The daily and nightly grinding of thousands of wheels, the iron
friction of so many horses’ hoofs, the evacuations of horses and
cattle, and the ceaseless motion of pedestrians, all decomposing the
substance of our streets and roads, give rise to many distinct kinds of
street-dirt. These are severally known as
(1) _Dust._
(2) _Horse-dung_ and _cattle-manure_.
(3) _Mud_, when mixed with water and with general refuse, such as the
remains of fruit and other things thrown into the street and swept
together.
(4) _Surface-water_ when mixed with street-sewage.
These productions I shall treat severally, and first of the street-dust.
The “_detritus_” of the streets of London assumes many forms, and is
known by many names, according as it is combined with more or less
water.
1st. In a perfectly dry state, so that the particles no longer exist
either in a state of cohesion or aggregation, but are minutely divided
and distinct, it is known by the name of “dust.”
2nd. When in combination with a small quantity of water, so that it
assumes the consistency of a pap, the particles being neither free to
move nor yet able to resist pressure, the detritus is known by the
name of “mac mud,” or simply “mud,” according as it proceeds from a
macadamized or stone paved road.
3rd. When in combination with a greater quantity of water, so that it
is rendered almost liquid, it is known as “slop-dirt.”
4th. When in combination with a still greater quantity of water, so
that it is capable of running off into the sewers, it is known by the
name of “street surface-water.”
The mud of the streets of London is then merely the dust or detritus
of the granite of which they are composed, agglutinated either with
rain or the water from the watering-carts. Granite consists of silex,
felspar, and mica. Silex is sand, while felspar and mica are also silex
in combination with alumina (clay), and either potash or magnesia.
Hence it would appear to be owing to the affinity of the alumina or
clay for moisture, as well as the property of silex to “gelatinize”
with water under certain conditions, that the particles of dry dust
derive their property of _agglutinating_, when wetted, and so forming
what is termed “mud”--either “mac,” or simple mud, according, as I said
before, to the nature of the paving on which it is formed.
By _dust_ the street-cleansers mean the collection of every kind of
refuse in the dust-bins; but I here speak, of course, of the fine
particles of earthy matter produced by the attrition of our roads when
in a dry state. Street-dust is, more properly speaking, mud deprived of
its moisture by evaporation. Miss Landon (L. E. L.) used to describe
the London dust as “mud in high spirits,” and perhaps no figure of
speech could convey a better notion of its character.
In some parts of the suburbs on windy days London is a perfect
dust-mill, and although the dust may be allayed by the agency of the
water-carts (by which means it is again converted into “mac,” or mud),
it is not often thoroughly allayed, and is a source of considerable
loss, labour, and annoyance. Street-dust is not collected for any
useful purpose, so that as there is no return to be balanced against
its prejudicial effects it remains only to calculate the quantity of it
annually produced, and thus to arrive at the extent of the mischief.
Street-dust is disintegrated granite, that is, pulverized quartz
and felspar, felspar being principally composed of alumina or clay,
and quartz silex or sand; it is the result of the attrition, or in
a word it is the _detritus_, of the stones used in pavements and in
macadamization; it is further composed of the pulverization of all
horse and cattle-dung, and of the almost imperceptible, but still, I
am assured, existent powder which arises from the friction of the
wooden pavement even when kept moist. In the roads of the nearest
suburbs, even around such places as the Regent’s-park, at many seasons
this dust is produced largely, so that very often an open window for
the enjoyment of fresh air is one for the intrusion of fresh dust.
This may be less the case in the busier and more frequently-watered
thoroughfares, but even there the annoyance is great.
I find in the “Reports” in which this subject is mentioned but little
said concerning the influence of dust upon the public health. Dr.
Arnott, however, is very explicit on the subject. “It is,” says
he, “scarcely conceivable that the immense quantities of granite
dust, pounded by one or two hundred thousand pairs of wheels (!)
working on macadamized streets, should not greatly injure the public
health. In houses bordering such streets or roads it is found that,
notwithstanding the practice of watering, the furniture is often
covered with dust, even more than once in the day, so that writing on
it with the finger becomes legible, and the lungs and air tubes of the
inhabitants, with a moist lining to detain the dust, are constantly
pumping in the same atmosphere. The passengers by a stage-coach in dry
weather, when the wind is moving with them so as to keep them enveloped
in the cloud of dust raised by the horses’ feet and the wheels of the
coach, have their clothes soon saturated to whiteness, and their lungs
are charged in a corresponding degree. A gentleman who rode only 20
miles in this way had afterwards to cough and expectorate for ten days
to clear his chest again.”
In order that the deleteriousness to health incident to the inhalation
of these fine and offensive particles may be the better estimated, I
may add, that in every 24 hours an adult breathes 36 hogsheads of air;
and Mr. Erasmus Wilson, in his admirable work on the Skin, has the
following passage concerning the extent of surface presented by the
lungs:--
“The lungs receive the atmospheric air through the windpipe. At the
root of the neck the windpipe, or trachea, divides into two branches,
called bronchi, and each bronchus, upon entering its respective lung,
divides into an infinity of small tubes; the latter terminate in small
pouches, called air-cells, and a number of these little air-cells
communicate together at the extremity of each small tube. The number
of air-cells in the two lungs has been estimated at 1,744,000,000, and
the extent of the skin which lines the cells and tubes together at
1500 square feet. This calculation of the number of air-cells, and the
extent of the lining membrane, rests, I believe, on the authority of
Dr. Addison of Malvern.”
What is the amount of atmospherical granite, dung, and refuse-dust
received in a given period into the human lungs, has never, I am
informed, been ascertained even by approximation; but according to the
above facts it must be something fearful to contemplate.
After this brief recital of what is known concerning the sanitary part
of the question, I proceed to consider the damage and loss occasioned
by street-dust. In no one respect, perhaps, can this be ascertained
with perfect precision, but still even a rough approximation to the
extent of the evil is of value, as giving us more definite ideas on the
subject.
It will be seen, on reference to the preceding table, that the quantity
of street-refuse collected in dry weather throughout the metropolis is
between 300 and 400 cart-loads daily, or upwards of 100,000 cart-loads,
the greater proportion of which may be termed street-dust.
The damage occasioned by the street-dust arises from its penetrating,
before removal, the atmosphere both without and within our houses,
and consists in the soiling of wearing apparel, the injury of the
stock-in-trade of shopkeepers, and of household furniture.
Washing is, of course, dependent upon the duration of time in which
it is proper, in the estimation of the several classes of society,
to retain wearing apparel upon the person, on the bed or the table,
without what is termed a “change;” and this duration of time with
thousands of both men and women is often determined by the presence or
absence of dirt on the garment; and not arbitrarily, as among wealthier
people, with whom a clean shirt every morning, and a clean table-cloth
every one, two, three, or more days, as may happen, are regarded as
things of course, no matter what may be the state of the displaced
linen.
The Board of Health, in one of their Reports, speak very decisively and
definitely on this subject. “Common observation of the rate at which
the skin, linen, and clothes (not to speak of paper, books, prints, and
furniture) become dirty in the metropolis,” say they, “as compared with
the time that elapses before a proportionate amount of deterioration
and uncleanliness is communicated in the rural districts, will warrant
the estimate, that _full one-half the expense of washing to maintain a
passable degree of cleanliness_, is rendered necessary by the excess
of smoke generated in open fires, and the _excess of dust arising from
the imperfect scavenging of the roads and streets_. Persons engaged in
washing linen on a large scale, state that it is dirtied in the crowded
parts of the metropolis in _one-third_ the time in which the like
degree of uncleanliness would be produced in a rural district; but all
attest the fact, that linen is more rapidly destroyed by washing than
by the wear on the person. The expense of the more rapid destruction
of linen must be added to the extra expense of washing. These expenses
and inconveniences, the greater portion of which are due to _local
maladministration, occasion an extra expenditure of upwards of two to
three millions per annum_--exclusive of the injury done to the general
health and the medical and other expenses consequent thereon.”
Here, then, we find the evil effects of the imperfect scavenging of the
metropolis estimated at between two and three millions sterling per
annum, and this in the mere matter of extra washing and its necessary
concomitant extra wear and tear of clothes.
As this estimate, however, appears to me to exaggerate the evil beyond
all due bounds, I will proceed to adduce a few facts, bearing upon the
point: and first as to the expense of washing.
In order to ascertain as accurately as possible, the actual washing
expenses of labouring men and their families whose washing was done at
home, Mr. John Bullar, the Honorary Secretary to the Association for
the Promotion of Baths and Washhouses, tells us in a Report presented
to Parliament, “that inquiries were made of several hundred families
of labouring men, and it was found that, _taking the wife’s labour
as worth 5s. a week!_ the total cost of washing at home, for a man
and wife and four children, averaged very closely on 2_s._ 6_d._ a
week, = 5_d._ a head. The cost of coals, soda, soap, starch, blue, and
sometimes water, was rather less than one-third of the amount. The
time occupied was rarely less than two days, and more often extended
into a third day, so that the value of the labour was rather more than
two-thirds of the amount.
“The cost of washing to single men among the labouring classes, whose
washing expenditure might be expected to be on a very low scale, such
as hod-men and street-sweepers, was found to be 4-1/2_d._ a head.
“The cost of washing to very small tradesmen could not be safely
estimated at much more than 6_d._ a head a week.
“It may, perhaps,” continues the Report, “be safe to reckon the
weekly washing expenses of the poorer half of the inhabitants of the
metropolis at not exceeding 6_d._ a head; but the expenditure for
washing rapidly increases as the inquiry ascends into what are called
the ‘middle classes.’
“The washing expenses of families in which servants are employed may be
considered as double that of the servants’, and, therefore, as ranging
from 1_s._ 6_d._ to 5_s._ a week a head.
“There is considerable difficulty in ascertaining with any exactness
the washing expenditure of private families, but the conclusion is
that, taking the whole population, the washing bills of London are
nearly 1_s._ a week a head, or 5,000,000_l._ a year.
“Of course,” adds Mr. Bullar, “I give this as but a rough estimate, and
many exceptions may easily be taken to it; but I feel pretty confident
that _it is not very far_ from the truth.”
As I before stated, I am in no way disposed to go to the extent of
the calculation here made. It appears to me that in parliamentary
investigations by the agency of select committees, or by gentlemen
appointed to report on any subject, there is an aptitude to deal with
the whole body of the people as if they were earning the wages of well
and regularly-employed labourers, or even mechanics. To suppose that
the starving ballast-heaver, the victim of a vicious truck system,
which condemns him to poverty and drunkenness, or the sweep, or the
dustman, or the street-seller--all very numerous classes--expends 1_s._
a week in his washing, is far beyond the fact. Still less is expended
in the washing of these people’s children. Even the well-conducted
artizan, with two clean shirts a week (costing him 6_d._), with the
washing of stockings, &c. (costing 1_d._ or 2_d._), does not expend
1_s._ a week; so that, though the washing bills of many ladies and of
some gentlemen may average 10_s._ weekly, if we consider how few are
rich and how many poor, the extra payment seems insufficient to make up
the average of the weekly shilling for the washing of all classes.
A prosperous and respectable master greengrocer, who was what may
be called “particular” in his dress, as he had been a gentleman’s
servant, and was now in the habit of waiting upon the wealthy persons
in his neighbourhood, told me that the following was the average of
his washing bill. He was a bachelor; all his washing was put out, and
he considered his expenditure far _above_ the average of his class,
as many used no night-shirt, but slept in the shirts they wore during
the day, and paid only 3_d._, and even less, per shirt to their
washer-woman, and perhaps, and more especially in winter, made one
shirt last the week.
Two shirts (per week) 7_d._
Stockings 1
Night-shirt (worn two weeks generally,
average per week) 0-3/4
Sheets, blankets, and other household
linens or woollens 2
Handkerchiefs 0-1/4
------
11_d._
My informant was satisfied that he had put his expenditure at the
highest. I also ascertained that an industrious wife, who was able
to attend to her household matters, could wash the clothes of a
small tradesman’s family,--for a man, his wife, and four small
children,--“well,” at the following rate:--
1 lb. soap 4-1/2_d._ or 5_d._
Soda and starch 0-1/2
1/4 cwt. coals (extra) 3-1/2
-----
8-1/2_d._
or less than 1-1/2_d._ per head.
In this calculation it will be seen the cheapest soap is reckoned, and
that _there is no allowance for the wife’s labour_. When I pointed out
the latter circumstance, my informant said: “I look on it that the
washing labour is part of the wife’s keep, or what she gives in return
for it; and that as she’d have to be kept if she didn’t do it, why
there shouldn’t be no mention of it. If she was working for others it
would be quite different, but washing is a family matter; that’s my way
of looking at it. Coke, too, is often used instead of coals; besides, a
bit of bacon, or potatoes, or the tea-kettle, will have to be boiled,
and that’s managed along with the hot water for the suds, and would
have to be done anyhow, especially in winter.”
One decent woman, who had five children, “all under eight,” told me she
often sat up half, and sometimes the whole night to wash, when busy
other ways. She was not in poverty, for she earned “a good bit” in
going out to cook, and her husband was employed by a pork-butcher.
I may further add, that a great many single men wash their own clothes.
Many of the street-sellers in particular do this; so do such of the
poor as live in their own rooms, and occasionally the dwellers in the
low lodging-houses. One street-seller of ham sandwiches, whose aprons,
sleeves, and tray-cloth, were remarkably white, told me that he washed
them himself, as well as his shirt, &c., and that it was the common
practice with his class. This washing--his aprons, tray-cloths, shirts,
and stockings included--cost him, every three weeks, 4-1/4_d._ or 5_d._
for 1 lb. of soap, which is less than 1-1/2_d._ a week. Among such
people it is considered that the washing of a shirt is, as they say, “a
penn’orth of soap, and the stockings in,” meaning that a penny outlay
is sufficient to wash for both.
But not only does Mr. Bullar’s estimate exceed the truth as regards
the cost of washing among the poorer classes, but it also errs in
the proportion they are said to bear to the other ranks of society.
That gentleman speaks of “the poorer _half_ of the inhabitants of the
metropolis,” as if the rich and poor were equal in numbers! but with
all deference, it will be found that the ratio between the well-to-do
and the needy is as 1 to 2, that is to say, the property and income-tax
returns teach us there are at least two persons with an income _below_
150_l._ per annum, to every one having an income _above_ it. Hence, the
population of London being, within a fraction, 2,400,000; the numbers
of the metropolitan well-to-do and needy would be respectively 800,000
and 1,600,000, and, allowing the cost of the washing of the former to
average 1_s._ per head (adults and children), and, the washing of the
labouring classes to come to 2_d._ a head, young and old (the expense
of the materials, when the work is done at home, average, it has been
shown, about 1-1/2_d._ for each member of the family), we shall then
have the following statement:--
Annual cost of washing for 800,000
people, at 1_s._ per head per week £2,080,000
Annual cost of washing for 1,600,000
people, at 2_d._ per head per week 693,333
-----------
Total cost of washing of metropolis £2,773,333
I am convinced, low as the estimate of 2_d._ a week may appear for
all whose incomes are under 150_l._ a year, from many considerations,
that the above computation is rather over than under the truth. As,
for instance, Mr. Hawes has said concerning the consumption of soap in
the metropolis,--“Careful inquiry has proved that the quantity used is
much greater than that indicated by the Excise returns; but reducing
the results obtained by inquiry in one uniform proportion, the quantity
used by the labouring classes earning from 10_s._ to 30_s._ per week
is 10 lbs. each per annum, including every member of the family.
Dividing the population of the metropolis into three classes: (1) the
wealthy; (2) the shopkeepers and tradesmen; (3) labourers and the poor,
and allowing 15 lbs., 10 lbs., and 4 lbs. to each respectively, the
consumption of the metropolis will be nearly 200 tons per week.” The
cost of each ton of soap Mr. Hawes estimates at 45_l._
Professor Clarke, however, computes the metropolitan consumption of
soap at 250 tons per week, and the cost per ton at 50_l._
According to the above estimates,
the total quantity of soap used every
year in the metropolis is 12,000 tons,
and this, at 50_l._ per ton, comes to £600,000
Professor Clarke reckons the gross
consumption of soda in the metropolis,
at 250 tons per month, costing 10_l._ a
ton; hence for the year the consumption
will be 3000 tons, costing 30,000
The cost of water, according to the
same authority, is 3_s._ 4_d._ per head
per annum, and this, for the whole
metropolis, amounts to 400,000
Estimating the cost of the coals used
in heating the water to be equal to
that of the soap, we have for the
gross expense of fuel annually consumed
in washing 600,000
There are 21,000 laundresses in
London, and, calculating that the
wages of these average 10_s._ a week
each all the year round, the gross
sum paid to them, would be in
round numbers 550,000