│ Sub-Districts. │ Deaths from │ Deaths from │ Water Supply. │
│ │Cholera in 1849. │Cholera in 1854. │ │
├─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────┤
│St. Saviour, │ │ │Southwark & │
│ Southwark │ 283│ 371│ Vauxhall │
│ │ │ │ Company only. │
│St. Olave │ 157│ 161│ „ │
│St. John, │ 192│ 148│ „ │
│ Horsleydown │ │ │ │
│St. James, │ 249│ 362│ „ │
│ Bermondsey │ │ │ │
│St. Mary Magdalen│ 259│ 244│ „ │
│Leather Market │ 226│ 237│ „ │
│Rotherhithe[17] │ 352│ 282│ „ │
│Wandsworth │ 97│ 59│ „ │
│Battersea │ 111│ 171│ „ │
│Putney │ 8│ 9│ „ │
│Camberwell │ 235│ 240│ „ │
│Peckham │ 92│ 174│ „ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │Lambeth Company, │
│Christchurch, │ 256│ 113│ and Southwark │
│ Southwark │ │ │ and Vauxhall │
│ │ │ │ Compy. │
│Kent Road │ 267│ 174│ „ │
│Borough Road │ 312│ 270│ „ │
│London Road │ 257│ 93│ „ │
│Trinity, │ 318│ 210│ „ │
│ Newington │ │ │ │
│St. Peter, │ 446│ 388│ „ │
│ Walworth │ │ │ │
│St. Mary, │ 143│ 92│ „ │
│ Newington │ │ │ │
│Waterloo Road │ 193│ 58│ „ │
│ (1st) │ │ │ │
│Waterloo Road │ 243│ 117│ „ │
│ (2nd) │ │ │ │
│Lambeth Church │ 215│ 49│ „ │
│ (1st) │ │ │ │
│Lambeth Church │ 544│ 193│ „ │
│ (2nd) │ │ │ │
│Kennington (1st) │ 187│ 303│ „ │
│Kennington (2nd) │ 153│ 142│ „ │
│Brixton │ 81│ 48│ „ │
│Clapham │ 114│ 165│ „ │
│St. George, │ 176│ 132│ „ │
│ Camberwell │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│Norwood │ 2│ 10│Lambeth Company │
│ │ │ │ only. │
│Streatham │ 154│ 15│ „ │
│Dulwich │ 1│ │ „ │
│Sydenham │ 5│ 12│ „ │
├─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────┤
│First 12 │ 2261│ 2458│Southwk. & │
│ sub-districts │ │ │ Vauxhall. │
├─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────┤
│Next 16 │ 3905│ 2547│Both Companies. │
│ sub-districts │ │ │ │
├─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────┤
│Last 4 │ 162│ 37│Lambeth Company. │
│ sub-districts │ │ │ │
└─────────────────┴─────────────────┴─────────────────┴─────────────────┘
[Sidenote: THE CHOLERA OF 1849 COMPARED WITH THAT OF 1854.]
The table exhibits an increase of mortality in 1854 as compared with
1849, in the sub-districts supplied by the Southwark and Vauxhall
Company only, whilst there is a considerable diminution of mortality in
the sub-districts partly supplied by the Lambeth Company. In certain
sub-districts, where I know that the supply of the Lambeth Water Company
is more general than elsewhere, as Christchurch, London Road, Waterloo
Road 1st, and Lambeth Church 1st, the decrease of mortality in 1854 as
compared with 1849 is greatest, as might be expected. Waterloo Road 1st,
which suffered but little from cholera in the present year, is chiefly
composed of very dirty narrow streets, in the neighbourhood of Cornwall
Road and the New Cut, inhabited by very poor people; and Lambeth Church
1st, which suffered still less, contains a number of skinyards and other
factories, between Lambeth Palace and Vauxhall Bridge, which have often
been inveighed against as promoting the cholera. The high mortality of
the Streatham district in 1849 was caused by the outbreak of cholera in
Drouett’s Asylum for pauper children, previously mentioned.
Whilst making inquiries in the south districts of London, I learned some
circumstances with respect to the workhouses which deserve to be
noticed. In Newington Workhouse, containing 650 inmates, and supplied
with the water from Thames Ditton, there had been but two deaths from
cholera amongst the inmates down to 21st September, when the epidemic
had already greatly declined. In Lambeth Workhouse, containing, if I
remember rightly, nearly 1,000 inmates, and supplied with the same
water, there had been but one death amongst the inmates when I was there
in the first week of September. In St. Saviour’s workhouse, which is
situated in the parish of Christchurch, and is supplied with water by
the Lambeth Company, no inmate died of cholera before I called in the
first week of September. On the other hand, in the workhouse of St.
George, Southwark, supplied with the water of the Southwark and Vauxhall
Company, six inmates died out of about 600 before the 26th August, when
the epidemic had only run one-third of its course. The mortality was
also high amongst the inmates of St. Olave’s Workhouse, supplied with
water by the Southwark and Vauxhall Company, but I do not know the
number who died. I trust, however, that the Registrar
[Sidenote: HORSEMONGER LANE GAOL.]
General, in giving an account of the recent epidemic, will make a return
of the deaths amongst the inmates of the various workhouses and other
institutions on the south side of the Thames, together with the water
supply of the buildings. Bethlehem Hospital, the Queen’s Prison,
Horsemonger Lane Gaol, and some other institutions, having deep wells on
the premises, scarcely suffered at all from cholera in 1849, and there
was no death in any of them during the part of the recent epidemic to
which my inquiry extended.
[Sidenote: DISTRICT OF CHELSEA WATER COMPANY.]
On the north side of the Thames the mortality during the recent epidemic
seems to have been influenced more by the relative crowding and want of
cleanly habits of the people, and by the accidental contamination of the
pump-wells, than by the supply of the water companies. The water of the
New River Company could have no share in the propagation of cholera, as
I explained when treating of the epidemic of 1849; and the extensive
districts supplied by this company have been very slightly visited by
the disease, except in certain spots which were influenced by the causes
above mentioned. The water of the East London Company is also free from
the contents of sewers, unless it be those from the neighbourhood of
Upper Clapton, where there has been very little cholera. The districts
supplied by this company have been lightly visited, except such as lie
near the Thames, and are inhabited by mariners, coal and
ballast-heavers, and others, who are employed on the river. Even Bethnal
Green and Spitalfields, so notorious for their poverty and squalor, have
suffered a mortality much below the average of the metropolis. The Grand
Junction Company obtain their supply at Brentford, within the reach of
the tide and near a large population, but they detain the water in large
reservoirs, and their officers tell me they filter it; at all events,
they supply it in as pure a state as that of the Lambeth Company
obtained at Thames Ditton, and their districts have suffered very little
from cholera except at the spot where the irruption occurred from the
contamination of the pump-well in Broad Street, Golden Square. The West
Middlesex Company, obtaining their supply from the Thames at
Hammersmith, have also very large reservoirs, and the districts they
supply have suffered but little from cholera, except the Kensington
brick fields, Starch Green, and certain other spots, crowded with poor
people, chiefly Irish.
[Sidenote: CHOLERA IN THE DISTRICT OF THE CHELSEA WATER COMPANY.]
The districts supplied by the Chelsea Company have suffered a much
greater mortality, during the recent epidemic, than the average of the
whole metropolis, as the subjoined table (No. XIII) shows. But the
mortality in these districts is only half as great as in the houses
supplied by the Southwark and Vauxhall Company, who obtain their supply
from the Thames just opposite the spot where the Chelsea Company obtain
theirs. The latter company, however, by detaining the water in their
reservoirs, and by filtering it, are enabled to distribute it in a state
of comparative purity; but I had ample opportunities of observing, in
August and September last, that this was far from being the state of the
water supplied by the Southwark and Vauxhall Company. Many of the people
receiving this latter supply were in the habit of tying a piece of linen
or some other fabric over the tap by which the water entered the butt or
cistern, and in two hours, as the water came in, about a tablespoon of
dirt was collected, all in motion with a variety of water insects,
whilst the strained water was far from being clear. The contents of the
strainer were shown to me in scores of instances. I do not, of course,
attribute the cholera either to the insects or the visible dirt; but it
is extremely probable that the measures adopted by the Chelsea Company
to free the water from these repulsive ingredients, either separated or
caused the destruction of the morbid matter of cholera. It is very
likely that the detention of the water in the company’s reservoirs
permitted the decomposition of the cholera poison, and was more
beneficial than the filtering, for the following reasons. The water used
in Millbank Prison, obtained from the Thames at Millbank, was filtered
through sand and charcoal till it looked as clear as that of the Chelsea
Company; yet, in every epidemic, the inmates of this prison suffered
much more from cholera than the inhabitants of the neighbouring streets
and those of Tothill Fields Prison, supplied by that company.[18] In the
early part of August last, the use of the Thames water was entirely
discontinued in Millbank Prison, and water from the Artesian well in
Trafalgar Square was used instead, on the recommendation of Dr. Baly,
the physician to the prison. In three or four days after this change,
the cholera, which was prevailing to an alarming extent, entirely
ceased.
=TABLE XIII.=
┌────────────────────────────────────┬──────────┬─────────────────────┐
│ │Population│ Deaths by Cholera │
│ │ in 1851. │ │
├────────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼──────────┬──────────┤
│ │ │In 15 wks.│ To every │
│ „ │ „ │ ending │ 10,000 │
│ │ │ October │ living. │
│ │ │ 21. │ │
├────────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│Chelsea, south │ 19,050│ 122│ 64│
│Chelsea, north-west │ 17,669│ 99│ 56│
│Chelsea, north-east │ 19,819│ 71│ 36│
│Belgrave │ 40,034│ 238│ 59│
│St. John, Westminster │ 34,295│ 173│ 50│
│St. Margaret, Westminster │ 31,314│ 238│ 76│
├────────────────────────────────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│Total of districts supplied by the │ 162,181│ 941│ 56│
│ Chelsea Water Company │ │ │ │
│Houses supplied by the Southwark and│ 266,516│ 2,900│ 108│
│ Vauxhall Company │ │ │ │
│LONDON │ 2,362,236│ 10,530│ 45│
│London, except the houses supplied │ │ │ │
│ by the Chelsea Company, and by the│ 1,933,539│ 6,689│ 34│
│ Southwark & Vauxhall Compy. │ │ │ │
└────────────────────────────────────┴──────────┴──────────┴──────────┘
The quantity of impurity in the Thames was greatly increased during the
late autumn, by the long course of dry weather. From 5th August to 12th
September, a period of more than five weeks, only 0·29 of an inch of
rain fell at Greenwich, as appears by the report of the Astronomer
Royal. The stream of the Thames above the reach of the tide became so
slender, that it was difficult to navigate barges above Richmond. The
Thames in London is a very large body of water, and if the whole of it
flowed away into the sea every day, the liquid which flows down the
sewers in twelve hours would form but a very small part of it; but it
must be remembered that the quantity of water which passes out to sea,
with the ebb of every tide, is only equal to that which flows over
Teddington Lock, and from a few small tributary streams. In hot dry
weather this quantity is moreover greatly diminished by the evaporation
taking place from the immense surface of water exposed between Richmond
and Gravesend, so that the river becomes a kind of prolonged lake, the
same water passing twice a day to and fro through London, and receiving
the excrement of its two millions and more of inhabitants, which keeps
accumulating till there is a fall of rain. In time of cholera, the
evacuations of the patients keep accumulating in the river along with
the other impurities; and it is probably in this way that the dry
weather with a high barometer aids in promoting cholera, as it has often
been observed to do.
[Sidenote: IMPURITY OF THE THAMES.]
I thought at first that the quantity of common salt, previously
mentioned as being present in the water of the Southwark and Vauxhall
Company, consisted entirely of the salt which had passed down the sewers
into the river, for I had no idea that any admixture of sea water
reached as high as Battersea Fields. Mr. Quick, the engineer of the
above Company, informed me, however, that an impregnation of salt water
does extend as far after a long course of dry weather. It is obvious
that a dry season, whilst it increases the quantity of impurity in the
Thames, must also cause the sea water to flow further inland than at
other times. I did not examine the water of the Thames in August or
September, but I have done so now, at the latter part of November, and I
am inclined to think that even yet a slight admixture of sea water may
reach to Battersea Fields with every tide. I found 5·8 grains of
chloride of sodium per gallon in water obtained at Hungerford Market, at
half-flow of the tide, on 19th November, and 19·1 grains per gallon, in
water obtained at the same place, on 27th November, at an hour and a
half before high water; whilst water obtained at London Bridge, on 28th
November, at high water, contained 63·3 grains per gallon.
A specimen of water obtained on 21st November, from a house supplied by
the Southwark and Vauxhall Company, contained 28·8 grains of common salt
per gallon, or about three-quarters as much as it contained in
September, when the quantity was 37·9 grains. It is very obvious from
the above analyses, that the Water Company obtain their supply from the
Thames at high water, or nearly so, although this is the time of the
tide when the water contains the greatest amount of impurity. It is
quite certain that the sea water cannot reach to Thames Ditton, any more
than the contents of the London sewers, and therefore, whatever may be
its source, the quantity of chloride of sodium in the water is quite
conclusive as regards the purpose for which I examined into it, viz., to
distinguish between the water of the two Companies.
When the water of the Southwark and Vauxhall Company was examined by
Messrs. Graham, Miller, and Hofmann, at the latter part of January 1851,
it contained only 1·99 grains of chloride of sodium, or about
one-twentieth as much as it contained last September, and one-fifteenth
as much as on 21st November 1854.[19]
[Sidenote: ALLEGED EFFECT OF LEVEL.]
Dr. Farr discovered a remarkable coincidence between the mortality from
cholera in the different districts of London in 1849, and the elevation
of the ground; the connection being of an inverse kind, the higher
districts suffering least, and the lowest suffering most from this
malady. Dr. Farr was inclined to think that the level of the soil had
some direct influence over the prevalence of cholera, but the fact of
the most elevated towns in this kingdom, as Wolverhampton, Dowlais,
Merthyr Tydvil, and Newcastle-upon-Tyne, having suffered excessively
from this disease on several occasions, is opposed to this view, as is
also the circumstance of Bethlehem Hospital, the Queen’s Prison,
Horsemonger Lane Gaol, and several other large buildings, which are
supplied with water from deep wells on the premises, having nearly or
altogether escaped cholera, though situated on a very low level, and
surrounded by the disease. The fact of Brixton, at an elevation
fifty-six feet above Trinity high-water mark, having suffered a
mortality of 55 in 10,000, whilst many districts on the north of the
Thames, at less than half the elevation, did not suffer one-third as
much, also points to the same conclusion.
I expressed the opinion in 1849,[20] that the increased prevalence of
cholera in the low-lying districts of London depended entirely on the
greater contamination of the water in these districts, and the
comparative immunity from this disease of the population receiving the
improved water from Thames Ditton, during the epidemics of last year and
the present, as shown in the previous pages, entirely confirms this view
of the subject; for the great bulk of this population live in the lowest
districts of the metropolis.
The prevalence of cholera has been very much under the influence of the
water supply in other towns besides London. The cholera has prevailed to
a considerable extent in the crowded habitations of the poor in
Liverpool and some other towns, where the general supply of water was
not in fault, but I know of no instance in which it has spread through
all classes of the community, except where the general supply of water
has been contaminated with the contents of the drains and sewers; and
all the towns with which I am acquainted that have enjoyed an almost
complete immunity from this disease, have a water supply quite free from
any chance of contamination. Birmingham, Bath, Cheltenham, and Leicester
have nearly escaped the cholera in every epidemic. The few cases that
have occurred being chiefly those of persons newly arrived from places
where the disease was prevailing, and a few others who came in
communication with them. All these towns have a supply of water quite
free from connection with the drains and sewers, and the small rivers
which flow through them are so impure that it would be impossible to
drink the water. Leicester is crowded with a poor population, and has
hardly any physical advantage except its water supply.
[Sidenote: CHOLERA IN EXETER.]
The first cases of cholera in Exeter in 1832, were three in the same
day, besides one in St. Thomas’s, a suburb of Exeter, in a gentleman
just arrived from London, where the disease was prevailing. The other
three were a woman and her two children; the former, with one of her
children, had returned from Plymouth the previous day, where she had
been nursing a child that had died of the cholera. Within five days from
this time, there were seven fresh cases in as many different parts of
the town, amongst persons having no intercourse with each other or the
first cases. The disease soon became very prevalent, and in three months
there were 1,135 cases, and 345 deaths. Exeter is situated on ground
which rises from the edge of the river to an elevation of one hundred
and fifty feet. In 1832 the inhabitants were chiefly supplied with river
water by water-carriers, who conveyed it in carts and pails. Dr.
Shapter, from whose work[21] the above particulars are obtained, kindly
furnished me with information concerning the sewers, and with maps of
their position. The water-carriers, by whom Exeter was very greatly
supplied, obtained their water almost exclusively from certain streams
of water, diverted from the river in order to turn water-mills; and one
of the chief sewers of the town, which receives such sewage as might
come from North Street, in which the first cases of cholera occurred,
empties itself into the branch from the river which divides into the two
mill-streams just mentioned. It must be remarked that the parish of St.
Edmund, in which these streams of water were situated, had a lower
mortality from cholera than other parts of the town like it, densely
populated and on low ground near the river. Dr. Shapter attributes this
lower rate of mortality, and I believe rightly, to St. Edmund’s being
freely intersected by running streams of water. The people would
probably not drink more of the water than in parts of the town where it
was less plentiful, and had to be paid for, but they would have much
better opportunities for personal cleanliness: so that whilst they would
be exposed to only the same number of scattered cases, they would be
less likely to have the malady spreading through families, and by
personal intercourse. After the cholera of 1832, measures were taken to
afford a better supply of water to Exeter; not, so far as I can find by
Dr. Shapter’s work, that its impurity was complained of, but because of
its scarcity and cost. Waterworks were established on the river Exe, two
miles above the town, and more than two miles above the influence of the
tide. Exeter has since been very plentifully supplied with this water,
and Dr. Shapter informed me that in 1849 there were only about twenty
cases of cholera, nearly half of which occurred in strangers coming into
the town, and dying within two or three days after their arrival. This
last summer there was only one death from cholera in Exeter.
[Sidenote: CHOLERA IN HULL.]
We will now consider the town of Hull, in which, together with other
sanitary measures adopted since 1832, there has been a new and more
plentiful supply of water, but with a far different result to that at
Exeter. In 1832 Hull was scantily supplied with water conveyed in pipes
from springs at Anlaby, three miles from the town. About 1844, new
waterworks were established to afford a more plentiful supply. These
works were situated on the river Hull, at Stoneferry, two miles and
three quarters from the confluence of that river with the Humber. About
half the sewage of the town is delivered into the river of the same
name, the rest being discharged into the Humber, as appears from
information and a map kindly furnished me in 1849 by Dr. Horner of Hull,
who was making great efforts to have better water obtained for the town.
The tide flows up the river many miles past the waterworks, carrying up
with it the filth from the sewers. The supply of water was, to be sure,
obtained when the tide was down, but as the banks of the river are
clothed with sedges in many parts, and its bottom deep with mud, the
water can never be free from sewage. Moreover, there are some parts of
the river above Stoneferry much deeper than the rest, and where the
deeper water is, according to the testimony of boatmen, nearly stagnant;
thus allowing the water carried up by the tide to remain and gradually
mix with that afterwards flowing down. There are also boats, with
families on board, passing up the river to the extent of five thousand
voyages in the year. The water when taken from the river was allowed to
settle in the reservoir for twenty-four hours, and was then said to be
filtered before being sent to the town. In 1832 the cholera was confined
almost exclusively to the poor, and the deaths amounted to three
hundred.
In 1849 the deaths in Hull (including the suburb of Sculcoates) were
1834, although 8,000 or 10,000 left the town, it is said, to avoid the
ravages of the disease. Dr. Horner informed me that the deaths occurred
amongst all classes of the community, and that the town was much better
drained in 1849 than in 1832.
[Sidenote: CHOLERA IN YORK.]
When the cholera made its appearance at York, about the middle of July
1849, it was at first chiefly prevalent in some narrow streets near the
river, called the Water Lanes. The inhabitants of this spot had been in
the habit, from time immemorial, of fetching their water from the river
at a place near which one of the chief sewers of the town empties
itself; and recently a public necessary had been built, the contents of
which were washed every morning into the river just above the spot at
which they got the water. In a short time from twenty to thirty deaths
occurred in this locality; but the medical men considering the impure
water injurious, the people were supplied from the waterworks, with
water obtained from the river at a point some distance above the town,
and the cholera soon ceased nearly altogether in this part of the city,
but continued to spread in some other parts. The cholera having thus
abated in the Water Lanes, the gratuitous supply of water was cut off,
and the people went to the river as before. There were still cases of
cholera in the town, and it soon broke out again in this locality, and
in the first few days of September eight deaths occurred among the
persons who used water obtained direct from the river. The tap for
general use was again opened, and the river water interdicted, and the
cholera again ceased, and did not recur. These circumstances were
communicated to me by a friend on whose accuracy I can rely.