September, immediately after the outbreak commenced. The following day
the attacks fell from one hundred and forty-three to one hundred and
sixteen, and the day afterwards to fifty-four. A glance at the above
table will show that the fresh attacks continued to become less numerous
every day. On September the 8th—the day when the handle of the pump was
removed—there were twelve attacks; on the 9th, eleven; on the 10th,
five; on the 11th, five; on the 12th, only one; and after this time,
there were never more than four attacks on one day. During the decline
of the epidemic the deaths were more numerous than the attacks, owing to
the decease of many persons who had lingered for several days in
consecutive fever.
[Sidenote: THE PUMP-WELL IN BROAD STREET, GOLDEN SQUARE.]
There is no doubt that the mortality was much diminished, as I said
before, by the flight of the population, which commenced soon after the
outbreak; but the attacks had so far diminished before the use of the
water was stopped, that it is impossible to decide whether the well
still contained the cholera poison in an active state, or whether, from
some cause, the water had become free from it. The pump-well has been
opened, and I was informed by Mr. Farrell, the superintendent of the
works, that there was no hole or crevice in the brickwork of the well,
by which any impurity might enter; consequently in this respect the
contamination of the water is not made out by the kind of physical
evidence detailed in some of the instances previously related. I
understand that the well is from twenty-eight to thirty feet in depth,
and goes through the gravel to the surface of the clay beneath. The
sewer, which passes within a few yards of the well, is twenty-two feet
below the surface. The water at the time of the cholera contained
impurities of an organic nature, in the form of minute whitish flocculi,
visible on close inspection to the naked eye, as I before stated. Dr.
Hassall, who was good enough to examine some of this water with the
microscope, informed me that these particles had no organised structure,
and that he thought they probably resulted from decomposition of other
matter. He found a great number of very minute oval animalcules in the
water, which are of no importance, except as an additional proof that
the water contained organic matter on which they lived. The water also
contained a large quantity of chlorides, indicating, no doubt, the
impure sources from which the spring is supplied. Mr. Eley, the
percussion-cap manufacturer of 37 Broad Street, informed me that he had
long noticed that the water became offensive, both to the smell and
taste, after it had been kept about two days. This, as I noticed before,
is a character of water contaminated with sewage. Another person had
noticed for months that a film formed on the surface of the water when
it had been kept a few hours.
I inquired of many persons whether they had observed any change in the
character of the water, about the time of the outbreak of cholera, and
was answered in the negative. I afterwards, however, met with the
following important information on this point. Mr. Gould, the eminent
ornithologist, lives near the pump in Broad Street, and was in the habit
of drinking the water. He was out of town at the commencement of the
outbreak of cholera, but came home on Saturday morning, 2nd September,
and sent for some of the water almost immediately, when he was much
surprised to find that it had an offensive smell, although perfectly
transparent and fresh from the pump. He did not drink any of it. Mr.
Gould’s assistant, Mr. Prince, had his attention drawn to the water, and
perceived its offensive smell. A servant of Mr. Gould who drank the
pump-water daily, and drank a good deal of it on August 31st, was seized
with cholera at an early hour on September 1st. She ultimately
recovered.
Whether the impurities of the water were derived from the sewers, the
drains, or the cesspools, of which latter there are a number in the
neighbourhood, I cannot tell. I have been informed by an eminent
engineer, that whilst a cesspool in a clay soil requires to be emptied
every six or eight months, one sunk in the gravel will often go for
twenty years without being emptied, owing to the soluble matters passing
away into the land-springs by percolation. As there had been deaths from
cholera just before the great outbreak not far from this pump-well, and
in a situation elevated a few feet above it, the evacuations from the
patients might of course be amongst the impurities finding their way
into the water, and judging the matter by the light derived from other
facts and considerations previously detailed, we must conclude that such
was the case. A very important point in respect to this pump-well is
that the water passed with almost everybody as being perfectly pure, and
it did in fact contain a less quantity of impurity than the water of
some other pumps in the same parish, which had no share in the
propagation of cholera. We must conclude from this outbreak that the
quantity of morbid matter which is sufficient to produce cholera is
inconceivably small, and that the shallow pump-wells in a town cannot be
looked on with too much suspicion, whatever their local reputation may
be.
[Sidenote: PUMP-WELL, BROAD ST., GOLDEN SQ.]
Whilst the presumed contamination of the water of the Broad Street pump
with the evacuations of cholera patients, affords an exact explanation
of the fearful outbreak of cholera in St. James’s parish, there is no
other circumstance which offers any explanation at all, whatever
hypothesis of the nature and cause of the malady be adopted. Many
persons were inclined to attribute the severity of the malady in this
locality to the very circumstance to which some people attribute the
comparative immunity of the city of London from the same disease, viz.,
to the drains in the neighbourhood having been disturbed and put in
order about half a year previously. Mr. Bazelgette, however, pointed
out, in a report to the commissioners, that the streets in which the new
sewers had been made suffered less than the others; and a reference to
the map will show that this is correct, for I recollect that the streets
in which the sewers were repaired about February last, were Brewer
Street, Little Pulteney Street, and Dean Street, Soho. Many of the
non-medical public were disposed to attribute the outbreak of cholera to
the supposed existence of a pit in which persons dying of the plague had
been buried about two centuries ago; and, if the alleged plague-pit had
been nearer to Broad Street, they would no doubt still cling to the
idea. The situation of the supposed pit is, however, said to be Little
Marlborough Street, just out of the area in which the chief mortality
occurred. With regard to effluvia from the sewers passing into the
streets and houses, that is a fault common to most parts of London and
other towns. There is nothing peculiar in the sewers or drainage of the
limited spot in which this outbreak occurred; and Saffron Hill and other
localities, which suffer much more from ill odours, have been very
lightly visited by cholera.
[Sidenote: IRRUPTION OF CHOLERA AT DEPTFORD.]
Just at the time when the great outbreak of cholera occurred in the
neighbourhood of Broad Street, Golden Square, there was an equally
violent irruption in Deptford, but of a more limited extent. About
ninety deaths took place in a few days, amongst two or three score of
small houses, in the north end of New Street and an adjoining row called
French’s Fields. Deptford is supplied with very good water from the
river Ravensbourne by the Kent Water Works, and until this outbreak
there was but little cholera in the town, except amongst some poor
people, who had no water except what they got by pailsful from Deptford
Creek—an inlet of the Thames. There had, however, been a few cases in
and near New Street, just before the great outbreak. On going to the
spot on September 12th and making inquiry, I found that the houses in
which the deaths had occurred were supplied by the Kent Water Works, and
the inhabitants never used any other water. The people informed me,
however, that for some few weeks the water had been extremely offensive
when first turned on; they said it smelt like a cesspool, and frothed
like soap suds. They were in the habit of throwing away a few pailsful
of that which first came in, and collecting some for use after it became
clear. On inquiring in the surrounding streets, to which this outbreak
of cholera did not extend, viz., Wellington Street, Old King Street, and
Hughes’s Fields, I found that there had been no alteration in the water.
I concluded, therefore, that a leakage had taken place into the pipes
supplying the places where the outbreak occurred, during the intervals
when the water was not turned on. Gas is known to get into the
water-pipes occasionally in this manner, when they are partially empty,
and to impart its taste to the water. There are no sewers in New Street
or French’s Fields, and the refuse of all kinds consequently saturates
the ground in which the pipes are laid. I found that the water collected
by the people, after throwing away the first portion, still contained
more organic matter than that supplied to the adjoining streets. On
adding nitrate of silver and exposing the specimens to the light, a
deeper tint of brown was developed in the former than in the latter.
All the instances of communication of cholera through the medium of
water, above related, have resulted from the contamination of a
pump-well, or some other limited supply of water; and the outbreaks of
cholera connected with the contamination, though sudden and intense,
have been limited also; but when the water of a river becomes infected
with the cholera evacuations emptied from on board ship, or passing down
drains and sewers, the communication of the disease, though generally
less sudden and violent, is much more widely extended; more especially
when the river water is distributed by the steam engine and pipes
connected with waterworks. Cholera may linger in the courts and alleys
crowded with the poor, for reasons previously pointed out, but I know of
no instance in which it has been generally spread through a town or
neighbourhood, amongst all classes of the community, in which the
drinking water has not been the medium of its diffusion. Each epidemic
of cholera in London has borne a strict relation to the nature of the
water supply of its different districts, being modified only by poverty,
and the crowding and want of cleanliness which always attend it.
[Sidenote: THE EPIDEMIC OF 1832.]
The following table shows the number of deaths from cholera in the
various districts of London in 1832, together with the nature of the
water supply at that period. (See next page.)[11]
This table shows that in the greater part of Southwark, which was
supplied with worse water than any other part of the metropolis, the
mortality from cholera was also much higher than anywhere else. The
other south districts, supplied with water obtained at points higher up
the Thames, and containing consequently less impurity, were less
affected. On the north of the Thames, the east districts, supplied, in
1832, with water from the river Lea, at Old Ford, where it contained the
sewage of a large population, suffered more than other parts on the
north side of London. Whitechapel suffered more than the other east
districts; probably not more from the poverty and crowded state of the
population, than from the great number of mariners, coalheavers, and
others, living there, who were employed on the Thames, and got their
water, whilst at work, direct from the river. There were one hundred and
thirty-nine deaths from cholera amongst persons afloat on the Thames.
The cholera passed very lightly over most of the districts supplied by
the New River Company. St. Giles’ was an exception, owing to the
overcrowding of the common lodging-houses in the part of the parish
called the Rookery. The City of London also suffered severely in 1832.
Now when the engine at Broken Wharf was employed to draw water from the
Thames, this water was supplied more particularly to the City, and not
at all to the higher districts supplied by the New River Company. This
would offer an explanation of the high mortality from cholera in the
City at that time, supposing the engine were actually used during 1832;
but I have not yet been able to ascertain that circumstance with
certainty. I know, however, that it was still used occasionally some
years later.
=TABLE II.=
┌────────────────────┬───────────┬────────┬───────────┬──────────────────────┐
│ │ │ Deaths │Deaths from│ │
│ Districts. │Population.│ from │Cholera in │ Water Supply. │
│ │ │Cholera.│ 10,000 │ │
│ │ │ │ living. │ │
├────────────────────┼───────────┼────────┼─────┬─────┼──────────────────────┤
│ │ │ │ │ │Southwark Water Works,│
│St. George the │ │ │ │ │ from Thames at │
│ Martyr, Southwark}│ 77,796│ 856│ 110│ │ London Bridge. No │
│ │ │ │ │ │ filter or settling │
│ │ │ │ │ │ reservoir. │
│St. Olave’s, │ „ │ „ │ „ │ │ „ │
│ Southwark} │ │ │ │ │ │
│St. Saviour’s, │ „ │ „ │ „ │ │ „ │
│ Southwark} │ │ │ │ │ │
├────────────────────┼───────────┼────────┼─────┼─────┼──────────────────────┤
│ │ │ │ │ │Chiefly by Lambeth │
│ │ │ │ │ │ Water Works, from │
│Christchurch, │ 13,705│ 35│ 25}│ │ Thames opposite │
│ Southwark │ │ │ │ │ Hungerford Market. │
│ │ │ │ │ │ No filter or │
│ │ │ │ │ │ settling reservoir. │
│Lambeth │ 87,856│ 337│ 38}│ │ „ │
├────────────────────┼───────────┼────────┼─────┼─────┼──────────────────────┤
│ │ │ │ │ │Chiefly by South │
│ │ │ │ │ │ London Water Works, │
│Newington │ 44,526│ 200│ 45}│ │ from Thames at │
│ │ │ │ │ │ Vauxhall Bridge. │
│ │ │ │ │ │ Reservoirs. No │
│ │ │ │ │ │ filter. │
│Camberwell │ 28,231│ 107│ 37}│ │ „ │
├────────────────────┼───────────┼────────┼─────┼─────┼──────────────────────┤
│ │ │ │ │ │South London Water │
│Bermondsey │ 29,741│ 210│ 70}│ │ Works, & Tidal │
│ │ │ │ │ │ Ditches. │
│Rotherhithe │ 12,875│ 19│ 14}│ │ „ │
├────────────────────┼───────────┼────────┼─────┼─────┼──────────────────────┤
│ │ │ │ │ │East London │
│Bethnal Green │ 62,018│ 170│ 27}│ 42{ │ Waterworks, from │
│ │ │ │ │ │ tidal part of river │
│ │ │ │ │ │ Lea at Old Ford. │
│St. │ 38,505│ 123│ 31}│ „ │ „ │
│ George-in-the-East│ │ │ │ │ │
│Poplar │ 25,066│ 107│ 42}│ „ │ „ │
│Stepney │ 78,826│ 225│ 28}│ „ │ „ │
│Whitechapel[12] │ 52,848│ 470│ 88}│ „ │ „ │
├────────────────────┼───────────┼────────┼─────┼─────┼──────────────────────┤
│ │ │ │ │ │New River Company, │
│ │ │ │ │ │ from various │
│ │ │ │ │ │ springs, and river │
│ │ │ │ │ │ Lea in │
│Clerkenwell │ 47,634│ 65│ 13}│ 34{ │ Hertfordshire; and │
│ │ │ │ │ │ occasionally from │
│ │ │ │ │ │ Thames at Broken │
│ │ │ │ │ │ Wharf, near │
│ │ │ │ │ │ Blackfriar’s Bridge.│
│St. Giles │ 52,907│ 280│ 52}│ „ │ „ │
│Holborn │ 27,334│ 46│ 16}│ „ │ „ │
│Islington │ 37,316│ 39│ 10}│ „ │ „ │
│London City │ 55,798│ 359│ 64}│ „ │ „ │
│East and West London│ No return.│ │ }│ „ │ „ │
│St. Luke’s │ 46,642│ 118│ 25}│ „ │ „ │
│Strand │ 9,937│ 37│ 37}│ „ │ „ │
├────────────────────┼───────────┼────────┼─────┼─────┼──────────────────────┤
│ │ │ │ │ │New River and East │
│Hackney │ 7,326│ 8│ 10 }│ │ London Water │
│ │ │ │ │ │ Companies. │
│Shoreditch │ 68,564│ 57│ 8 }│ │ „ │
├────────────────────┼───────────┼────────┼─────┼─────┼──────────────────────┤
│ │ │ │ │ │Chelsea Water Works, │
│Westminster │ 124,585│ 325│ 26│ │ from Thames at │
│ │ │ │ │ │ Chelsea. Reservoirs │
│ │ │ │ │ │ and filters. │
├────────────────────┼───────────┼────────┼─────┼─────┼──────────────────────┤
│ │ │ │ │ │Chelsea Water Works │
│ │ │ │ │ │ and Grand Junction │
│St. George, Hanover │ │ │ │ │ Water Works, also │
│ Sq. │ 58,209│ 74│ 12}│ 15{ │ supplying water from│
│ │ │ │ │ │ Thames at Chelsea, │
│ │ │ │ │ │ and having settling │
│ │ │ │ │ │ reservoirs. │
│Kensington │ 75,130│ 134│ 17}│ „ │ „ │
├────────────────────┼───────────┼────────┼─────┼─────┼──────────────────────┤
│ │ │ │ │ │West Middlesex Water │
│St. Marylebone │ 122,206│ 224│ 20│ │ Works, from Thames │
│ │ │ │ │ │ at Hammersmith. │
│ │ │ │ │ │ Settling reservoirs.│
├────────────────────┼───────────┼────────┼─────┼─────┼──────────────────────┤
│ │ │ │ │ │West Middlesex, New │
│St. Pancras │ 103,548│ 111│ 10│ │ River, and Hampstead│
│ │ │ │ │ │ Water Works. │
└────────────────────┴───────────┴────────┴─────┴─────┴──────────────────────┘
[Sidenote: THE EPIDEMIC OF 1849.]
Westminster suffered more in 1832 than St. George, Hanover Square, and
Kensington, which at that time had the same water. This arose from the
poor and crowded state of part of its population. The number of cases of
cholera communicated by the water would be the same in one district as
in the other; but in one district the disease would spread also from
person to person more than in the others.
Between 1832 and 1849 many changes took place in the water supply of
London. The Southwark Water Company united with the South London Water
Company, to form a new Company under the name of the Southwark and
Vauxhall Company. The water works at London Bridge were abolished, and
the united company derived their supply from the Thames at Battersea
Fields, about half a mile above Vauxhall Bridge. The Lambeth Water
Company continued to obtain their supply opposite to Hungerford Market;
but they had established a small reservoir at Brixton.
But whilst these changes had been made by the water companies, changes
still greater had taken place in the river, partly from the increase of
population, but much more from the abolition of cesspools and the almost
universal adoption of waterclosets in their stead. The Thames in 1849
was more impure at Battersea Fields than it had been in 1832 at London
Bridge. A clause which prevented the South London Water Company from
laying their pipes within two miles of the Lambeth Water Works was
repealed in 1834, and the two Companies were in active competition for
many years, the result of which is, that the pipes of the Lambeth Water
Company and those of the Southwark and Vauxhall Company pass together
down all the streets of several of the south districts. As the water of
both these Companies was nearly equal in its impurity in 1849, this
circumstance was of but little consequence at that time; but it will be
shown further on that it afterwards led to very important results.
On the north side of the Thames the Water Companies and their districts
remained the same, but some alterations were made in the sources of
supply. The East London Water Company ceased to obtain water at Old
Ford, and got it from the river Lea, above Lea Bridge, out of the
influence of the tide and free from sewage, except that from some part
of Upper Clapton. The Grand Junction Company removed their works from
Chelsea to Brentford, where they formed large settling reservoirs. The
New River Company entirely ceased to employ the steam engine for
obtaining water from the Thames. The supply of the other Water Companies
remained the same as in 1832.
The accompanying table (No. 3), shows the mortality from cholera in the
various registration districts of London in 1849, together with the
water supply. The annual value of house and shop-room for each person is
also shown, as a criterion, to a great extent, of the state of
overcrowding or the reverse. The deaths from cholera and the value of
house room, are taken from the “Report on the Cholera of 1849,” by Dr.
Farr, of the General Register Office. The water supply is indicated
merely by the name of the Companies. After the explanation given above
of the source of supply, this will be sufficient. It is only necessary
to add, that the Kent Water Company derive their supply from the river
Ravensbourne, and the Hampstead Company from springs and reservoirs at
Hampstead.
=TABLE III,=
Showing the mortality from Cholera, and the Water Supply, in the
Districts of London, in 1849. The Districts are arranged in the order of
their Mortality from Cholera.
┌─────────────┬──────────┬────────┬─────────┬──────┬─────────────────────────┐
│ │ │ │ │Annual│ │
│ │ │ │ │value │ │
│ │ │ │ │ of │ │
│ │Population│ Deaths │Deaths by│House │ │
│ District. │ in the │ from │ Cholera │& Shop│ Water Supply. │
│ │middle of │Cholera.│to 10,000│ room │ │
│ │ 1849. │ │inhabits.│ to │ │
│ │ │ │ │ each │ │
│ │ │ │ │person│ │
│ │ │ │ │in £. │ │
├─────────────┼──────────┼────────┼─────────┼──────┼─────────────────────────┤
│ │ │ │ │ │Southwark and Vauxhall │
│Rotherhithe │ 17,208│ 352│ 205│ 4.238│ Water Works, Kent Water│
│ │ │ │ │ │ Works, & Tidal Ditches.│
│St. Olave, │ 19,278│ 349│ 181│ 4.559│Southwark and Vauxhall. │
│ Southwark │ │ │ │ │ │
│St. George, │ 50,900│ 836│ 164│ 3.518│Southwark and Vauxhall, │
│ Southwark │ │ │ │ │ Lambeth. │
│Bermondsey │ 45,500│ 734│ 161│ 3.077│Southwark and Vauxhall. │
│St. Saviour, │ 35,227│ 539│ 153│ 5.291│Southwark and Vauxhall. │
│ Southwark │ │ │ │ │ │
│Newington │ 63,074│ 907│ 144│ 3.788│Southwark and Vauxhall, │
│ │ │ │ │ │ Lambeth. │
│Lambeth │ 134,768│ 1618│ 120│ 4.389│Southwark and Vauxhall, │
│ │ │ │ │ │ Lambeth. │
│Wandsworth │ 48,446│ 484│ 100│ 4.839│Pump-wells, Southwark and│
│ │ │ │ │ │ Vauxhall, river Wandle.│
│Camberwell │ 51,714│ 504│ 97│ 4.508│Southwark and Vauxhall, │
│ │ │ │ │ │ Lambeth. │
│West London │ 28,829│ 429│ 96│ 7.454│New River. │
│Bethnal Green│ 87,263│ 789│ 90│ 1.480│East London. │
│Shoreditch │ 104,122│ 789│ 76│ 3.103│New River, East London. │
│Greenwich │ 95,954│ 718│ 75│ 3.379│Kent. │
│Poplar │ 44,103│ 313│ 71│ 7.360│East London. │
│Westminster │ 64,109│ 437│ 68│ 4.189│Chelsea. │
│Whitechapel │ 78,590│ 506│ 64│ 3.388│East London. │
│St. Giles │ 54,062│ 285│ 53│ 5.635│New River. │
│Stepney │ 106,988│ 501│ 47│ 3.319│East London. │
│Chelsea │ 53,379│ 247│ 46│ 4.210│Chelsea. │
│East London │ 43,495│ 182│ 45│ 4.823│New River. │
│St. George’s,│ 47,334│ 199│ 42│ 4.753│East London. │
│ East │ │ │ │ │ │
│London City │ 55,816│ 207│ 38│17.676│New River. │
│St. Martin │ 24,557│ 91│ 37│11.844│New River. │
│Strand │ 44,254│ 156│ 35│ 7.374│New River. │
│Holborn │ 46,134│ 161│ 35│ 5.883│New River. │
│St. Luke │ 53,234│ 183│ 34│ 3.731│New River. │
│Kensington │ │ │ │ │West Middlesex, Chelsea, │
│ (except │ 110,491│ 260│ 33│ 5.070│ Grand Junction. │
│ Paddington)│ │ │ │ │ │
│Lewisham │ 32,299│ 96│ 30│ 4.824│Kent. │
│Belgrave │ 37,918│ 105│ 28│ 8.875│Chelsea. │
│Hackney │ 55,152│ 139│ 25│ 4.397│New River, East London. │
│Islington │ 87,761│ 187│ 22│ 5.494│New River. │
│St. Pancras │ 160,122│ 360│ 22│ 4.871│New River, Hampstead, │
│ │ │ │ │ │ West Middlesex. │
│Clerkenwell │ 63,499│ 121│ 19│ 4.138│New River. │
│Marylebone │ 153,960│ 261│ 17│ 7.586│West Middlesex. │
│St. James, │ 36,426│ 57│ 16│12.669│Grand Junction, New │
│ Westminster│ │ │ │ │ River. │
│Paddington │ 41,267│ 35│ 8│ 9.349│Grand Junction. │
│Hampstead │ 11,572│ 9│ 8│ 5.804│Hampstead, West │
│ │ │ │ │ │ Middlesex. │
│Hanover Sq. &│ 33,196│ 26│ 8│16.754│Grand Junction. │
│ May Fair │ │ │ │ │ │
├─────────────┼──────────┼────────┼─────────┼──────┼─────────────────────────┤
│London │ 2,280,282│ 14137│ 62│ │ │
└─────────────┴──────────┴────────┴─────────┴──────┴─────────────────────────┘
A glance at the table shows that in every district to which the supply
of the Southwark and Vauxhall, or the Lambeth Water Company extends, the
cholera was more fatal than in any other district whatever. The only
other water company deriving a supply from the Thames, in a situation
where it is much contaminated with the contents of the sewers, was the
Chelsea Company. But this company, which supplies some of the most
fashionable parts of London, took great pains to filter the water before
its distribution, and in so doing no doubt separated, amongst other
matters, the greater portion of that which causes cholera. On the other
hand, although the Southwark and Vauxhall and the Lambeth Water
Companies professed to filter the water, they supplied it in a most
impure condition. Even in the following year, when Dr. Hassall made an
examination of it, he found in it the hairs of animals and numerous
substances which had passed through the alimentary canal. Speaking of
the water supply of London generally, Dr. Hassall says:—
“It will be observed, that the water of the companies on the Surrey side
of London, viz., the Southwark, Vauxhall, and Lambeth, is by far the
worst of all those who take their supply from the Thames.”[13]