Sewers, I would observe that, in my opinion, very few of them are
properly qualified by education or otherwise to perform the important
duties entrusted to them in an effective and proper manner. A man to
be a good surveyor of sewers should be a practical civil engineer, in
which science is comprehended levelling in all its branches, and other
matters requisite and necessary in the construction of drains and
sewers: in proof of this, an instance recently occurred in one of the
divisions (which I need not particularize) in the construction of a
sewer, that after it had proceeded for a considerable distance, from
an error in taking the levels, was found to be below the level of the
outlet, and was in consequence obliged to be all destroyed, and
another sewer constructed upon a proper level. This error was so
clearly traced to the want of practical knowledge on the part of the
surveyor, or the application of it, that he was amerced in the greater
part of the cost.”
A builder of extensive experience in the wealthy districts of the
metropolis states, that in making drains and executing works which
communicate with the sewers on which large sums have been expended, he
has not found one main sewer in three properly made; and the strongest
statements of the extravagant nature of the expenditure was made by
witnesses who had themselves acted as members of the bodies directing
it.
The office business of two of the commissions appeared to me to be very
respectably conducted. But in the structural arrangements, in only one
commission do any of the works executed approach the existing state of
science. In that one, the Holborn and Finsbury trust, they happened to
obtain a surveyor, having science and practical experience as an
engineer, whose advice was acted upon, and that officer effected the
only considerable improvements of a scientific character that have been
made in the sewerage of the metropolis. These improvements for
preventing the accumulations of deposits in the sewers, and the
generation of malaria, and at the same time reducing the expenses of
cleansing more than one-half, must be considered improvements of a very
high order. But though they are demonstrated, and in full and successful
action, they appear to have been imitated only in one other adjacent
district. In the others they go on constructing sewers which are the
latent sources of pestilence and death. This officer was asked the
following questions:—
“If the public, who may be ignorant of the science of sewerage and of
what it may accomplish, make no complaints, and do not call for the
adoption of any improved system, in how long a time do you think the
improvements demonstrated in the Holborn and Finsbury divisions would
reach the other ends of the metropolis by the force of imitation and
voluntary adoption?—From the apathy shown and prejudice against
anything new, however valuable it may be as an improvement, and the
various interests affected, such as the contractors for cleansing, I
do not expect that they would become general in the metropolis during
my life-time. The public are passive, and the adverse interests are
active.
“You know the description of persons engaged as surveyors of various
descriptions in the rural districts and in the smaller towns?—Yes, I
do.
“Unless care be taken, is it to be apprehended that any new
expenditure will be made on imperfect and unwholesome drains with flat
bottoms and on false principles at a disproportionate
expense?—Undoubtedly, except they have to act on rule, it will
certainly be so throughout the country. The drainage that I have seen
in the country districts is worse than in the metropolis.”
The consideration of these circumstances, in respect to the past
expenditure in this branch of local administration, appears to be
necessary for meeting the objections and opposition to any future
expenditure, and especially of any apparent increase required for the
successful removal of the physical causes of bodily suffering, and the
moral degradation of the labouring classes. In the towns and districts
where the chief evils in question are admitted, but where anything
wearing the appearance of a new expenditure for any purpose is
unpopular, and will be thwarted or yielded unwillingly, the objections
when examined are found to consist mainly of a rooted distrust of the
money being equally levied, or carefully and efficiently expended for
the attainment of the professed objects of public advantage. From such
evidence as that already adduced from the Report of the Committee of the
House of Commons, but presented in greater extent and strength in the
course of the present inquiry—of instances of disease and death
occasioned by miasma from badly made and sluggish or stagnant drains
that pervade whole towns, it will be seen that it cannot fairly be said
that the distrust is not well founded.
A due examination, however, of the experience even of voluntary and
private expenditure on the wealthy districts where water is laid on, and
the main drainage is complete for the removal of refuse, appears to
establish the conclusion that only a part of the work is then attained,
and that for the economical attainment of the general objects of
protecting the least protected classes, that which is generally deemed
the private and subordinate work, namely, the house drainage, must form
part of the same general system, and be executed under the same general
superintendence.
It appears to be partly a defect in legislation, and partly a defect in
the constitution of the existing authorities for the direction of public
drainage, that their agency is never thought of for the superintendence
even of work which can seldom be cheaply and efficiently executed by
private individuals, and that can only be so executed and kept in order
by the systematic application of science and skill. An order, that the
landlords of all houses which have no drains communicating with the main
drains shall make them, is an order, when viewed in its operation in a
street or district where there are 50 or 100 different owners, that
those 50 or 100 persons shall separately get plans possibly from as many
different builders, and enter into contracts with them, and procure
capital which, to poor owners, will be a serious amount of several
hundred pounds in the aggregate, to be applied as a permanent investment
on property in which a large proportion of them will only have various
transitory interests. Viewed in its aggregate operation on all places
requiring amendment, the simple compulsory enactment for house drainage,
and without any previous care as to the means, would be, in effect, an
order for the expenditure of several millions of money in the manner
described by _Mr. Charles Oldfield_, a practical witness of great
experience, whose evidence (corroborated by the testimony of other
witnesses of extensive experience) has already been referred to on this
important topic:—
“Have you as a builder had much experience in the drainage of
houses?—Very considerable experience, and I pay particular attention
to it; there is no part of a building to which I pay more attention
than to the drainage. I seldom allow the drains to be covered in
without seeing to them myself.
“Do you think it desirable that legislative provision should be made
for the drainage of the tenements of the labouring classes?—I think it
most necessary; but merely ordering the drains to be made will not do.
Drains made for the tenements of the working classes, if left to the
parties, are almost sure to be badly constructed, and badly
constructed drains might merely carry away the soil; they might not do
that; and they would probably let in as great an evil, namely, the
foul air from the sewer. In general, unless care be taken, what is
called making drains will be opening conduits for the escape of foul
air from the sewers into the houses. This is frequently so with the
houses of the better classes of persons, where the drains are not made
perfectly air-tight, and are not properly trapped at all the
apertures. I am frequently called upon to examine houses where they
say they are oppressed by unpleasant smells. Some time ago I was
called upon to examine a house in one of the principal streets in
London, belonging to a gentleman of distinction, who was about to
abandon it in consequence of the unpleasant smells which were
continually arising. He was particularly annoyed that this smell arose
in the greatest strength whenever he had parties; the drains had been
opened, and there was no lodgement of soil in them. People commonly
imagine that when they get rid of the soil they have got rid of the
stench; they do not see and do not conceive the effect of the foul
air, which is so much lighter than atmospheric air that it escapes
where the atmospheric air would not. On examining the drains at his
house, I found that they were imperfect, and that the foul air
filtered through them. Whenever he had a party there was a stronger
fire in the kitchen, and stronger fires in other parts of the house,
and the windows and the external doors being shut, and a greater
draught created, larger quantities of the foul air from the sewers
rose up. These stenches arise in the greatest strength in the private
houses when the doors and windows are closed, the fire and column of
light air in the chimney being at work. So it would be with drains
made from the house to the sewer, or from the sewer to the house of
the poor man, unless care were taken in the construction of the
drains. When the door was shut, and he sat down to enjoy his fireside,
he would have a stench. This would be the effect of merely ordering
the drains to be made by the owners of such tenements, who would get
the work done in the way they thought to be the least expensive. You
would have them made in a row of tenements with every difference in
faults,—different forms, different sizes, different falls, bad
materials, without traps at the apertures, and not air-tight;
therefore constantly conducting a stream of polluted air from the
sewers into the houses; and there will be faults which an inspector
will not easily remedy when work is done in this manner.
“In what way, then, would you recommend them to be done, for
efficiency?—They should be done entirely by the persons in charge of
the sewers, or under the control of officers of competent skill, who
should have power to enter upon the premises, and see that the whole
of the work was properly done. Neither should private persons have
power to make any alteration without giving notice, and making the
alteration according to well-tried and approved plans. I confine my
observations, however, to tenements of certain size,—to those for the
labouring man, who has no power to protect himself, and who stands in
need of protection. It might be deemed objectionable to exercise any
control over the higher class of tenements, and the wealthier people
are able to protect themselves; but all those things that are out of
sight are done in the worst manner in the smaller tenements.
“If such an authority were to contract for the drainage of a whole
street, how much more cheaply do you conceive the work might be done
under one contract than if the labour were to be done separately, by
perhaps as many different occupiers or owners as there are houses,
each employing his own bricklayer?—At the least, from 10 to 15 per
cent. difference. Serving a notice in writing on a poor occupier,
perhaps a shifting one, that he is to get a drain made, would be of no
use. Proceeding by serving notices on the owners of such tenements, is
a course beset with difficulties. Many of the small owners are not
readily to be found; the ownership to some of the poorest plots are in
dispute. Then, when the owners are found, every owner has to seek and
bargain with a bricklayer for what he does unwillingly, and whom he
tells to do the work in the cheapest way he can. The owner does not
usually know what instructions to give; and in nine cases out of ten
the work will be badly, and at the same time expensively done. It is
with the greatest difficulty that I can get the drains to my own
houses properly done. Frequent complaints are made of the state of the
sewers by occupants in some districts, but when they are examined it
is found, in many cases, that the cause of complaint arises from their
own drain not being properly made. The poorer or reluctant owner would
seek a cheap or needy bricklayer, and will get an expensive one.
Everything ordered of this kind may be made a job of; the bricklayer
may do more than is wanted, or may make larger drains than necessary,
and thereby incur useless expense. If it be done by the public
authorities, leaving to the private parties to do it if they please
within a limited period, under the inspection of a proper officer, it
can hardly fail to be much less expensively done for the private
individual himself, and it is very sure to be better done for the poor
owner. The certain obstacles to any mere general enactments to have
the work done by a multitude of persons will be immense, and the work
will certainly be badly done, whilst, if it is well done, it will be
of the greatest public advantage.”
_Mr. Roe_, the engineer, was asked, with reference to house drainage—
“Have you found the system of cleansing the large drains by flushing
with proper supplies of water equally applicable to small drains?—Yes,
equally applicable. A gentleman has tried it on a private drain of
18–inch capacity, and 1200 feet length, and it answers equally well.
It is cleansed by the collection of refuse water from 30 or 40 houses.
“Might not the drains from private houses be also cleansed in the same
mode?—Yes, they might have a small and cheap apparatus for carrying
away all ordinary refuse. If in the small drain a brick fell in, it
could not be removed by the force of the small quantity of water which
could be obtained in such a situation. In our large sewers the heads
of water are in some cases strong enough to sweep away loose bricks.
“Would it not be of advantage to the occupier if the private drains
were under the same general superintendence?—I conceive it would in
management. They are frequently put to great expense by getting
persons to attend to them who really do not understand them. They are
often now obliged to have recourse to the contractor’s men. Private
property is often drained through other private property, and when the
drains are choked, if the parties are not on good terms, they will not
allow each other facilities for cleansing. Under the Finsbury Local
Act there is a power to enforce the cleansing of private drains, and
by way of appeal that power is sometimes resorted to by private
individuals.
“May we not presume that the same principles of hydraulics, as to the
advantages of a flow over a semicircular bottom, are as applicable to
small drains as to large ones?—More so from the flow of water being
smaller; the greater necessity for keeping it in a body to enable it
to carry away the common deposit.
“Then there is a proportionate loss in having the private drainage
made with flat-bottomed bricks or boards?—Yes, there is proportionate
loss from the extra cost of cleansing. Semicircular drains of tiles
would be better, and cheaper than brick for private houses.”
Supposing that only one-third of the existing tenements require
drainage, the saving of 15 per cent. on the expenditure by the execution
of the work by contract under the superintendence of a responsible
engineer would be more than 1,500,000_l._ sterling on the outlay,
independently of the difference in efficiency.
The necessity has previously been suggested of spreading the immediate
cost over a number of years to make the charge coincident with the
benefit. Were it left to the option of individuals to repay the cost at
intervals of 20 or 30 years, and charge their tenants, as described in a
supposed form of notice to them, which I have appended to illustrate the
practical working of such a provision, (allowing them either to defray
the whole cost at once, or execute the work themselves, under proper
superintendence; if they thought they could execute it cheaper,) the
immediate advantages of such improvements would then have some chance of
being fairly estimated as against the immediate cost and inconveniences
of a change, and resistance from latent motives of hostility would be
obviated.
But however the charge may be diffused, and to whatever extent
opposition on the part of the smaller owners may be obviated by care, it
cannot safely be overlooked that in the poorest districts where it is
most important that the works should be well executed, the superior
direction of such expenditure will, in the ordinary course, fall into
the hands of the owners of the worst-conditioned tenements, who have the
greatest dread of immediate expenses, and who are under the strongest
influence of petty jealousies; for in such districts it is precisely the
class of persons who cannot agree to profitable measures of private
drainage, who are the owners of the worst tenements, who, having leisure
during the intervals of their weekly collections, and from other causes,
are most frequently found in honorary offices for the direction of local
expenditure. One officer, when asked how it was that in a district where
fever had been rife nothing had been done under the authority of the
law, which authorized its being cleansed? replied, that the Board had
made precisely the same objections that were made when the cholera
appeared; when it was proposed to cleanse the district, the answer made
at the Board was, that “they did not believe it would do any good:” and
those of the officers who were landlords of the weekly tenements said,
“Why should we disturb and drive away our tenants?” and those who were
shopkeepers said, “Why should we frighten away our customers by
representing the neighbourhood as unhealthy?” consequently nothing was
done.
The legislature, in making demands for such honorary services, has
usually proceeded on the theory which views all those who may be called
upon to render them, as persons qualified to understand the whole
subject intuitively, and having no other interest or views than to
perform the services zealously for the common weal; whereas, in the
locality they are viewed in a totally different light, not as public
officers, but in their private capacities, as owners or tradesmen,
competitors for advantages of various kinds. However unjust this
impression may frequently be, it is the impression that commonly
prevails; and since all of one class cannot have a share in the
administration of such funds, others of the same class, whether owners
or tradesmen, view the persons exercising the power as rivals, and
distrust their administration accordingly. As an owner, one member of a
local Board is strongly indisposed to any line of operations that will
apparently improve the property of another; and as an owner, too, he is
under the strongest jealousy if he proposes or does anything which may
appear to benefit his own property at the public expense.
Neither is such distrust as to trustworthiness from skill and adverse
private interests confined to the administration of the public works of
sewerage and drainage; it is fortified by the example of the local
administration of the works of road construction and repair, a branch of
administration so inseparably connected with drainage operations, as to
justify and require a joint consideration with them.
Witnesses of the most extensive practical experience lay the greatest
stress on the necessity of lifting these important branches of
administration out of the influence of petty and sinister interests, and
of doing so by securing the appointment of officers of superior
scientific attainments, who (subject to a proper local as well as
general control) may be made responsible for directing any new
expenditure on a scale of efficiency as well as of economy. A competent,
scientific, and efficient management, let it be applied to what part of
these works it may, can scarcely fail to be immediately as well as
ultimately the most economical management. But it will be found on
examination that the consolidation of all the structural arrangements,
comprising under-drainage and surface-drainage, road structure and
repair, under one service, is most required for the sake of efficiency.
Division of labour in the arts derives its efficiency from combination,
adaptation, and subordination to direction to one end; but that which
appears to be a division of labour in local administration is, in fact,
an insubordinate separation, weakening the means of procuring adequate
skill and power, occasioning obstructions and defective execution, and
enhancing expense. Were pins or machines made as sewers and roads are
constructed; shafts of pins would be made without reference to heads,—in
machines screws would be made without sockets, and, it may be
confidently stated, there would not be a safe or perfect and
well-working machine in the whole country.
_Mr. Telford_, in a report on the Holyhead road, makes the following
observations:—
“Perfect management must be guided by rules and regulations, and these
must be carried into effect by the unceasing attention of a judicious
and faithful surveyor who has by actual experience and attention
acquired a thorough knowledge of all that is required, and applicable
to the general and local state of particular districts, as regards
soil, materials, and climate; likewise the sort of wear to which the
surface is liable. A person possessed of all these requisites, and
otherwise properly qualified to level and set out new lines, &c.,
where necessary, must receive the remuneration such a character
merits, and may always obtain, in this active and industrious country.
But however convinced and well-disposed trustees maybe to give this
remuneration, the tolls of five or six miles do not afford the means
of giving it. The consequence is that the Shifnal Trust (four miles)
has hitherto been under the management of a person so little
acquainted with proper road business, that it becomes a serious
consideration whether it will be prudent to suffer the extensive
improvement at Priors Leigh to be entrusted to his care. Until the
Parliamentary Commissioners interfered and showed a practical example,
the Wellington Trust (seven miles) was managed almost wholly by the
clerk; he had a sort of foreman, who appeared to be only partly
employed on the road. And on the Shrewsbury Trust (seven miles), as
has already been stated, the surveyor and contractor were united in
the same person. All these managers proceeded, without regard to any
rules and regulations whatever, receiving only occasional directions
from some of the most active of the trustees, whose varying opinions
served more to distract than benefit the practical operations of the
workmen. I must beg leave to add that these observations are
applicable to all trusts of similar extent, and are evidences of the
propriety of establishing districts of a magnitude to justify a more
perfect arrangement, and the employing of a properly qualified
surveyor, whose sole occupation should be the road under his care, and
who should also be enabled to keep constantly employed a set of
workmen thoroughly conversant with road observations, and working
chiefly by contract.”—_First Annual Report on the Holyhead Road_, May
4, 1824. p. 25.
It need scarcely be necessary to observe that in the sense of that great
engineer, care of the road implied the greatest care in respect to the
drainage. In consequence of the limited areas of management, although
great expense is incurred, the appointments of the surveyors to
superintend works which are never well executed by any other than an
experienced engineer, are inferior even to the appointments of the paid
officers to superintend the sewerage. _Sir Henry Parnell_ in his work,
“On the Formation and Management of the Public Roads,” thus
compendiously describes the composition of the chief bodies by whom
these officers are chosen and directed:—