-mentioned sum. Let us, therefore, assume,
that one with another, the several metropolitan parishes pay 200_l._
a year each to the dust contractor. According to the returns before
given, there are 176 parishes in London. Hence, the gross amount paid
for the removal of the entire dust of the metropolis will be between
30,000_l._ and 40,000_l._ per annum.
The removal of the dust throughout the metropolis, is, therefore,
carried on by a number of persons called Contractors, who undertake,
as has been stated, for a certain sum, to cart away the refuse from
the houses as frequently as the inhabitants desire it. To ascertain
the precise numbers of these contractors is a task of much greater
difficulty than might at first be conceived.
The London Post Office Directory gives the following number of
tradesmen connected with the removal of refuse from the houses and
streets of the metropolis.
Dustmen 9
Scavengers 10
Nightmen 14
Sweeps 32
But these numbers are obviously incomplete, for even a cursory
passenger through London must have noticed a greater number of names
upon the various dust carts to be met with in the streets than are here
set down.
A dust-contractor, who has been in the business upwards of 20 years,
stated that, from his knowledge of the trade, he should suppose that at
present there might be about 80 or 90 contractors in the metropolis.
Now, according to the returns before given, there are within the limits
of the Metropolitan Police District 176 parishes, and comparing this
with my informant’s statement, that many persons contract for more than
one parish (of which, indeed, he himself is an instance), there remains
but little reason to doubt the correctness of his supposition--that
there are, in all, between 80 or 90 dust-contractors, large and small,
connected with the metropolis. Assuming the aggregate number to be 88,
there would be one contractor to every two parishes.
These dust-contractors are likewise the contractors for the
cleansing of the streets, except where that duty is performed by the
Street-Orderlies; they are also the persons who undertake the emptying
of the cesspools in their neighbourhood; the latter operation, however,
is effected by an arrangement between themselves and the landlords
of the premises, and forms no part of their parochial contracts. At
the office of the Street Orderlies in Leicester Square, they have
knowledge of only 30 contractors connected with the metropolis; but
this is evidently defective, and refers to the “large masters” alone;
leaving out of all consideration, as it does, the host of small
contractors scattered up and down the metropolis, who are able to
employ only two or three carts and six or seven men each; many of such
small contractors being merely master sweeps who have managed to “get
on a little in the world,” and who are now able to contract, “in a
small way,” for the removal of dust, street-sweepings, and night-soil.
Moreover, many of even the “great contractors” being unwilling to
venture upon an outlay of capital for carts, horses, &c., when their
contract is only for a year, and may pass at the end of that time into
the hands of any one who may underbid them--many such, I repeat, are
in the habit of underletting a portion of their contract to others
possessing the necessary appliances, or of entering into partnership
with them. The latter is the case in the parish of Shadwell, where a
person having carts and horses shares the profits with the original
contractor. The agreement made on such occasions is, of course, a
secret, though the practice is by no means uncommon; indeed, there is
so much secrecy maintained concerning all matters connected with this
business, that the inquiry is beset with every possible difficulty.
The gentleman who communicated to me the amount paid by the parish
of Shadwell, and who informed me, moreover, that parishes in his
neighbourhood paid twice and three times more than Shadwell did, hinted
to me the difficulties I should experience at the commencement of my
inquiry, and I have certainly found his opinion correct to the letter.
I have ascertained that in one yard intimidation was resorted to, and
the men were threatened with instant dismissal if they gave me any
information but such as was calculated to mislead.
I soon discovered, indeed, that it was impossible to place any reliance
on what some of the contractors said; and here I may repeat that the
indisputable result of my inquiries has been to meet with far more
deception and equivocation from employers generally than from the
employed; working men have little or no motive for mis-stating their
wages; they know well that the ordinary rates of remuneration for their
labour are easily ascertainable from other members of the trade, and
seldom or never object to produce accounts of their earnings, whenever
they have been in the habit of keeping such things. With employers,
however, the case is far different; to seek to ascertain from them
the profits of their trade is to meet with evasion and prevarication
at every turn; they seem to feel that their gains are dishonestly
large, and hence resort to every means to prevent them being made
public. That I have met with many honourable exceptions to this rule,
I most cheerfully acknowledge; but that the _majority_ of tradesmen
are neither so frank, communicative, nor truthful, as the men in their
employ, the whole of my investigations go to prove. I have already, in
the _Morning Chronicle_, recorded the character of my interviews with
an eminent Jew slop-tailor, an army clothier, and an enterprising
free-trade stay-maker (a gentleman who subscribed his 100 guineas to
the League), and I must in candour confess that now, after two years’
experience, I have found the industrious poor a thousand-fold more
veracious than the trading rich.
With respect to the amount of business done by these contractors, or
gross quantity of dust collected by them in the course of the year,
it would appear that each employs, on an average, about 20 men, which
makes the number of men employed as dustmen through the streets of
London amount to 1800. This, as has been previously stated, is grossly
at variance with the number given in the Census of 1841, which computes
the dustmen in the metropolis at only 254. But, as I said before, I
have long ceased to place confidence in the government returns on such
subjects. According to the above estimate of 254, and deducting from
this number the 88 master-dustmen, there would be only 166 labouring
men to empty the 300,000 dustbins of London, and as these men always
work in couples, it follows that every two dustmen would have to remove
the refuse from about 3600 houses; so that assuming each bin to require
emptying once every six weeks they would have to cart away the dust
from 2400 houses every month, or 600 every week, which is at the rate
of 100 a day! and as each dust-bin contains about half a load, it would
follow that at this rate each cart would have to collect 50 loads of
dust daily, whereas 5 loads is the average day’s work.
Computing the London dust-contractors at 90, and the inhabited houses
at 300,000, it follows that each contractor would have 3333 houses to
remove the refuse from. Now it has been calculated that the ashes and
cinders alone from each house average about three loads per annum, so
that each contractor would have, in round numbers, 10,000 loads of
dust to remove in the course of the year. I find, from inquiries, that
every two dustmen carry to the yard about five loads a day, or about
1500 loads in the course of the year, so that at this rate, there must
be between six and seven carts, and twelve and fourteen collectors
employed by each master. But this is exclusive of the men employed
in the yards. In one yard that I visited there were fourteen people
busily employed. Six of these were women, who were occupied in sifting,
and they were attended by three men who shovelled the dust into their
sieves, and the foreman, who was hard at work loosening and dragging
down the dust from the heap, ready for the “fillers-in.” Besides these
there were two carts and four men engaged in conveying the sifted dust
to the barges alongside the wharf. At a larger dust-yard, that formerly
stood on the banks of the Regent’s-canal, I am informed that there were
sometimes as many as 127 people at work. It is but a small yard, which
has not 30 to 40 labourers connected with it; and the lesser dust-yards
have generally from four to eight sifters, and six or seven carts.
There are, therefore, employed in a medium-sized yard twelve collectors
or cartmen, six sifters, and three fillers-in, besides the foreman
or forewoman, making altogether 22 persons; so that, computing the
contractors at 90, and allowing 20 men to be employed by each, there
would be 1800 men thus occupied in the metropolis, which appears to be
very near the truth.
One who has been all his life connected with the business estimated
that there must be about ten dustmen to each metropolitan parish, large
and small. In Marylebone he believed there were eighteen dust-carts,
with two men to each, out every day; in some small parishes, however,
two men are sufficient. There would be more men employed, he said,
but some masters contracted for two or three parishes, and so “kept
the same men going,” working them hard, and enlarging their regular
rounds. Calculating, then, that ten men are employed to each of the 176
metropolitan parishes, we have 1760 dustmen in London. The suburban
parishes, my informant told me, were as well “dustmaned” as any he
knew; for the residents in such parts were more particular about their
dust than in busier places.
It is curious to observe how closely the number of men engaged in
the collection of the “dust” from the coals burnt in London agrees,
according to the above estimate, with the number of men engaged in
delivering the coals to be burnt. The coal-whippers, who “discharge the
colliers,” are about 1800, and the coal-porters, who carry the coals
from the barges to the merchants’ wagons, are about the same in number.
The amount of residuum from coal after burning cannot, of course,
be equal either in bulk or weight to the original substance; but
considering that the collection of the dust is a much slower operation
than the delivery of the coals, the difference is easily accounted for.
We may arrive, approximately, at the quantity of dust annually produced
in London, in the following manner:--
The consumption of coal in London, per annum, is about 3,500,000 tons,
exclusive of what is brought to the metropolis per rail. Coals are made
up of the following component parts, viz. (1) the inorganic and fixed
elements; that is to say, the ashes, or the bones, as it were, of the
fossil trees, which cannot be burnt; (2) coke, or the residuary carbon,
after being deprived of the volatile matter; (3) the volatile matter
itself given off during combustion in the form of flame and smoke.
The relative proportions of these materials in the various kinds of
coals are as follows.--
Carbon, Volatile, Ashes,
per cent. per cent. per cent.
Cannel or gas coals. 40 to 60 60 to 40 10
Newcastle or “house” coals. 57 37 5
Lancashire and Yorkshire coals. 50 to 60 35 to 40 4
South Welsh or “steam” coals. 81 to 85 11 to 15 3
Anthracite or “stone” coals. 80 to 95 None a little.
In the metropolis the Newcastle coal is chiefly used, and this, we
perceive, yields five per cent. ashes and about 57 per cent. carbon.
But a considerable part of the carbon is converted into carbonic acid
during combustion; if, therefore, we assume that two-thirds of the
carbon are thus consumed, and that the remaining third remains behind
in the form of cinder, we shall have about 25 per cent. of “dust” from
every ton of coal. On inquiry of those who have had long experience in
this matter, I find that a ton of coal may be fairly said on an average
to yield about one-fourth its weight in dust; hence the gross amount
of “dust” annually produced in London would be 900,000 tons, or about
three tons per house per annum.
It is impossible to obtain any definite statistics on this part of the
subject. Not one in every ten of the contractors keeps any account of
the amount that comes into the “yard.” An intelligent and communicative
gentleman whom I consulted on this matter, could give me no information
on this subject that was in any way satisfactory. I have, however,
endeavoured to check the preceding estimate in the following manner.
There are in London upwards of 300,000 inhabited houses, and each
house furnishes a certain quota of dust to the general stock. I have
ascertained that an average-sized house will produce, in the course of
a year, about three cart-loads of dust, while each cart holds about
40 bushels (baskets)--what the dustmen call a chaldron. There are, of
course, many houses in the metropolis which furnish three and four
times this amount of dust, but against these may be placed the vast
preponderance of small and poor houses in London and the suburbs, where
there is not one quarter of the quantity produced, owing to the small
amount of fuel consumed. Estimating, then, the average annual quantity
of dust from each house at three loads, or chaldrons, and the houses at
300,000, it follows that the gross quantity collected throughout the
metropolis will be about 900,000 chaldrons per annum.
The next part of the subject is--what becomes of this vast quantity of
dust--to what use it is applied.
The dust thus collected is used for two purposes, (1) as a manure for
land of a peculiar quality; and (2) for making bricks. The fine portion
of the house-dust called “soil,” and separated from the “brieze,” or
coarser portion, by sifting, is found to be peculiarly fitted for what
is called breaking up a marshy heathy soil at its first cultivation,
owing not only to the dry nature of the dust, but to its possessing in
an eminent degree a highly separating quality, almost, if not quite,
equal to sand. In former years the demand for this finer dust was very
great, and barges were continually in the river waiting their turn to
be loaded with it for some distant part of the country. At that time
the contractors were unable to supply the demand, and easily got 1_l._
per chaldron for as much as they could furnish, and then, as I have
stated, many ships were in the habit of bringing cargoes of it from
the North, and of realizing a good profit on the transaction. Of late
years, however--and particularly, I am told, since the repeal of the
corn-laws--this branch of the business has dwindled to nothing. The
contractors say that the farmers do not cultivate their land now as
they used; it will not pay them, and instead, therefore, of bringing
fresh land into tillage, and especially such as requires this sort
of manure, they are laying down that which they previously had in
cultivation, and turning it into pasture grounds. It is principally
on this account, say the contractors, that we cannot sell the dust we
collect so well or so readily as formerly. There are, however, some
cargoes of the dust still taken, particularly to the lowlands in the
neighbourhood of Barking, and such other places in the vicinity of the
metropolis as are enabled to realize a greater profit, by growing for
the London markets. Nevertheless, the contractors are obliged now to
dispose of the dust at 2_s._ 6_d._ per chaldron, and sometimes less.
The finer dust is also used to mix with the clay for making bricks,
and barge-loads are continually shipped off for this purpose. The
fine ashes are added to the clay in the proportion of one-fifth ashes
to four-fifths clay, or 60 chaldrons to 240 cubic yards, which is
sufficient to make 100,000 bricks (where much sand is mixed with the
clay a smaller proportion of ashes may be used). This quantity requires
also the addition of about 15 chaldrons, or, if mild, of about 12
chaldrons of “brieze,” to aid the burning. The ashes are made to mix
with the clay by collecting it into a sort of reservoir fitted up for
the purpose; water in great quantities is let in upon it, and it is
then stirred till it resembles a fine thin paste, in which state the
dust easily mingles with every part of it. In this condition it is left
till the water either soaks into the earth, or goes off by evaporation,
when the bricks are moulded in the usual manner, the dust forming a
component part of them.
The ashes, or cindered matter, which are thus dispersed throughout the
substance of the clay, become, in the process of burning, gradually
ignited and consumed. But the “brieze” (from the French _briser_, to
break or crush), that is to say, the coarser portion of the coal-ash,
is likewise used in the burning of the bricks. The small spaces left
among the lowest courses of the bricks in the kiln, or “clamp,” are
filled with “brieze,” and a thick layer of the same material is spread
on the top of the kilns, when full. Frequently the “brieze” is mixed
with small coals, and after having been burnt the ashes are collected,
and then mixed with the clay to form new bricks. The highest price at
present given for “brieze” is 3_s._ per ton.
The price of the dust used by the brickmakers has likewise been
reduced; this the contractors account for by saying that there are
fewer brick-fields than formerly near London, as they have been nearly
all built over. They assert, that while the amount of dust and cinders
has increased proportionately to the increase of the houses, the demand
for the article has decreased in a like ratio; and that, moreover, the
greater portion of the bricks now used in London for the new buildings
come from other quarters. Such dust, however, as the contractors
sell to the brick-makers, they in general undertake, for a certain
sum, to cart to the brick-fields, though it often happens that the
brick-makers’ carts coming into town with their loads of bricks to new
buildings, call on their return at the dust-yards, and carry thence a
load of dust or cinders back, and so save the price of cartage.
But during the operation of sifting the dust, many things are found
which are useless for either manure or brick-making, such as oyster
shells, old bricks, old boots and shoes, old tin kettles, old rags and
bones, &c. These are used for various purposes.
The bricks, &c., are sold for sinking beneath foundations, where a
thick layer of concrete is spread over them. Many old bricks, too, are
used in making new roads, especially where the land is low and marshy.
The old tin goes to form the japanned fastenings for the corners of
trunks, as well as to other persons, who re-manufacture it into a
variety of articles. The old shoes are sold to the London shoemakers,
who use them as stuffing between the in-sole and the outer one; but by
far the greater quantity is sold to the manufacturers of Prussian blue,
that substance being formed out of refuse animal matter. The rags and
bones are of course disposed of at the usual places--the marine-store
shops.
A dust-heap, therefore, may be briefly said to be composed of the
following things, which are severally applied to the following uses:--
1. “Soil,” or fine dust, sold to brickmakers for making bricks, and to
farmers for manure, especially for clover.