As yet I have spoken only of the sewers of London[64] “without the
City;” but the sewers within the City, though connected, for the
general public drainage and sewerage of the capital, with the works
under the control of the Metropolitan Commissioners, are in a distinct
and strictly defined jurisdiction, superintended by City Commissioners,
and managed by City officers, and consequently demand a special notice.
The account of the City sewers, however, may be given with a
comparative brevity, for the modes of their construction, as well as
their general management, do not differ from what I have described as
pertaining to the extra-civic metropolis. There are, nevertheless, a
few distinctions which it is proper to point out.
The City sewers are the oldest in the capital, for the very plain
reason that the City itself, in its site, if not now in its public and
private buildings, is the oldest part of London, as regards the abode
of a congregated body of people.
The ages (so to speak) of these sewers, vary, for the most part,
according to the dates of the City’s rebuilding after the Great Fire,
and according to the dates of the many alterations, improvements,
removal or rebuilding of new streets, markets, &c., which have been
effected since that period. Before the Great Fire of 1666, all drainage
seems, with a few exceptions, to have been fortuitous, unconnected, and
superficial.
The _first_ public sewer built after this important epoch in the
history of London was in Ludgate-street and hill. This was the laudable
work of the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul’s, and was constructed at the
instance, it is said, and after the plans, of Sir Christopher Wren.
There is, perhaps, no official or documentary proof of this, for the
proclamations from the King in council, the Acts of Parliament, and the
resolutions of the Corporation of the City of London at that important
period, are so vague and so contradictory, and were so frequently
altered or abrogated, and so frequently disregarded, that it is more
impossible than difficult to get at the truth. Of the fact which I have
just mentioned, however, there need be no doubt; nor that the _second_
public City sewer was in Fleet-street, commenced in 1668, the second
year after the fire.
There are, nevertheless, older sewers than this, but the dates of their
construction are not known; we have proof merely that they existed in
old London, or as it was described by an anonymous writer (quoted, if
I remember rightly, in Maitland’s “History of London”), London “_ante
ignem_”--London before the fire. These sewers, or rather portions of
sewers, are severally near Newgate, St. Bartholomew’s Hospital sewer,
and that of the Irongate by the Tower.
The sewer, however, which may be pointed out as the most remarkable is
that of Little Moorgate, London-wall. It is formed of red tiles; and
from such being its materials, and from the circumstance of some Roman
coins having been found near it, it is supposed by some to be of Roman
construction, and of course coeval with that people’s possession of the
country. This sewer has a flat bottom, upright sides, and a circular
arch at its top; it is about 5 feet by 3 feet. The other older sewers
present much about the same form; and an Act in the reign of Charles
II. directs that sewers shall be so built, but that the bottom shall
have a circular curve.
I am informed by a City gentleman--one taking an interest in such
matters--that this sewer has troubled the repose of a few civic
antiquaries, some thinking that it was a Roman sewer, while others
scouted such a notion, arguing that the Romans were not in the habit
of doing their work by halves; and that if they had sewered London,
great and enduring remains would have been discovered, for their main
sewer would have been a solid construction, and directed to the Thames,
as was and is the Cloaca Maxima, in the Eternal City, to the Tiber.
Others have said that the sewer in question was merely built of Roman
materials, perhaps first discovered about the time, having originally
formed a reservoir, tank, or even a bath, and were keenly appropriated
by some economical or scheming builder or City official.
“That the Britons,” says Tacitus in his “Life of Agricola,” “who led
a roaming life, and were easily incited to war, might contract a love
for peace, by being accustomed to a pleasanter mode of life, Agricola
assisted them to build houses, temples, and market-places. By praising
the diligent and upbraiding the idle, he excited such emulation among
the Britons, that, after they had erected all those necessary buildings
in their towns, they built others for pleasure and ornament, as
porticoes, galleries, _baths_, and banqueting-houses.”
The sewers of the city of London are, then, a comparatively modern
work. Indeed, three-fourths of them may be called modern. The earlier
sewers were--as I have described under the general head--ditches, which
in time were arched over, but only gradually and partially, as suited
the convenience or the profit of the owners of property alongside
those open channels, some of which thus presented the appearance of
a series of small uncouth-looking bridges. When these bridges had to
be connected so as to form the summit of a continuous sewer, they
presented every variety of arch, both at their outer and under sides;
those too near the surface had to be lowered. Some of these sewers,
however, were in the first instances connected, despite difference
of size and irregularity of form. The result may be judged from the
account I have given of the strange construction of some of the
Westminster sewers, under the head of “subterranean survey.”
How modern the City sewers are may best be estimated from the following
table of what may be called the dates of their construction. The
periods are given decennially as to the progress of the formation of
_new_ sewers:--
Feet.
1707 to 1717 2,805
1717 „ 1727 2,110
1727 „ 1737 2,763
1737 „ 1747 1,238
1747 „ 1757 3,736
1757 „ 1767 3,736
1767 „ 1777 7,597
1777 „ 1787 8,693
1787 „ 1797 3,118
1797 „ 1807 5,116
1807 „ 1817 5,097
1817 „ 1827 7,847
-------
52,810
1827 to 1837 39,072 feet.
1837 to 1847 88,363 „
-------
127,435
Thus the length made in the 20 years previous to 1847 was more than
double all that was made during the preceding 120 years; while in the
ten years from 1837 to 1847, the addition to the lineal extent of
sewerage was very nearly equal to all that had been made in 130 years
previously.
This addition of 127,435 feet, or rather more than 24 miles, seems but
a small matter when “London” is thought of; but the reader must be
reminded that only a small portion (comparatively) of the metropolis
is here spoken of, and the entire length of the City sewerage, at the
close of 1847, was but 44 miles; so that the additions I have specified
as having been made since 1837, were more than one-half of the whole.
The _re_-constructions are not included in the metage I have given,
for, as the new sewers generally occupied the same site as the old,
they did not add to the length of the whole.
The total length of the City sewerage was, on the 31st December, 1851,
no less than 49 miles; while the entire public way was at the same
recent period, 51 miles (containing about 1000 separate and distinct
streets, lanes, courts, alleys, &c., &c.); and I am assured that in
another year or so, not a furlong of the whole City will be unsewered.
The more ancient sewers usually have upright walls, a flat or
slightly-curved invert, and a semicircular or gothic arch. The form of
such as have been built apparently more than 20 years ago, is that of
two semicircles, of which the upper has a greater radius, connected by
sloping side walls; those of recent construction are egg-shaped. The
main lines are not unfrequently elliptic; in the case of the Fleet,
and other ancient affluents of the Thames, the forms and dimensions
vary considerably. Instances occur of sewers built entirely of stone;
but the material is almost invariably brick, most commonly 9 inches in
substance; the larger sewers 14, and sometimes 18 inches.
The falls or inclinations in the course of the City sewerage vary
greatly, as much as from 1 in 240 to 1 in 24, or, in the first case,
from a fall of 22 feet, in the latter, of course, to ten times such
fall, or 220 feet per mile. There are, moreover, a few cases in which
the inclination is as small as 1 in 960; others where it is as high as
1 in 14. This irregularity is to be accounted for, partly by the want
of system in the old times, and partly from the natural levels of the
ground. The want of system and the indifference shown to providing a
proper fall, even where it was not difficult, was more excusable a few
years back than it would be at the present time, for when some of these
sewers were built, the drainage of the house-refuse into them was not
contemplated.
The number of houses drained into the City sewers is, as precisely
as such a matter can be ascertained, 11,209; the number drained into
the cesspools is 5030. This shows a preponderance of drainage into
the sewers of 6179. The length of the house-drains in the City, at an
average of 50 feet to each house, may be estimated at upwards of 106
miles. These City drains are included in the general computation of the
metropolis.
The gully-drains in the City are more frequent than in other parts
of the metropolis, owing to the continual intersection of streets,
&c., and perhaps from a closer care of the sewerage and all matters
connected with it. The general average of the gully-drains I have
shown to be 59 for every mile of street. I am assured that in the
City the street-drains may be safely estimated at 65 to the mile.
Estimating the streets gullied within the City, then, at an average
of 50 miles, or about a mile more than the sewers, the number of
gully-drains is 3250, and the length of them about 50 miles; but these,
like the house-drains, have been already included in the metropolitan
enumeration.
The actual sum expended yearly upon the construction, and repairs,
and improvements of the City sewers cannot be cited as a distinct
item, because the Court makes the return of the aggregate annual
expenditure, as regards pavement, cleansing, and the matters specified
as the general expenditure under the Court of Commissioners of the City
Sewers. The cost, however, of the construction of sewers comprised
within the civic boundaries is included in the general metropolitan
estimate before given.