I have been favoured with a Report “upon street-cleansing and in
reference to the Street-Orderly System,” by the author, Mr. W. Haywood,
the Surveyor to the City Commission of Sewers, who has invited my
attention to the matter, in consequence of the statements which have
appeared on the subject in “London Labour and the London Poor.”
Mr. Haywood, whose tone of argument is courteous and moderate, and who
does not scruple to do justice to what he accounts the good points of
the street-orderly system, although he condemns it as a whole, gives
an account of the earlier scavaging of the city, not differing in any
material respect from that which I have already printed. He represents
the public ways of the City, which I have stated to be about 50 miles,
as “about 51 miles lineal, about 770,157 superficial yards in area.”
This area, it appears, comprehends 1000 different places.
In 1845 the area of the carriage-way of the City was estimated at
418,000 square yards, and the footway at 316,000, making a total of
734,000; but since that period new streets have been made and others
extensively widened. The precincts of Bridewell, St. Bartholomew, St.
James’s, Duke’s-place, Aldgate, and others, have been added to the
jurisdiction of the Sewers Commission by Act of Parliament, so that
the Surveyor now estimates the area of the carriage-way of the City of
London at 441,250 square yards, and the footway at 328,907, making a
total of 770,157 square yards.
“I am fully impressed,” observes Mr. Haywood, “with the great
importance to a densely-populated city of an efficient cleansing of the
public ways. Probably after a perfect system of sewage and drainage
(which implies an adequate water supply), and a well-paved surface
(which I have always considered to be little inferior in its importance
to the former, and which is indispensable to obtaining clean sweeping),
good surface cleansing ranks next in its beneficial sanitary influence;
and most certainly the comfort gained by all through having public
thoroughfares in a high degree of cleanliness is exceedingly great.”
Mr. Haywood expresses his opinion that streets “ordure
soddened”--smelling like “stable yards,”--dangerous to the health
of the inhabitants--impassable from mud in winter and from dust in
summer--and inflicting constant pecuniary loss, “can only exist in
an appreciable degree in thoroughfares swept much less frequently”
than the streets within the jurisdiction of the City Commissioners
of Sewers. In this opinion, however, Mr. Haywood comes into direct
collision with the statements put forth by the Board of Health, who
have insisted upon the insanitary state of the metropolitan streets,
more strongly, perhaps, in their several Reports, than has Mr. Cochrane.
But Mr. Haywood believes that not only are the assertions of the
Board of Health as to the unwholesome state of the metropolitan
thoroughfares unfounded as regards the city of London, but he asserts
that from the daily street-sweeping, “the surface there is maintained
in as high an average condition of cleanliness, as the means hitherto
adopted will enable to be attained.”
“Nor does this apply,” says Mr. Haywood, “to the main thoroughfares
only. In the poorer courts and alleys within the city, where a high
degree of cleanliness is, at least, as needful, in a sanitary point
of view, as in the larger and wider thoroughfares, the facilities for
efficient sweeping are as great, if not greater, than in other portions
of your jurisdiction. For many years past the whole of the courts and
alleys which carts do not enter, have been paved with flagstone, laid
at a good inclination, and presenting an uniform smooth _non-absorbent_
surface: in many of these courts where the habits of the people are
cleanly, the scavenger’s broom is almost unneeded for weeks together;
in others, where the habit prevails of throwing the refuse of the
houses upon the pavements, the daily sweeping is highly essential; but
in all these courts the surface presents a condition which renders good
clean sweeping a comparatively easy operation, that which is swept away
being mostly dry, or nearly so.”
After alluding to the street-orderly principle of scavaging, “to clean
and keep clean,” Mr. Haywood observes, “between the ‘_street-orderly
system_’ and the periodical or intermittent sweeping there is this
difference, that upon the former system there should be (if it fulfils
what it professes) no deposit of any description allowed to remain much
longer than a few minutes upon the surface, and that there should be
neither mud in the wet weather, nor dust in the dry weather, upon the
public ways; whilst, upon the latter system, the deposit necessarily
accumulates between the periods of sweeping, commencing as soon as one
sweeping has terminated, gradually increasing, and being at its point
of extreme accumulation at the period when the next sweeping takes
place; the former, then, is, or should be, a system of prevention; the
latter, confessedly, but a system of palliation or cure.
“The more frequent the periodical sweeping, therefore, the nearer it
approximates in its results to the ‘_street-orderly system_,’ inasmuch
as the accumulations, being frequently removed, must be smaller, and
the evils of mud, dust, effluvia, &c., less in proportion.
“Now to fulfil its promise: upon the ‘street-orderly system,’ there
should be men both day and night within the streets, who should
constantly remove the manure and refuse, and, failing this, if there be
only cessation for six hours out of the twenty-four of the ‘continuous
cleansing,’ it becomes at once a periodical cleansing but a degree
in advance of the daily sweeping, which has been now for years in
operation within the city of London.”
This appears to me to be an extreme conclusion:--because the labours
of the street-orderly system cease when the great traffic ceases, and
when, of course, there is comparatively little or no dirt deposited
in the thoroughfares, therefore, says Mr. Haywood, “the City system of
cleansing once per day is _only a degree_ behind that system of which
the principle is incessant cleansing at such time as the dirtying
is incessant.” The two principles are surely as different as light
and darkness:--in the one the cleansing is intermittent and the dirt
constant; in the other the dirt is intermittent and the cleanliness
constant--constant, at least, so long as the causes of impurity are so.
Mr. Haywood, however, states that the Commissioners were so pleased
with the appearance of the streets, when cleansed on the street-orderly
system, which “was _certainly much to be admired_,” that they
introduced a somewhat similar system, calling their scavagers “daymen,”
as they had the care of _keeping_ the streets clean, _after_ a daily
morning sweeping by the contractor’s men. They commenced their work
at 9 A.M. and ceased at 6 P.M. in the summer months, and at half-past
4 P.M. in the winter. In the summer months 36 daymen were employed on
the average; in the winter months, 46. The highest number of scavaging
daymen employed on any one day was 63; the lowest was 34. The area
cleansed was about 47,000 yards (superficial measure), and with the
following results, and the following cost, from June 24, 1846, to the
same date, 1847:--
Yards
Superficial.
The average area cleansed during the summer
months, per man per diem, was 1298
Ditto during winter, per man per diem, was 1016
The average of both summer and winter months
was, per man per diem 1139
------
The cost of the experiment was for daymen
(including brooms, barrows, shovels,
cartage, &c.)[29] £1450 18
One Foreman at 78 0
--------
And the total cost of the experiment £1528 18
“The daily sweeping,” Mr. Haywood says, “which for the previous
two years had been established throughout the City, gave at that
time _very great satisfaction_. It was quite true that the streets
which the daymen attended to, _looked superior_ to those cleansed
only _periodically_, but the practical value of the difference was
considered by many not to be worth the sum of money paid for it. It
was also felt that, if it was continued, it should upon principle be
extended at least to all streets of similar traffic to those upon which
it had been tried; and as, after due consideration, the Commission
thought that one daily sweeping was sufficient, both for health and
comfort, the day or continuous sweeping was abandoned, and the whole
City only received, from that time to the present, the usual daily
sweeping.”
The “present” time is shown by the date of Mr. Haywood’s Report,
October 13, 1851. The reason assigned for the abandonment of the
system of the daymen is peculiar and characteristic. The system of
continuous cleansing gave very great satisfaction, although it was but
a degree in advance of the once-a-day cleansing. The streets which
the daymen attended to “looked,” and of course were, “superior” in
cleanliness to those scavaged periodically. It was also felt that
the principle should “be extended at least to all streets of similar
traffic;” and why was it not so extended? Because, in a word, “it was
not worth the money;” though by what standard the value of public
cleanliness was calculated, is not mentioned.
The main question, therefore, is, what is the difference in the cost of
the two systems, and _is_ the admitted “superior cleanliness” produced
by the continuous mode of scavaging, in comparison with that obtained
by the intermittent mode, of sufficient public value to warrant the
increased expense (if any)--in a word, as the City people say--is it
_worth the money_?
First, as to the comparative cost of the two systems: after a
statement of the contracts for the dusting and cleansing of the City
(matters I have before treated of) Mr. Haywood, for the purpose of
making a comparison of the present City system of scavaging with the
street-orderly system, gives the table in the opposite page to show the
cost of street cleansing and dusting within the jurisdiction of the
City Court of Sewers.
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.