which have now, as before observed, each an independent action. The
inconveniences in this are palpable, for where the line of
communication with the Thames is not complete within each district,
the very improvements in the one trust may prove injurious to the
others. It appears by the evidence that a case of this kind occurred
not long ago in the city of Loudon, through which a part of the
Holborn and Finsbury sewerage is conducted to the river. The sewers of
the Holborn and Finsbury division having been greatly improved and
enlarged, the city sewers became inadequate to carry off their
contents, and a number of houses in the vicinity of the river were
inundated after each fall of rain, the contents of their own drains,
in addition to the waters from the high lands of the neighbouring
trust, being actually forced back into their houses from the volume of
water which occupied the main sewer. This has now been remedied at a
great expense to the city of London district, and by dint of much
labour and time; but if anything like combination had existed
previously, the improvements would have been carried on
simultaneously, and the inconvenience would never have occurred.”
The surveyor of the City sewers under the management of the corporation,
speaks in a tone of grievance and oppression, that the waters of the
county would run into the municipal jurisdiction. Speaking of the
formation of a particular sewer, he says,—
“The commissioners under the power of the Act of Parliament carried
the sewer, in the first instance, along their own pavement and for
their own drainage. It was thence continued up to Finsbury-place to
Bunhill-fields, then called Tyndal’s burial-ground, and is so
described in the Act; the county then communicated with it, and sent
their surplus water, or an immense run of it, into that sewer. The
city for its own drainage also built a sewer in Whitecross-street; the
county somehow or other got possession of that, and the water that
runs down Whitecross street is quite overpowering.”
He speaks of some other drains which were formed by the city, and the
effects of the waters let in upon them from the county.
“The Commissioners find themselves very much annoyed by the quantity
of water poured in from the county, which water communicates with the
city in Bishopsgate-street, through Shoreditch. * * * The county then
made another sewer, which takes water from the Tower Hamlets, and is
continued up the Kingsland-road, so that a very large portion of that
water has been thrown into that sewer, and annoyed this Irongate sewer
(the only communication with the Thames) very sorely; and the
Commissioners had been put to an enormous expense in rebuilding it,
and that was increased by houses being built over it with very high
stacks of chimneys. In consequence of the immense flood of water that
pours down all those different sewers from the county, the inhabitants
of the city, in the neighbourhood of Moorfields especially, have been
most dreadfully annoyed, so much so that their cellars became useless.
“By the county, you mean the Holborn and Finsbury division?—Yes;
everything out of the boundary of the city. In order to meet the
difficulty for which there was no other cure, the commissioners have
built a sewer for the New London Bridge, which is ten feet by eight
feet at the mouth; they are continuing it up to the new street, eight
feet six inches by seven feet, and it is intended to take it up the
New Road to Moorfields, to continue the sewer along Princes-street and
up that new street; and I confidently expect I shall get from eight to
ten feet additional depth, and that then the whole of Moorfields will
be effectually relieved.
“The necessity for this new sewer of this large dimension, arises from
the large quantity of water which flows in upon you from the
county?—Certainly.
“You conceive yourself on the other side to derive some benefit from
these waters, because they cleanse and scour your sewers down?—Yes, as
far as the direct run goes they do, but beyond that they do an injury
that is incalculable; in this way the water runs right a-head, and an
immense quantity is brought in, it fills it, and the collateral sewers
cannot bear up against it, they are driven back and the sediment is
deposited, and when it falls that is left behind.”
It need scarcely be pointed out that this municipal division had, until
they chose to drain, operated as a barrier to all the water described,
which was kept back to the injury of the county; to the injury indeed of
the health of those merchants and traders, clerks and men of business,
the population whose private residences are in the county, and beyond
their residences to the injury of the city, in so far as their
obstructions to drainage injured the pasturage and land cultivated for
the supply of the city.
But a considerable portion of the city was itself imperfectly drained.
The chairman was asked,—
“539. Do you conceive there is any large portion of the City left
without deriving direct advantage from the sewerage,—meaning, by
direct advantage, some underground communication with the sewers so as
to carry off the soil of the house?—There is a large part of the City
of London in that state.”
It was stated, as an example, that Cheapside had no sewer. This was
accounted for from the circumstance, that the
“whole form of that part of the city is like a tortoise’s back.
Cheapside and Leadenhall-street are the back-bone; and that accounts
for Cheapside, being the highest ground, never having had occasion for
a sewer for the surface drainage; the water all flows northward and
southward, so that accounts for the apparent contradiction of
Cheapside, a main street, having no sewer in it.
“As far as _surface_ drainage is concerned?—Yes; the inhabitants of
Cheapside, generally speaking, have got cesspools: they perforated the
yellow clay or loam and got into the gravel, and whatever is thrown
into the cesspool mixes with the water and the earth: that is for the
benefit of the water-drinkers!”
Thirty old streets in Westminster had no sewers. Other considerable and
ancient streets were also without sewers, although the inhabitants
contributed to the rates.
Nor does there appear to be any conception as to the objects of the
service; and illegal fees, that must operate as exclusions to the poorer
inhabitants from the advantages which it is most desirable to confer,
were allowed to be exacted by the officers. Thus the chairman of the
City Commission was asked,—
“574. Your clerks at the office take no fees?—I cannot say that they
take no fees; there is an ancient fee allowed, that any person who
communicates with the sewer shall pay a guinea; that is divided among
the clerks, the surveyor, and inspector, who see that the
communication is properly made: they pay a guinea for that purpose.
“575. Are your clerks paid by those fees?—No, by fixed salary; the
fees are very trifling, for till lately they did not amount to 100_l._
a-year.
“576. The aggregate of the fees?—Yes, nor to 50_l._ a-year: if a party
applies to communicate with a sewer, and the Commissioners have no
objection, they call upon him to pay the estimate of the surveyor, and
the charges are made at the contract price, and in addition to that
they pay one guinea as a fee.”
In another Commission the surveyor’s fee for the privilege is stated to
be one guinea.
Before the Committee _Mr. James Peake_, the surveyor of the
Commissioners for the Tower Hamlets, states (Committee on Health of
Towns), “that in making a communication to the common sewers, the
parties who have to make the drain, besides doing it at their own
expense, have to pay 17_s._ 6_d._ for the first three feet of sewer. And
they,” the Commissioners of Sewers, “do that for this reason:—if they
were not to resort to that measure, the sewers would be destroyed.
_Every one would make a hole in the sewer_,” _i. e._, every one would
_use_ the sewer.
_Mr. Samuel Byles_, another witness examined before the same Committee,
was asked—
“193. You state that a great deal of disease is generated by the want
of ventilation and sewerage; is there any power in the Sewer
Commissioners to oblige the parties inhabiting the district to
communicate with the sewer if they made one?—No; and there is
unfortunately a paradox; there is a penalty on any person
communicating from his house into the common sewer.
“194. If they are assessed to it that is not the case, is it?—Yes; it
appears to be a complete paradox; if privies are known to empty
themselves into the common sewer, the person is liable to a penalty.”
No arrangements are made to bring the effects of the absence of drainage
to the knowledge of those bodies for their guidance in the performance
of their duties, nor does it appear to enter into their conception that
the protection of the public health forms any part of the objects of
their service. _Mr. James Peake_, the surveyor of the Commissioners of
the Tower Hamlets, was questioned on this point—
“2012. It is stated to the Committee, that ‘in a direct line from
Virginia-row to Shoreditch, a mile in extent, all the lanes, courts,
and alleys in the neighbourhood pour their contents into the centre of
the main street, where they stagnate and putrefy;’ is that the case?—I
perceive by an inspection of the plan that there is no sewer about
Virginia-row; there is none nearer to it than Princes-street.
“2013. It is stated that in some or other of those houses fever is
always prevalent; do you know the district so as to be aware whether
that is the case?—I cannot speak as to the state of the inhabitants; I
know it is very wretched. The whole of this land was excavated for
brick-making, and has been reduced to an unnatural level, so that the
sewers are hardly available. I believe many of those houses have
ditches round their gardens, and flowers and roots and stems are
thrown into the ditches, where they remain and stagnate; we are
working up, and shall be able to get the sewer in some parts five feet
lower than it was.
“2014. It is stated to the Commissioners that in Whitechapel parish,
Essex-street and its numerous courts, as Martin’s-court, Moor’s-court,
Essex-court, Elgar-square, George-yard, and New-court, Crown-court,
Wentworth-street, and many parts of that street, there is no sewer
passes up?—There is none.
“2015. Are the people very much in want of some mode of cleansing in
consequence?—It is the filthiest place which can be imagined.
“2316. Is it thickly inhabited?—Yes, very densely populated.
“2028. Do you not think that the want of such provision is very
injurious to the health of the inhabitants?—I do not think that sewers
have the effect which is attributed to them.
“2029. You disagree with the medical men who think that the neglect of
this underground drainage is prejudicial to the health of the
community?—I cannot see how, if they have a good surface drainage,
they can be improved by an underground drainage, in nine cases out of
ten.
“2064. Do you consider it your duty to alter a sewer, or carry up a
sewer, with reference to the health of the inhabitants?—Certainly not.
“2065. Any alteration in the form of the sewerage, or any change
respecting it, is with reference to property, not with reference to
the health of the inhabitants?- Certainly.”
_Mr. Unwin_, the clerk to the Commissioners of Sewers for the Tower
Hamlets, was thus examined before the Committee:—
“1433. Do you know Hare-street-fields?—I do; that is not very densely
populated: there are a number of houses, but very few persons living
in them.
“1434. Do you know that in wet weather a large portion of that
neighbourhood is completely inundated; that in all the houses forming
the square, and in the neighbouring streets, fever is constantly
breaking out, and that the character of the fever in the neighbourhood
has lately been very malignant?—I never heard that before.
“1435. Then if that has occurred in the midst of your district, it is
a matter you never heard of?—Just so.
“1436. Do you know Baker’s-Arms-alley?—That is in the parish of
Hackney; that is in our district; but it is a very open place.
“1437. If it is the fact that there is a narrow court with a dead wall
about two yards from the houses, as high as the houses; that the
principal court is intersected by other courts extremely narrow, in
which it is scarcely possible for air to penetrate close to the dead
wall; that between the wall and the houses there is a gutter, in which
is always present a quantity of stagnant fluid full of all sorts of
putrefying matter, the effluvia from which are most offensive, and the
sense of closeness extreme; that all the houses are dark, gloomy, and
extremely filthy; that at the top of the innermost courts are the
privies, which are open and uncovered, the soil of which is seldom
removed, and the stench of which is abominable; you have not heard of
that?—No, I have not heard of any of those circumstances; I have heard
of very few complaints of fever in the Tower Hamlets.
“1440. Do you not recollect that there are most fearful accounts of
fever prevailing in that district?—No, I had a report sent to me,
which I understood came from Dr. Southwood Smith, and there was a
communication I think from the Secretary of State upon it.”
At the very time that this witness had heard of few complaints of fever
in the Tower Hamlets, the Board found themselves compelled, on account
of the appalling prevalence of fever amongst the poor resident in that
district, to direct the special inquiry by Dr. Arnott, Dr. Kay, and Dr.
Southwood Smith, as to the causes of the fever which led to the present
extended inquiry. The description given in the question of the narrow
court, with the dead wall about two yards from the houses was taken from
one of those reports. That self-same court was the Bakers’-Arms alley,
named in the preceding question; but instead of being situate, as
described by the witness, in the parish of Hackney, two or three miles
from the office of the Commissioners of Sewers, it is in Rosemary-lane,
distant from that office only the length of a street, and that not a
very long one—Leman-street.
On the subject of the escapes of gas from the sewers there is no one
point on which medical men are so clearly agreed, as on the connexion of
exposure of persons to the miasma from sewers, and of fever as a
consequence. It appears that the evils of these escapes, on which
several medical men to whose testimony we have alluded gave evidence
before the Committee of 1834, may be prevented, and one of them prepared
a plan for this purpose. He states that the Commissioners having
expressed their doubts as to whether they were justified in trying the
experiment at the public expense, he said—
“Very well, gentlemen, I suppose you are quite right there; I will
enter into an undertaking with you to do it at my own expense, to a
limited extent, in any part that the surveyor of the sewers will say
he thinks it will fail; at the worst part that he can point out I will
try it; and moreover, in that undertaking I engaged to replace the
things in _statu quo_ if they failed. I entered into that
understanding, and, as I was given to understand, the parish sent
their bond, with a copy of the request, to the Commissioners. Some
time elapsed and I heard nothing of it, and in fact I thought the
thing was so simple, and as I heard nothing to the contrary, I began
to make inquiries as to getting these traps cast, when one morning the
parish surveyor brought me the model back, with a verbal message,
which was, that ‘whether it would answer or not, it should not be
tried;’ the Commissioners had made up their minds that the stink
should not be kept down.”
The reply made to this before the Committee on behalf of the
Commissioners, by one of the officers, was, “The sewers must have vent
somewhere; if you stop the vent in the street, it will penetrate into
the houses; also the danger from the gas-explosions are continually
taking place, and our people are frequently sent to the hospital. Our
surveyor can show a specimen of an entire new skin to his hand, and he
had an entire new skin to his face, and laid up in a very dangerous
state. This was from an explosion in the sewers. This is a danger the
Commissioners must of necessity look to.” “The gas always ascends from
its lightness. If the air-trap was put at the upper end of the
gully-drain, that would be the place where the gas would lodge, and any
candle brought near to this outlet into the upper part would occasion an
explosion.”
Now it is precisely because “the gas always ascends from its lightness”
that men of competent science declare, without reference to the
particular plan proposed in this instance, that by means of a shaft or
chimney properly placed, private houses as well as the workmen may be
relieved from the dangers of the escapes of this gas, which is becoming
more deleterious from the increasing drainage from private houses as
well as from the escapes of gas from the gas-pipes, into the sewers of
which very strong instances are stated in the evidence.
In the map of Leeds, where the cholera track is pourtrayed, it will be
observed that it followed closely the fever track; and were such maps so
far improved as to show at a view the condition of a district in respect
to dwelling and drainage, the marks to denote sites where the drainage
was imperfect would at the same time denote the seats of epidemic
disease. This had been so far observed by medical men that there was,
perhaps, no point on which they were more anxious and urgent than that
increased sewerage and cleansing should be adopted as preventives of the
cholera. Yet in one extensive densely populated district, the
Commissioners, because they had observed no effects on their own men,
who were accustomed to the sewers, took upon themselves to disregard all
the precautions advised by persons of complete knowledge. “At the time
of the cholera the arching over the sewers was very much applied for” in
the Ravensbourne Commission; “but,” says the officer of the commission,
“I do not think there was anything done on account of the cholera,
because the court held a different feeling on that point. Out of all the
men employed by the Commissioners of Sewers, and who were constantly in
those sewers, there was not one of those attacked by the cholera.”
All this incompleteness as to the extent of the districts drained, and
the imperfection in the mode of executing the works, appears from the
complaints and evidence given before the Committee to be accompanied by
disproportionate and oppressive assessments and extravagant expenditure.
The rates were complained of as levied on property which was undrained,
and derived no benefit from them; and by equal assessments on houses
which derive benefit by direct communications with the sewers, and on
houses which have no communication with them, and only derive benefit
from the surface drainage, and in some cases on houses which were
unoccupied. These unequal charges, sometimes for long periods, and for
large and permanent works, fell upon a fluctuating tenancy. “We should
claim,” says one witness, “20 years’ rate from the incoming tenant
(122), or we might have sold the premises” (129).
In respect to the existing expenditure, very strong statements of
mismanagement were made in the majority of the town districts; but I
prefer referring on this topic to the evidence taken before the
Committee of the House of Commons. One marked character of the
expenditure is the greater amount paid to the clerk of the Board, and
for office expenses, than for any skill or science in the
superintendence of the work. Thus in the district where the
Commissioners, on the example of their own workmen, adjudged that the
applications for arching over the sewers on the ground that they created
a predisposition to the spread of the epidemic were unfounded, the
payments to the clerk of the Board for his salary and office was
750_l._, assistant-clerk 100_l._, and three surveyors were paid each
50_l._ (besides commission on works executed, and a fee of a guinea for
communicating with the drain.) In another subdivision the expenses of
the clerks, messengers, &c., exclusive of collection, were 15,737_l._
for 20 years, while for the same period the expense of surveyors,
inspectors, and clerks of the works was 14,928_l._ In another division
the tavern expenses for 20 years were 7,935_l._ In one district the cost
of the commission, compared with the beneficial outlay on the works,
appeared to be 200 per cent. In regard to another level, it is stated
that there was laid out on works the sum of 17,455_l._ 18_s._ 10_d._;
and—
£. _s._ _d._
In working the commission 9,003 18 7
Commission on collection 1,635 10 9½
——————— —— ——
Total £10,639 9 4½
======= == ==
The proportion of the cost of management to the expenditure on work
appears to have been similar in others of these administrative bodies.
The Committee stated as a principal defect of these bodies—“The want of
publicity and responsibility systematically enforced.” There were
several of the trusts in which the Courts have not been open to the
public, the right of the ratepayers to inspect the accounts not
admitted, and “where consequently a real responsibility in money matters
can hardly be said to exist.”
_Mr. W. Fowler_, a Commissioner, says—
“If they are to go from year’s end to year’s end without being subject
to any control, I feel the money will be expended as I believe it now
is, and dribbled away, not expended fairly in carrying the ostensible
works into execution.”
Another defect resulting from the capricious constitution of these
trusts, on which the Committee reported, was the want of uniformity.
“There are no two districts in which the law does not vary, or where,
if the law be the same, the commissioners do not interpret some parts
of in a different manner.
“Thus, a man having property in Finsbury and in Westminster, or in the
City and in the Tower Hamlets, may find himself placed under different
systems, and may be led by his knowledge of the regulations of the one
district to violate the regulations of the other.”
Such being the unfavourable constitution of these bodies as described in
the Parliamentary Reports, and the evidence taken before the Committees,
the accounts given of the qualifications of many of the officers of
these trusts for the execution of any work of magnitude requiring
scientific attainments are equally unfavourable. The following general
account of them is given by an architect of eminence, who has conducted
large works in the metropolis and in various parts of the country, and
is corroborated by several other engineers of extensive practice.
“In the rural districts, the men appointed as surveyors by the local
Commissioners are very little better than common labourers, men with
no idea of construction or of management; that is the description of
men I have met with in the country places: they are commonly a sort of
foremen of the labourers who are called ‘ditch casters.’ In the towns
the men appointed are frequently decayed builders, or tradesmen whose
knowledge is limited to common artificers’ work, such as bricklayers’
and carpenters’ work. Some may be capable of drawing: only a few. They
have neither education, nor salary, nor station, to place them above
bribery, and the consequences are notoriously such as might be
expected of public services performed by such an agency. In some
instances there are very good exceptions; that is, where the
remuneration is adequate to ensure the service of a respectable
persons, and where, as occasionally happens, a person of
respectability has the local influence to obtain the appointment. The
district surveyors in the metropolis are in general respectable and
well-qualified public officers. In local matters no thought is ever
had of combining duties. The chief concern of the Commissioner of
sewers, where he holds property of his own, is to drain his own
property.”
Another description of the persons usually appointed as surveyors is
given in the following terms by a gentleman who is himself a surveyor of
extensive practice:—