Construction of Houses to Sanitary Rules,” inserted in its General
Report for 1827 (p. 39), expressed the wish to see established in the
centre of every quarter of the town a spacious square, railed in, and
planted with trees, in which the children of all classes might, without,
apprehension, and without the special superintendence of their parents,
give themselves up to the exercise suitable to their years, and in which
the inhabitants of all ages might enjoy the solar influence, and breathe
a purer air than in their dwellings. It is, they said, so much the more
needful to come to this determination, that nearly all the gardens have
given place to houses, to streets, or to passages, and that the greater
part of those which have been preserved are surrounded by houses so
lofty that vegetation languishes for want of air and light, which
renders their existence more hurtful than beneficial to health. To these
reasons, which have lost nothing of their force, we will add that which
results from the advantages the quarter would receive from the presence
of such squares in respect to the healthiness produced by favouring the
ventilation of the streets; because a square is to all the streets which
open into it a true _fourneau d’appel_ with a double current, acting by
night as well as by day, at the same time that it is a powerful means by
which to facilitate the action of the winds in the interior of the town.
By placing the charity schools in the vicinity of these squares an
advantage would be offered to the children of the poor which can rarely
be procured for them, that of experiencing the salutary action of the
sun, breathing a pure air, and taking their exercise safe from all
danger during vacations and play-hours.
These powerful considerations naturally lead the council to speak of the
construction of houses under the double relation of public and private
health.
“There are,” they say, “in the march of civilization, as in that of
sciences, epochs of progress which should be marked by the creation of
new laws. With all nations the monuments which attest their pride have
preceded the monuments which testify to their true glory; the first,
sterile, so to speak, in their existence, fix the attention by the
beauty of their form, by the elegance and grandeur of their proportions;
the second, created for the wealth or happiness of nations, attract our
notice to the utility or wisdom of their establishment. This epoch of
true glory has arrived for France. Enough of sterile monuments cover her
soil, still unfruitful in so many respects. Works of public utility,
laws which conduce to the common happiness, these are the monuments that
it is proposed to raise at the present day.
“It is a monument of this last kind of which the council ventures to
suggest the erection, in demanding a law to regulate the construction of
towns, villages, and houses, under the double relation of public and
private health; a monumental law, if ever there was one, since it will
embrace France in its conceptions; all the citizens will enjoy its
benefits with a perfect equality; and the poor man, even more than the
rich, will find himself protected by it in his health, in his life, in
his happiness; because health is life—it is more, it is happiness.
“A similar law has never existed among any ancient people, although we
find among several of them no equivocal proofs of the solicitude of
their legislators to introduce into the laws some precepts of health,
applicable to the people they governed.
“We certainly find among the greater part of modern nations some
ordinances, and regulations, relative to the salubrity of towns and
houses; but their operation does not extend beyond the localities for
which they were made, and little, or not at all, known out of these
localities, they are still very imperfect, and altogether insufficient
for the localities themselves.
“Nevertheless, can any one doubt the immense influence which the
salubrity of towns, of villages, and of the dwelling, even when it is
isolated in the midst of fields, exercises on the health and life of the
people. All statistics, general and individual, attest this extreme
influence; and there is no physician, a little observing, who has not
had frequent occasions to verify it at the bed-side of his patients.
“We must be like the men, so well painted by the Psalmist, to reject
such evidence—_eyes have they and see not_. How shall we explain, or
rather, to what shall we attribute the difference that is remarked
between the mortality of one quarter and that of another quarter of the
same town; of one street and that of another street of the same quarter
or of the same village; or, lastly, the difference that is observed in
this respect between the houses of the same street, and those houses
which are completely isolated. Misery, it is replied to us, is the
cause. Yes, without doubt, misery is a powerful cause; but it is so
especially when it is driven back into the most insalubrious quarters,
streets, and houses; when it lives habitually in the midst of filth and
dirt, that is to say, in the midst of an infected atmosphere; and when
there is no misery, or when it exists in the same degree in the
quarters, in the villages, in the streets, and in the houses with which
the comparison is made, and, stronger still, when poverty is met with
precisely there where there is the least mortality, in what is to be
found the cause of this difference, if it is not in the insalubrity of
the dwelling-places?
“If you had not seen yourself, Monsieur le Prefet, in one of the most
beautiful streets of Paris, and in the vicinity of the most frequented
promenade of the capital, the influence which the construction of the
houses we inhabit has on the health, we would seek by some facts to
convince you of this truth; but we are happy to need only to refer you
to your own experience. This great fact, which naturally results from
the comparison you have drawn, in a report addressed to the Minister of
Commerce, the 31st of June, 1832, between the mortality of the quarter
of the Hôtel-de-Ville, and that of the quarter of the Chaussée-d’Antin,
has not escaped you. Yet, in the striking difference which is found
between the mortality of these two quarters, you have not taken into
account the poor who died in the hospitals, and who were, undeniably,
more numerous from the quarter of the Hôtel-de-Ville than from that of
the Chaussée-d’Antin. What calculation has demonstrated to you for one
quarter of Paris exists in all in different degrees; and the same
calculation applied to other localities, very distant from the capital,
in which the condition, the habits, the mode of living, and the nature
of the labour which the inhabitants perform are nearly the same, has
given analogous results, presenting the same extremes, without the
possibility of assigning any other cause than the insalubrity of the
dwellings understood in its widest acceptation.
“The council might accumulate facts, calculations, and quotations, to
support the opinion they have formed of the necessity of a law to
regulate the construction of towns, villages, and houses, under the
double relation of public and private health; but they have no need to
be at this pains to induce you to share their conviction, and they are
fully persuaded that, in proposing to you to promote a law so important,
they are only anticipating your desire to co-operate for the well-being:
of your fellow-citizens, and to aid the enlightened zeal of the Minister
of the Interior for all that is great and useful.”
Under certain points of view, salubrity confounds itself with health; on
another side, it governs health; because, without it no good rules of
health can be established. Thus it has engaged the special attention of
the council. We see them to shrink from no difficulty, from no mission,
however painful, however dangerous even, it may be. Nothing escapes
their vigilant attention, and the administration is always sure to have
their aid in all the amendments that it wishes to introduce into this
important branch of public service. It is thus that they pass in review
all which appertains to the wholesomeness of sewers, to the improvement
of the paving, to the establishment of street-fountains, to the flow of
water for domestic or manufacturing purposes, to the cleansing of wells,
and of waste-water wells. The construction of the receptacles of
privies, those incessant causes of insalubrity and inconvenience,
occupies them above all. Here is what they say upon this point:—
“The emptying of the privies in the city of Paris has become a very
heavy expense to the proprietors, and the expense is always on the
increase, in consequence of the modifications in the construction of the
receptacles, and the more abundant use of water; a use rendered
necessary by the actual form of the seats, and still more by the
introduction of private baths.
“It is evident that the first condition for obtaining a result at once
economical and salubrious, is to separate, on the spot, the solid matter
from the liquid, to preserve what has an intrinsic value, and to reject
what is only cumbersome.
“For more than half a century some men, animated by love for the public
good, and several speculators, have directed their researches to
discover a method of making this separation. At the head of these are
Girard and Gourlier, Casaneuve, Sanson, Derosne, Chaumet, the authors of
the article in the _Mémorial de l’Officier du Génie_, and, lastly, the
architects Payen and Dalmont.
“The system of Gourlier is seducing: if it has not yet been submitted to
all the trials it requires, we are able to predict before hand that it
will succeed, and that it will be productive of advantage.
“The benefits of the project of Gourlier are found in a higher degree in
that which has been adopted in barracks.[55]
“The system of movable receptacles has the sanction of time, is
applicable everywhere, facilitates the removal of the contents, and
enables it to be done without smell or dirt: it preserves the workmen
from the dangers of asphyxy, prevents the decay of our houses, and
contributes to augment the disposable mass of manure.
“To prevent the gravest consequences, it is essential not to conduct the
liquid from the privies into waste-water wells, and put them in
communication with the upper layer of the soil in which our wells are
sunk. Prudence requires that the liquid should not be directed into the
second layer, which in many parts of Paris furnishes very good water. If
it is possible, without great inconvenience, to conduct it into channels
altogether lower, it is still the opinion of many experienced persons
that it ought not to be done under Paris for any very considerable
quantities of water, and that it is necessary to reserve this resource
for localities badly situated, and which are rarely met with.
“All the proofs show that the liquid of the privies may be discharged
into the Seine without inconvenience. An investigation conducted
formerly by Hallé and Fourcroy, on the sweepings of Paris, adds great
weight to this opinion. The ancient and recent gaugings, as well as the
daily observation of facts, demonstrate that the quantity of dirty water
sent into the Seine would be so small compared to the water of the
river, that it would always remain unperceived, and could in no way be
injurious to health.
“To convey these waters to the Seine, the first idea which presents
itself is to cast them into one of the three great sewers which surround
Paris on the north.
“A mass of facts and observations prove that the discharge into the
sewers of the liquid from the privies will not infect the sewers, nor
cause danger to those who work in them; that this infection will be so
much the less to be apprehended with the apparatus of Gourlier, with
that which has been adopted in barracks, and with the movable
receptacles, that, by these different methods, the separation taking
place slowly and successively, the liquid carries along with it but very
little of solid matter.
“Everything seems to show that by mixing the liquid from the privies
with a sufficient quantity of water it might, without inconvenience, be
thrown upon the public way, and got rid of in this manner; but prudence
requires that before any innovations of this kind the project should be
submitted to minute and multiplied experiments. These experiments are
the more important, that the result would be to increase the revenues of
the city by the sale of a considerable quantity of water which it has
for disposal.
“If the drying of the solid contents of the privies has hitherto been
considered as one of the most infectious and inconvenient trades, it may
be affirmed that it can now be made one of the less disagreeable, a
circumstance which we owe to the means of disinfection recently
discovered, or which, formerly known, have not been put in practice till
lately on a large scale.[56]
“To favour the employment of these means, and to arrive thereby at
results of high importance, it is not sufficient for the administration
to be animated by praiseworthy intentions. It must obtain, by its
interposition with the supreme authority, a modification in the
classification of the establishments in which the fecal substances are
prepared, and, above all, must use the means at its disposal to disabuse
the public of the prejudices it entertains against these sort of places.
The administration will meet at first with very great obstacles, but,
with time and perseverance, may rest confident of success.
“The changes proposed are of such importance, they will be attended by
consequences so useful, and extensive, that they will be sufficient to
render illustrious to future generations, and to recommend to their
gratitude, the name of the ministers who shall effect them.”
Since their institution, the “Conseil de Salubrité” have been charged to
visit all the parts of France in which epidemic sicknesses have
appeared. Thus we find them in 1807 investigating the autumnal disorders
which broke out at Créteil, at Maisons, at Charenton, &c., and proposing
the creation of a travelling hospital to render aid to the country
districts during the prevalence of epidemics. Some years later, in 1810,
they went to Montreuil, to Montmartre, and other communes in which the
small-pox had assumed an epidemic character; to Pantin where there
reigned an epidemic fever; to Fontenay-sur-Bois, Rosny, &c., where some
ravages had been made by the dysentery. In 1812 they set forth the
causes of the epidemic maladies which had declared themselves in the
communes of Charonne, and Clicky, and by this means prevented their
recurrence. In 1818 they stopped the progress of an endemic fever in the
commune of Chevilly, and of the croup in the commune of Montreuil. In
1825 the small-pox committed great ravages among the inhabitants of
Paris, and of the rural communes of the department of the Seine. Brought
by a mass of workmen who flocked from the country to partake of the high
wages produced by a glut of employment, it was rapidly propagated among
a population who, through carelessness, or prejudice, had rejected the
blessing of vaccination. The small-pox, favoured in its development by
the high temperature of the atmosphere, gave rise for a moment to a
doubt of the preservative property of the vaccine. An eruptive malady,
the _varioloïde_, confounded with the small-pox by people in general,
and by inattentive and inexperienced medical men, originated this idea,
which some cases—rare certainly, but distinctly marked—of small-pox in
persons who had had the true cow-pox, appeared to confirm. It was then
feared that the vaccine had lost with time the advantages which rendered
it so precious; that, weakened in its nature, by passing from one
individual to another through a long course of years, it was no more
susceptible of modifying the organization in a manner to render it
inaccessible to the small-pox. It became therefore important to examine
with care this interesting point of practice. The difficult task was
performed by the council, and the administration, enlightened by their
reports, was able both to re-assure the people justly alarmed, and to
take the proper measures to arrest an evil of which no one could foresee
the consequences.
It is by such labours that the council prepared themselves for the noble
and grand mission which was reserved for them by the appearance in the
capital of the cholera morbus,—a mission which they fulfilled with so
much courage and devotion. In the midst of this public calamity, the
“Conseil de Salubrité,” we do not hesitate to say, surpassed all
expectation. This same zeal was manifested in 1837, when the epidemic
catarrh made some ravages in the capital. Since then, with the exception
of local maladies of little importance, the “Conseil de Salubrité” have
not been called upon to occupy themselves with epidemics.
The _épizooties_ are in many respects less serious than the epidemics.
Nevertheless, as they often affect the animals which serve for the
nutriment of man, and that, apart from this consideration, they may have
grave consequences for the public health, they have constantly engaged
the care of the council. In 1834 an _épizootie_ was reported to the
administration, which prevailed among the cows of the communes round
Paris, and which caused a great mortality. The researches of the council
established that this _épizootie_ was only a chronic disease, a true
pulmonary phthisis to which has been given the name of _pommeliere_, and
by which the greater part of the cows had been attacked which fill the
stables of the milkmen of Paris and its environs. According to the
council, the principal cause of the evil was to be attributed to the
vicious regimen to which this species of animal is subjected. “It is
known that they pass a part of the year in stables perfectly closed, in
which the space is not proportioned to the number of inmates, in which
the vitiated air renews itself with extreme difficulty, and in which the
heat is sometimes suffocating. It is known also that they pass suddenly
from the food of the stable to pasture, and that in this change they go
from the hot and humid atmosphere of the stable, to a sudden exposure to
the continual variations of the external air. This alternation of food,
and of heat and cold, operates as a powerful cause of disease. But as
the evil does not announce itself in a violent manner, as its progress
is not very rapid, as there is even a period in the disease in which the
animal is disposed to get flesh, the cow-feeder, who knows to what point
to keep her, sells her when she is ready to calve. It is in a radius of
thirty leagues from the capital that cows of this kind are purchased by
the jobbers who supply the milkmen of Paris. With these last they still
hold out a certain number of years, if they are properly cared for; but
in general they are kept in stables which are neither sufficiently
large, nor sufficiently airy, where they are exposed to the same causes
which gave birth to the malady. The phthisis arrives insensibly at its
last stage, and carries off every year from Paris, and its
neighbourhood, a great number of these cows.
“As to the question, whether the sale of the flesh of oxen that have
died from the diseases just described should be allowed, the council
have already shown that, from time immemorial, the meat of cows attacked
by pulmonary phthisis in a slight degree, has been consumed at Paris as
good cow-beef. Often even cows which have reached the last stage of this
disease are consigned to the butcher, who offers their flesh for sale as
meat of the second quality, after taking the precaution to cut away the
lungs, the pericardium, the mediastin, and those parts of the sides and
diaphragm, which present a state of disorganization more or less
advanced. This commerce has always taken place in the environs of Paris,
and in Paris itself before the establishment of the _abattoirs_; and if
we are not able to affirm that food of this nature is not bad, there is
at least no example of its use having given rise to accidents. It is to
be presumed that in this case, as in many others, the cooking destroys
the vicious properties of the flesh, and deprives it of all the
qualities injurious to the health of the consumer.
“The council have, however, been far from drawing from all these facts
the conclusion that it is unnecessary to watch over the sale of
butchers’ meat. They think, on the contrary, that this superintendence
cannot be too active, in order that the low price of such meat may not
lead poor families to make it habitually their principal sustenance. It
is known that a bad diet which is not injurious when used casually, may
become, by its continual employment, a source of disease. Numerous
observations have equally taught us, that the flesh of animals in which
putrefaction had commenced, has produced in persons who touched it the
most serious consequences. The council, building upon such data, believe
that it is indispensable to watch with the greatest care the sale of
meat, to have destroyed all the bad meat which is exposed in the shops,
and to forbid the butchers to sell the flesh of any animal that has died
from disease, or been killed in consequence of disease, unless a
veterinary surgeon and physician, appointed by authority, have decided
that the meat could be eaten without inconvenience.”
Some considerations of a kind still more general are developed in the
important report made by the commission, charged in 1839 with the
investigation of the disease called _cocotte_, which attacked the
milking-cows, and deeply occupied the public attention.
We stated at the commencement of this article, that the number of
reports made by the “Conseil de Salubrité,” during the years comprised
in this account, amounts to 4431. This number greatly surpasses in its
proportions that of the preceding years, that is to say, of the twenty
years which form the first period of their labours, dating from their
institution, and which only presents a total of 5008 reports. This
arises from the fact that Paris for a long time has been only a city of
produce, and that the labours of the council have necessarily increased
with the progress of trade, and the character, altogether manufacturing,
assumed by the department of the Seine since 1815. It is necessary,
moreover, to remark that the provisions of the decree of 1810 on
insalubrious establishments, by submitting certain classes of
manufactories to special authorizations, rendered more frequent the
intervention of the council, who were the first to demonstrate the
necessity of these new measures. “It is a great satisfaction to the
council,” say the reporters of their labours for the year 1810, “that
every year the observations and reports lead to general measures which
simplify your administration, by giving certain rules of which the
application becomes every day more easy. The public health was long
since compromised by the existence of certain manufactures, and in the
general accounts we have rendered we have never ceased to demand the
removal of insalubrious establishments. The National Institute,
consulted on this important point, shared our opinion, and a regulatory
law has just designated the manufactures which may be established in the
interior of towns, and those which are not to be tolerated there.”
In the year 1811 we find 118 reports on classed establishments. This
number increased in 1812, and so from year to year, till in 1813, 313
reports were made on establishments of this kind. The use of
steam-engines increased the labours of the council. In 1813, for
instance, there was but one report on these engines; in 1822, the number
had risen already to fifteen. The examination of these machines led the
council to examine their different systems, the dangers and
inconveniences they presented to the public health or safety, and we
foresee, in reading their important observations on this subject, all
the improvements which experience introduced in the sequel into this new
branch of industry. If we pass from the year 1822 to the year 1839, we
find there has been read ninety-six reports on engines of this
description: but they are no longer simple considerations on machines of
which the use is not well understood; they are views of an elevated
order, both on the application of these engines, and on their dangers
and inconveniences. We see that the council have profoundly studied
these important questions.
“We have united under one head,” says M. Busy, the reporter, “all the
establishments on which reports have been made relative to
steam-engines. Each of these establishments doubtless offers by itself
some inconveniences inherent in the kind of trade carried on; but in
general these inconveniences are trifling. The greater part of the
manufactories about which there is a question are for the construction
of engines, and other analogous things, which can only affect the
neighbourhood by the noise and activity which reign there. Out of
sixty-three reports made to the council on steam-engines, eleven were on
sawing-machines, nine on shops for the construction of engines, six on
fulminating powder-mills, four on factories for printing and preparing
stuffs, three on mechanical printing presses. The other reports are
divided in the following manner: