London Labour and the London Poor, Vol. 2 (part 4 of 7)

London Labour and the London Poor, Vol. 2 (part 4 of 7)

The total here given includes the returns of horses which were either taxed or the property of those who employ them in hackney-carriages in the metropolis. But the whole of these 24,214 horses are not at work in the streets every day. Perhaps it might be an approximation to the truth, if we reckoned five-sixths of the horses as being worked regularly in the public thoroughfares; so that we arrive at the conclusion that 20,000 horses are daily worked in the metropolis; and hence we have an aggregate of 7,300,000 horses traversing the streets of London in the twelvemonth. The beasts, sheep, calves, and pigs driven and conveyed to and from Smithfield are, we have seen, 1,841,300 in number. These, added together, make up a total of 9,141,300 animals appearing annually in the London thoroughfares. The circumstance of Smithfield cattle-market being held but twice a week in no way detracts from the amount here given; for as the gross number of individual cattle coming to that market in the course of the year is given, each animal is estimated as appearing only once in the metropolis.

The next point for consideration is--what is the quantity of dung dropped by each of the above animals while in the public thoroughfares?

Concerning the quantity of excretions passed by a horse in the course of 24 hours there have been some valuable experiments made by philosophers whose names alone are a sufficient guarantee for the accuracy of their researches.

The following Table from Boussingault’s experiments is copied from the “Annales de Chimie et de Physique,” t. lxxi.

FOOD CONSUMED BY AND EXCRETIONS OF A HORSE IN TWENTY-FOUR HOURS.

--------------------------------------++--------------------------------------- FOOD. || EXCRETIONS. ------+--------------+----------------++------------+--------------+----------- | Weight in a | Weight in a || | Weight in a |Weight in a |fresh state in| fresh state || |fresh state in|fresh state | grammes. | in pounds. || | grammes. | in pounds. ------+--------------+----------------++------------+--------------+----------- | | lbs. oz. || | | lbs. oz. Hay | 7,500 | 20 0 || Excrements | 14,250 | 38 2 Oats | 2,270 | 6 1 || Urine | 1,330 | 3 7 | ------ | ------ || | | | 9,770 | 26 1 || | | Water | 16,000 | 42 10 || | | ------+--------------+----------------++------------+--------------+----------- Total | 25,770 | 68 11 || Total | 15,580 | 41 9 ------+--------------+----------------++------------+--------------+-----------

Here it will be seen that the quantity of solid food given to the horse in the course of the 24 hours amounted only to 26 lbs.; whereas it is stated in the Report of the National Philanthropic Association, on the authority of the veterinary surgeon to the Life Guards, that the regulation horse rations in all cavalry regiments is 30 lbs. of solid food; viz., 10 lbs. of oats, 12 lbs. of hay, together with 8 lbs. of straw, for the horse to lie upon and munch at his leisure. “This quantity of solid food, with five gallons of water, is considered sufficient,” we are told, “for all regimental horses, who have but little work to perform, in comparison with the draught horses of the metropolis, many of which consume daily 35 lbs. and upwards of solid food, with at least six gallons of water.

“At a conference held with the secretary and professors of the Veterinary College in College-street, Camden-town,” continues the Report, “those gentlemen kindly undertook to institute a series of experiments in this department of equine physiology; the subject being one which interested themselves, professionally, as well as the council of the National Philanthropic Association. The experiments were carefully conducted under the superintendence of Professor Varnell. The food, drink, and voidances of several horses, kept in stable all day long, were separately weighed and measured; and the following were the results with an animal of medium size and sound health:--

“‘Royal Veterinary College, Sept. 29, 1849.

“‘Brown horse of middle size ate in 24 hours, of hay, 16lbs.; oats, 10lbs.; chaff, 4 lbs.; in all 30 lbs.

Drank of water, in 24 hours, 6 gallons, or 48 lbs. -------- Total 78 lbs. Voided in the form of fæces 49 lbs. -------- Allowance for nutrition, supply of waste in system, perspiration, and urine 29 lbs.

(Signed) “‘GEORGE VARNELL, “‘Demonstrator of Anatomy.’”

Here we find the excretions to be 11 lbs. more than those of the French horse experimented upon by M. Boussingault; but then the solid food given to the English horse was 4 lbs. more, and the liquid upwards of 7 lbs. extra.

We may then, perhaps, assume, without fear of erring, that the excrements voided by horses in the course of 24 hours, weigh, at the least, 45 lbs.

Hence the gross quantity of dung produced by the 7,300,000 horses which traverse the London streets in the course of the twelvemonth will be 7,300,000 × 45, or 328,500,000 lbs., which is upwards of 146,651 tons. But these horses cannot be said to be at work above six hours each day; we must, therefore, divide the above quantity by four, and thus we find that there are 36,662 tons of horse-dung annually dropped in the streets of London.

I am informed, on good authority, that the evacuations of an ox, in 24 hours, will, on the average, exceed those of a horse in weight by about a fifteenth, while, if the ox be disturbed by being driven, the excretions will exceed the horse’s by about a twelfth. As the oxen are not driven in the streets, or detained in the market for so long a period as horses are out at work, it may be fair to compute that their droppings are about the same, individually, as those of the horses.

Hence, as there are 224,000 horned cattle yearly brought to London, we have 224,000 × 45 lbs. = 10,080,000 lbs., or 4500 tons, for the gross quantity of ordure dropped by this number of animals in the course of 24 hours, so that, dividing by 4, as before, we find that there are 1125 tons of ordure annually dropped by the “horned cattle” in the streets of London.

Concerning the sheep, I am told that it may be computed that the ordure of five sheep is about equal in weight to that of two oxen. As regards the other animals it may be said that their “droppings” are insignificant, the pigs and calves being very generally carted to and from the market, as, indeed, are some of the fatter and more valuable sheep and lambs. All these facts being taken into consideration, I am told, by a regular frequenter of Smithfield market, that it will be best to calculate the droppings of each of the 1,617,300 sheep, calves, and pigs yearly coming to the metropolis at about one-fourth of those of the horned cattle; so that multiplying 1,617,300 by 10, instead of 45, we have 16,173,000 lbs., or 7220 tons, for the weight of ordure deposited by the entire number of sheep, calves, and pigs annually brought to the metropolis, and then dividing this by 4, as usual, we find that the droppings of the calves, sheep, and pigs in the streets of London amount to 1805 tons per annum.

Now putting together all the preceding items we obtain the following results:--

GROSS WEIGHT OF THE HORSE-DUNG AND CATTLE-DROPPINGS ANNUALLY DEPOSITED IN THE STREETS OF LONDON:--

Tons. Horse-dung 36,662 Droppings of horned cattle 1,125 Droppings of sheep, calves, and pigs 1,805 ------ 39,592

Hence we perceive that the gross weight of animal excretions dropped in the public thoroughfares of the metropolis is about 40,000 tons per annum, or, in round numbers, 770 tons every week-day--say 100 tons a day.

This, I am well aware, is a low estimate, but it appears to me that the facts will not warrant any other conclusion. And yet the Board of Health, who seem to delight in “large” estimates, represent the amount of animal manure deposited in the streets of London at no less than 200,000 tons per annum.

“Between the Quadrant in Regent-street and Oxford-street,” says the first Report on the Supply of Water to the Metropolis, “a distance of a third of a mile, three loads, on the average, of dirt, almost all horse-dung, are removed daily. On an estimate made from the working of the street-sweeping machine, in one quarter of the City of London, which includes lines of considerable traffic, the quantity of dung dropped must be upwards of 60 tons, or about 20,000 tons per annum, and this, on a City district, which comprises about one-twentieth only of the covered area of the metropolis, though within that area there is the greatest proportionate amount of traffic. Though the data are extremely imperfect, it is considered that the horse-dung which falls in the streets of the whole metropolis cannot be less than 200,000 tons a year.”

Hence, although the data are imperfect, the Board of Health do not hesitate to conclude that the gross quantity of horse-dung dropped throughout every part of London--back streets and all--is equal to one-half of that let fall in the greatest London thoroughfares. According to this estimate, all and every of the 24,000 London horses must void, in the course of the six hours that they are at work in the streets, not less than 51 lbs. of excrement, which is at the rate of very nearly 2 cwt. in the course of the day, or voiding only 49 lbs. in the twenty-four hours, they must remain out altogether, and never return to the stable for rest!!!

Mr. Cochrane is far less hazardous than the Board of Health, and appears to me to arrive at his result in a more scientific and conclusive manner. He goes first to the Stamp Office to ascertain the number of horses in the metropolis, and then requests the professors of the Veterinary College to estimate the average quantity of excretions produced by a horse in the course of 24 hours. All this accords with the soundest principles of inquiry, and stands out in startling contrast with the unphilosophical plan pursued by the Board of Health, who obtain the result of the most crowded thoroughfare, and then halving this, frame an exaggerated estimate for the whole of the metropolis.

But Mr. Cochrane himself appears to me to exceed that just caution which is so necessary in all statistical calculations. Having ascertained that a horse voids 49 lbs. of dung in the course of 24 hours, he makes the whole of the 24,214 horses in the metropolis drop 30 lbs. daily in the streets, so that, according to his estimate, not only must every horse in London be out every day, but he must be at work in the public thoroughfares for very nearly 15 hours out of the 24!

The following is the estimate made by Mr. Cochrane:--

Daily weight of manure deposited in the streets by 24,214 horses × 30 lbs. = 726,420 lbs., or 324 tons, 5 cwt., 100 lbs.

Weekly weight, 2270 tons, 1 cwt., 28 lbs.

Annual weight, 118,043 tons, 5 cwt.

Tons or cart-loads deposited annually, valued at 6_s._ × 118,043 = 35,412_l._ 19_s._ 6_d._

It has, then, been here shown that, assuming the number of horses worked daily in the streets of London to be 20,000, and each to be out six hours per diem, which, it appears to me, is all that can be fairly reckoned, the quantity of horse-dung dropped weekly is about 700 tons, so that, including the horses of the cavalry regiments in London, which of course are not comprised in the Stamp-Office returns, as well as the animals taken to Smithfield, we may, perhaps, assert that the annual ordure let fall in the London streets amounts, at the outside, to somewhere about 1000 tons weekly, or 52,000 tons per annum.

The next question becomes--what is done with this vast amount of filth?

The Board of Health is a much better guide upon this point than upon the matter of quantity: “Much of the horse-dung dropped in the London streets, under ordinary circumstances,” we are told, “dries and is pulverized, and with the common soil is carried into houses as dust, and dirties clothes and furniture. The odour arising from the surface evaporation of the streets when they are wet is chiefly from horse-dung. Susceptible persons often feel this evaporation, after partial wetting, to be highly oppressive. The surface-water discharged into sewers from the streets and roofs of houses is found to contain as much filth as the soil-water from the house-drains.”

Here, then, we perceive that the whole of the animal manure let fall in the streets is worse than wasted, and yet we are assured that it is an article, which, if properly collected, is of considerable value. “It is,” says the Report of the National Philanthropic Association, “an article of Agricultural and Horticultural commerce which has ever maintained a high value with the farmers and market-gardeners, wherever conveniently obtainable. When these cattle-droppings can be collected unmixed, in dry weather, they bear an acknowledged value by the grazier and root-grower;--there being no other kind of manure which fertilizes the land so bounteously. Mr. Marnock, Curator of the Royal Botanical Society, has valued them at from 5_s._ to 10_s._ per load; according to the season of the year. The United Paving Board of St. Giles and St. George, since the introduction of the Street Orderly System into their parishes, has wisely had it collected in a state separate from all admixture, and sold it at highly remunerative prices, rendering it the means of considerably lessening the expense of cleansing the streets.”

Now, assuming the value of the street-dropped manure to be 6_s._ per ton when collected free from dirt, we have the following statement as to the value of the horse and cattle-voidances let fall in the streets of London:--

52,000 tons of cattle-droppings, at 6_s._ per ton £15,600 0 0

Mr. Cochrane, who considers the quantity of animal-droppings to be much greater, attaches of course a greater value to the aggregate quantity. His computation is as follows:--

118,043 tons of cattle-droppings, at 6_s._ per ton £35,412 19 6

It seems to me that the calculations of the quantity of horse and cattle-dung in the streets, are based on such well-authenticated and scientific foundations, that their accuracy can hardly be disputed, unless it be that a higher average might fairly be shown.

Whatever estimate be adopted, the worth of street-dropped animal manure, if properly secured and made properly disposable, is great and indisputable; most assuredly between 10,000_l._ and 20,000_l._ in value.

OF STREET “MAC” AND OTHER MUD.

First of that kind of mud known by the name of “mac.”

The scavengers call mud all that is swept from the granite or wood pavements, in contradistinction to “mac,” which is both scraped and swept on the macadamized roads. The mud is usually carted apart from the “mac,” but some contractors cause their men to shovel every kind of dirt they meet with into the same cart.

The introduction of Mac Adam’s system of road-making into the streets of London called into existence a new element in what is accounted street refuse. Until of late years little attention was paid to “Mac,” for it was considered in no way distinct from other kinds of street-dirt, nor as being likely to possess properties which might adapt it for any other use than that of a component part of agricultural manure.

“Mac” is found principally on the roads from which it derives its name, and is, indeed, the grinding and pounding of the imbedded pieces of granite, which are the staple of those roads. It is, perhaps, the most adhesive street-dirt known, as respects the London specimen of it; for the exceeding traffic works and kneads it into a paste which it is difficult to remove from the texture of any garment splashed or soiled with it.

“Mac” is carted away by the scavengers in great quantities, being shovelled, in a state of more or less fluidity or solidity, according to the weather, from the road-side into their carts. Quantities are also swept with the rain into the drains of the streets, and not unfrequently quantities are found deposited in the sewers.

The following passage from “Sanatory Progress,” a work before alluded to, cites the opinion of Lord Congleton as to the necessity of continually removing the mud from roads. I may add that Lord Congleton’s work on road-making is of high authority, and has frequently been appealed to in parliamentary discussions, inquiries, and reports on the subject.

“The late Lord Congleton (Sir Henry Parnell) stated before a Committee of the House of Commons, in June, 1838, ‘a road should be cleansed from time to time, so as never to have half an inch of mud upon it; and this is particularly necessary to be attended to where the materials are weak; for, if the surface be not kept clean, so as to admit of its becoming dry in the intervals between showers of rain, it will be rapidly worn away.’ How truly,” adds the Report, “is his Lordship’s opinion verified every day on the macadamized roads in and around London! * * * * * * The horse-manure and other filth are there allowed to accumulate, and to be carried about by the horses and carriage-wheels; the road is formed into cavities and mud-hollows, which, being wetted by the rain and the constantly plying watering-carts, retain the same. Thus, not only are vast quantities of offensive mud formed, but puddles and pools of water also; which water, not being allowed to run off to the side gutter, by declivity, owing to the mud embankments which surround it, naturally percolates through the surface of the road, dissolving and loosening the soft earthy matrix by which the broken granite is surrounded and fixed.”

The quantity of “mac” produced is the next consideration, and in endeavouring to ascertain this there are no specific data, though there are what, under other circumstances, might be called circumstantial or inferential evidence.

I have shown both the length of the streets and roads and the proportion which might be pronounced macadamized ways in the Metropolis Proper. But as in the macadamized proportion many thoroughfares cannot be strictly considered as yielding “mac,” I will assume that the roads and streets producing this kind of dirt, more or less fully, are 1200 miles in length.

On the busier macadamized roads in the vicinity of what may be called the interior of London, it is common, I was told by experienced men, in average weather, to collect daily two cart-loads of what is called mac, from every mile of road. The mass of such road-produce, however, is mixed, though the “mac” unquestionably predominates. It was described to me as mac, general dirt, and droppings, more than the half being “mac.” In wet weather there is at least twenty times more “mac” than dung scavenged; but in dry weather the dung and other street-refuse constitute, perhaps, somewhat less than three-fourths of each cart-load. The “mac” in dry weather is derived chiefly from the fluid from the watering carts mixing with the dust, and so forming a paste capable of being removed by the scraper of the scavenger.

It may be fair to assume that every mile of the roads in question, some of them being of considerable width, yields at least one cart-load of “mac,” as a daily average, Sunday of course excepted. An intelligent man, who had the management of the “mac” and other street collections in a contractor’s wharf, told me that in a load of “mac” carted from the road to any place of deposit, there was (I now use his own words) “a good deal of water; for there’s great difference,” he added, “in the stiffness of the “mac” on different roads, that seem very much the same to look at. But that don’t signify a halfpenny-piece,” he said, “for if the ‘mac’ is wanted for any purpose, and let be for a little time, you see, sir, the water will dry up, and leave the proper stuff. I haven’t any doubt whatever that two loads a mile are collected in the way you’ve been told, and that a load and a quarter of the two is ‘mac,’ though after the water is dried up out of it there mightn’t be much more than a load. So if you want to calculate what the quantity of ‘mac’ is by itself, I think you had best say one load a mile.”

But it is only in the more frequented approaches to the City or the West-end, such as the Knightsbridge-road, the New-road, the Old Kent-road, and thoroughfares of similar character as regards the extent of traffic, that two loads of refuse are daily collected. On the more distant roads, beyond the bounds traversed by the omnibuses for instance, or beyond the roads resorted to by the market gardeners on their way to the metropolitan “green” markets, the supply of street-refuse is hardly a quarter as great; one man thought it was a third, and another only a sixth of a load a day in quiet places.

Calculating then, in order to be within the mark, that the macadamized roads afford daily two loads of dirt per mile, and reckoning the great macadamized streets at 100 miles in length, we have the following results:--

QUANTITY OF STREET-REFUSE COLLECTED FROM THE MORE FREQUENTED MACADAMIZED THOROUGHFARES.

Loads. 100 miles, 2 loads per day 200 „ Weekly amount 1,200 „ Yearly amount 62,400

PROPORTION OF “MAC” IN THE ABOVE.

100 miles, 1 load per day 100 „ Weekly 600 „ Yearly 31,200

To this amount must be added the quantity supplied by the more distant and less frequented roads situate within the precincts of the Metropolis Proper. These I will estimate at one-eighth less than that of the roads of greater traffic. Some of the more quiet thoroughfares, I should add, are not scavenged more than once a week, and some less frequently; but on some there is considerable traffic.

QUANTITY OF STREET-REFUSE COLLECTED FROM THE LESS FREQUENTED MACADAMIZED THOROUGHFARES.

Loads. 1100 miles, 1/4 load per day 275 „ Weekly 1,650 „ Yearly 85,800

The proportion of mac to the gross dirt collected is greater in the more distant roads than what I have already described, but to be safe I will adopt the same ratio.

PROPORTION OF “MAC.”

Loads. 1100 miles of road, 1/8 load per day 137 „ Weekly 825 „ Yearly 42,900

YEARLY TOTAL OF THE GROSS QUANTITY OF STREET-REFUSE, WITH THE PROPORTIONATE QUANTITY OF “MAC” COLLECTED FROM THE MACADAMIZED THOROUGHFARES OF THE METROPOLIS.

---------------------------+-------------+--------- | Street | | Refuse. | “Mac.” ---------------------------+-------------+--------- | Cart-loads. | Loads. 100 miles of macadamized | | roads | 62,400 | 31,200 1100 miles ditto ditto | 85,800 | 42,900 | -------- | ------ | 148,200 | 74,100 ---------------------------+-------------+---------

Thus upwards of 74,000 cart-loads of “mac” are, at a low computation, annually scraped and swept from the metropolitan thoroughfares.

* * * * *

So far as to the quantity of “mac” collected, and now as to its uses.

“‘Mac,’ or Macadam,” says one of Mr. Cochrane’s Reports, “is a grand prize to the scavenging contractor, who finds ready vend and a high price for it among the builders and brick-makers. Those who paid for the road--and their surveyors, possibly--know nothing of its value, or of their own loss by its removal from the road; they consider it in the light of dirt--offensive dirt--and are glad to pay the scavenger for carrying it away! When the broom comes, the scavenger’s men take care to go deep enough; and many of them are, moreover, instructed to keep the ‘mac’ as free from admixture with foreign substances as possible; for, though cattle-dung be valuable enough in itself, the ‘mac’ loses its value to the builder and brickmaker by being mixed with it. Indeed, both are valuable for their respective uses if kept separate, not otherwise.”

On my first making inquiries as to the uses and value of “mac,” I was frequently told that it was utterly valueless, and that great trouble and expense were incurred in merely getting rid of it. That this is the case with many contractors is, doubtlessly, the fact; for now, unless the “mac,” or, rather, the general road-dirt, be ordered, or a market for it be assured, it must be got rid of without a remuneration. Even when the contractor can shoot the “mac” in his own yard, and keep it there for a customer, there is the cost of re-loading and re-carting; a cost which a customer requiring to use it at any distance may not choose to incur. Great quantities of “mac,” therefore, are wasted; and more would be wasted, were there places to waste it in.

Let me, therefore, before speaking of the uses and sale of it, point out some of the reasons for this wasting of the “mac” with other street-dirt. In the first place, the weight of a cart-load of street-refuse of any kind is usually estimated at a ton; but I am assured that the weight of a cart-load of “stiff mac” is a ton and a quarter at the least; and this weight becomes so trying to a scavenger’s horse, as the day’s work advances, that the contractor, to spare the animal, is often glad to get rid of the “mac” in any manner and without any remuneration. Thousands of loads of “mac,” or rather of mixed street-dirt, have for this, and other reasons, been thrown away; and no small quantity has been thrown down the gulley-holes, to find its way into that main metropolitan sewer, the Thames. Of this matter, however, I shall have to speak hereafter.

There is no doubt that it is common for contractors to represent the “mac” they collect as being utterly valueless, and indeed an incumbrance. The “mixed mac,” as I have said, may be so. Some contractors urge, especially in their bargains with the parish board, that all kinds of street dirt are not only worthless, but expensive to be got rid of. Five or six years ago, this was urged very strenuously, for then there was what was accounted a combination among the contractors. The south-west district of St. Pancras, until within the last six years, received from the contractor for the public scavengery, 100_l._ for the year’s aggregation of street and house dirt. Since then, however, they have had to pay him 500_l._ for removing it.

Notwithstanding the reluctance of some of the contractors to give information on this, or indeed any subject connected with their trade, I have ascertained from indubitable authority, that “mac” is disposed of in the following manner. Some, but this is mostly the mixed kind, is got rid of in any manner; it has even been diluted with water so as to be driven down the drains. Some is mixed with the general street ordure--about a quarter of “mac,” I was told, to three-quarters of dung and street mud--and shipped off in barges as manure. Some is given to builders, when they require it for the foundations of any edifices that are “handy,” or rather it is carted thither for a nominal price, such as a trifle as beer-money for the men. Some, however, is sold for the same purpose, the contractors alleging that the charge is merely for cartage. Some, again, is given away or sold (with the like allegation) for purposes of levelling, of filling up cavities, or repairing unevennesses in any ground where improvements are being carried on; and, finally, some is sold to masons, plasterers, and brickmakers, for the purposes of their trade.

Even for such purposes as “filling up,” there must be in the “mixed mac” supplied, at least a considerable preponderance of the pure material, or there would not be, as I heard it expressed, a sufficient “setting” for what was required.

As a set-off to what is sold, however, I may here state that 30_s._ has been paid for the privilege of depositing a barge-load of mixed street dirt in Battersea-fields, merely to get rid of it.

The principal use of the unmixed “mac” is as a component part of the mortar, or lime, of the mason in the exterior, and of the plasterer in the interior, construction of buildings, and as an ingredient of the mill in brick-grounds.

The accounts I received of the properties of “mac” from the vendors of it, were very contradictory. One man, until lately connected with its sale, informed me that as far as his own experience extended, “mac” was most in demand among scamping builders, and slop brickmakers, who looked only to what was cheap. To a notorious “scamper,” he one morning sent three cart-loads of “mac” at 1_s._ a load, all to be used in the erection of the skeleton of one not very large house; and he believed that when it was used instead of sand with lime, it was for inferior work only, and was mixed, either for masons’ or plasterers’ work, with bad, low-priced mortar. Another man, with equal knowledge of the trade, however, represented “mac” as a most valuable article for the builder’s purposes, it was “so binding,” and this he repeated emphatically. A working builder told me that “mac” was as good as the best sand; it made the mortar “hang,” and without either that or sand, the lime would “brittle” away.

“Mac” may be said to be composed of pulverised granite and rain water. Granite is composed of quartz, felspar, and mica, each in granular crystals. Hence, alumina being clay, and silex a substance which has a strong tendency to enter into combination with the lime of the mortar, the pulverizing of granite tends to produce a substance which has necessarily great binding and indurating properties.

From this reduction of “mac” to its elements, it is manifest that it possesses qualities highly valuable in promoting the cohesive property of mortar, so that, were greater attention paid to its collection by the scavenger, there would, in all probability, be an improved demand for the article, for I find that it is already used in the prosecution of some of the best masons’ work. On this head I can cite the authority of a gentleman, at once a scientific and practical architect, who said to me,--

“‘Mac’ is used by many respectable builders for making mortar. The objection to it is, that it usually contains much extraneous decaying matter.”

Increased care in the collection of the material would, perhaps, remove this cause of complaint.

I heard of one West-end builder, employing many hands, however, who had totally or partially discontinued the use of “mac,” as he had met with some which he considered showed itself brittle in the plastering of walls.

“Mac,” is pounded, and sometimes sifted, when required for use, and is then mixed and “worked up” with the lime for mortar, in the same way as sand. By the brickmakers it is mixed with the clay, ground, and formed into bricks in a similar manner.

Of the proportion sold to builders, plasterers, and brickmakers, severally, I could learn no precise particulars. The general opinion appears to be, that “mac” is sold most to brickmakers, and that it would find even a greater sale with them, were not brick-fields becoming more and more remote. I moreover found it universally admitted, that “mac” was in less demand--some said by one-half--than it was five or six years back.

* * * * *

Such are the uses of “mac,” and we now come to the question of its value.

The price of the purer “mac” seems, from the best information I can procure, to have varied considerably. It is now generally cheap. I did not hear any very sufficing reason advanced to account for the depreciation, but one of the contractors expressed an opinion that this was owing to the “disturbed” state of the trade. Since the passing of the Sanitary Bill, the contractors for the public scavengery have been prevented “shooting” any valueless street-dirt, or dirt “not worth carriage” in convenient waste-places, as they were once in the habit of doing. Their yards and wharfs are generally full, so that, to avoid committing a nuisance, the contractor will not unfrequently sell his “mac” at reduced rates, and be glad thus to get rid of it. To this cause especially Mr. ---- attributed the deterioration in the price of “mac,” but if he had convenience, he told me, and any change was made in the present arrangements, he would not scruple to store 1000 loads for the demands of next summer, as a speculation. I am of opinion, moreover, notwithstanding what seemed something very like unanimity of opinion on the part of the sellers of “mac,” that what is given or thrown away is usually, if not always, mixed or inferior “mac,” and that what is sold at the lowest rate is only a degree or two better; unless, indeed, it be under the immediate pressure of some of the circumstances I have pointed out, as want of room, &c.

On inquiring the price of “mac,” I believe the answer of a vendor will almost invariably be found to be “a shilling a load;” a little further inquiry, however, shows that an extra sum may have to be paid. A builder, who gave me the information, asked a parish contractor the price of “mac.” The contractor at once offered to supply him with 500 loads at 1_s._ a load, if the “mac” were ordered beforehand, and could be shot at once; but it would be 6_d._ a mile extra if delivered a mile out of the mac-seller’s parish circuit, or more than a mile from his yard; while, if extra care were to be taken in the collection of the “mac,” it would be 2_d._, 3_d._, 4_d._, or 6_d._ a load higher. This, it must be understood, was the price of “wet mac.”

Good “dry mac,” that is to say, “mac” ready for use, is sold to the builder or the brickmaker at from 2_s._ to 3_s._ the load; 2_s._ 6_d._, or something very near it, being now about an average price. It is dried in the contractor’s yard by being exposed to the sun, or it is sometimes protected from the weather by a shed, while being dried. More wet “mac” would be shot for the trade, and kept until dry, but for want of room in the contractors’ yards and wharfs; for “mac” must give way to the more valuable dung, and the dust and ashes from the bins. The best “mac” is sometimes described as “country mac,” that is to say, it is collected from those suburban roads where it is likely to be little mixed with dung, &c.

A contractor told me that during the last twelve months he had sold 300 loads of “mac;” he had no account of what he had given away, to be rid of it, or of what he had sold at nominal prices. Another contractor, I was told by his managing man, sold last year about 400 loads. But both these parties are “in a large way,” and do not supply the data upon which to found a calculation as to an average yearly sale; for though in the metropolis there are, according to the list I have given in p. 167 of the present volume, 63 contracts, for cleansing the metropolis, without including the more remote suburbs, such as Greenwich, Lewisham, Tooting, Streatham, Ealing, Brentford, and others--still some of the districts contracted for yield no “mac” at all.

From what I consider good authority, I may venture upon the following moderate computation as to the quantity of “mac” sold last year.

Estimating the number of contracts for cleansing the more central parishes at 35, and adding 20 for all the outlying parishes of the metropolis--in some of which the supply of road “mac” is very fine, and by no means scarce--it may be accurate enough to state that, out of the 55 individual contracts, 300 loads of “mac” were sold by each in the course of last year. This gives 16,500 loads of “mac” disposed of per annum. It may, moreover, be a reasonable estimate to consider this “mac,” wet and dry together, as fetching 1_s._ 6_d._ a load, so that we have for the sum realized the following result:--

16,500 loads of “mac,” at 1_s._ 6_d._ per load £1237 10

It may probably be considered by the contractors that 1_s._ 6_d._ is too high an average of price per load: if the price be minimized the result will be--

16,500 loads of “mac,” at 1_s._ per load £825

Then if we divide the first estimate among the 55 contractors, we find that they receive upwards of 22_l._ each; the second estimate gives nearly 15_l._ each.

I repeat, that in this inquiry I can but approximate. One gentleman told me he thought the quantity of “mac” thus sold in the year was twice 1600 loads; another asserted that it was not 1000. I am assured, however, that my calculation does not exceed the truth.

I have given the full quantity of “mac,” as nearly, I believe, as it can be computed, to be yielded by the metropolitan thoroughfares; the surplusage, after deducting the 1600 loads sold, must be regarded as consisting of mixed, and therefore useless, “mac;” that is to say, “mac” rendered so thin by continuous wet weather, that it is little worth; “mac” wasted because it is not storeable in the contractor’s yard; and “mac” used as a component part of a barge-load of manure.

In the course of my inquiries I heard it very generally stated that until five or six years ago 2_s._ 6_d._ might be considered a regular price for a load of “mac,” while 4_s._, 5_s._, or even 6_s._ have been paid to one contractor, according to his own account, for the better kind of this commodity.

OF THE MUD OF THE STREETS.

The dirt yielded by a macadamized road, no matter what the composition, is always termed by the scavengers “mac;” what is yielded by a granite-paved way is always “mud.” Mixed mud and “mac” are generally looked upon as useless.

I inquired of one man, connected with a contractor’s wharf, if he could readily distinguish the difference between “mac” and other street or mixed dirts, and he told me that he could do so, more especially when the stuff was sufficiently dried or set, at a glance. “If mac was darker,” he said, “it always looked brighter than other street-dirts, as if all the colour was not ground out of the stone.” He pointed out the different kinds, and his definition seemed to me not a bad one, although it may require a practised eye to make the distinction readily.

Street-mud is only partially mud, for mud is earthy particles saturated with water, and in the composition of the scavenger’s street-mud are dung, general refuse (such as straw and vegetable remains), and the many things which in poor neighbourhoods are still thrown upon the pavement.

In the busier thoroughfares of the metropolis--apart from the City, where there is no macadamization requiring notice--it is almost impossible to keep street “mac” and mud distinct, even if the scavengers cared more to do so than is the case at present; for a waggon, or any other vehicle, entering a street paved with blocks of wrought granite from a macadamized road must convey “mac” amongst mud; both “mac” and mud, however, as I have stated, are the most valuable separately.

In a Report on the Supply of Water, Appendix No. III., Mr. Holland, Upper Stamford-street, Waterloo-road, is stated to have said, in reply to a question on the subject:--“Suppose the inhabitants of one parish are desirous of having their streets in good order and clean: unless the adjoining districts concur, a great and unjust expense is imposed upon the cleaner parish; because every vehicle which passes from a dirty on to a clean street carries dirt from the former to the latter, and renders cleanliness more difficult and expensive. The inhabitants of London have an interest in the condition of other streets besides those of their own parish. Besides the inhabitants of Regent-street, for instance, all the riders in the 5000 vehicles that daily pass through that great thoroughfare are affected by its condition; and the inhabitants of Regent-street, who have to bear the cost of keeping that street in good repair and well cleansed, for others’ benefit as well as for their own, may fairly feel aggrieved if they do not experience the benefits of good and clean streets when they go into other districts.”

In the admixture of street-dirt there is this material difference--the dung, which spoils good “mac,” makes good mud more valuable.

After having treated so fully of the road-produce of “mac,” there seems no necessity to say more about mud than to consider its quantity, its value, and its uses.

In the Haymarket, which is about an eighth of a mile in length, and 18 yards in width, a load and a half of street-mud is collected daily (Sundays excepted), take the year through. As a farmer or market-gardener will give 3_s._ a load for common street-mud, and cart it away at his own cost, we find that were all this mud sold separately, at the ordinary rate, the yearly receipt for one street alone would be 70_l._ 4_s._ This public way, however, furnishes no criterion of the general mud-produce of the metropolis. We must, therefore, adopt some other basis for a calculation; and I have mentioned the Haymarket merely to show the great extent of street-dirt accruing in a largely-frequented locality.

But to obtain other data is a matter of no small difficulty where returns are not published nor even kept. I have, however, been fortunate enough to obtain the assistance of gentlemen whose public employment has given them the best means of forming an accurate opinion.

The street mud from the Haymarket, it has been positively ascertained, is 1-1/4 load each wet day the year through. Fleet-street, Ludgate-hill, Cheapside, Newgate-street, the “off” parts of St. Paul’s Church-yard, Cornhill, Leadenhall-street, Bishopsgate-street, the free bridges, with many other places where locomotion never ceases, are, in proportion to their width, as productive of street mud as the Haymarket.

Were the Haymarket a mile in length, it would supply, at its present rate of traffic, to the scavenger 6 loads of street mud daily, or 36 loads for the scavenger’s working week. In this yield, however, I am assured by practical men, the Haymarket is six times in excess of the average streets; and when compared with even “great business” thoroughfares, of a narrow character, such as Watling-street, Bow-lane, Old-change, and other thoroughfares off Cheapside and Cornhill, the produce of the Haymarket is from 10 to 40 per cent. in excess.

I am assured, however, and especially by a gentleman who had looked closely into the matter--as he at one time had been engaged in preparing estimates for a projected company purposing to deal with street-manures--that the 50 miles of the City may be safely calculated as yielding daily 1-1/2 load of street mud per mile. Narrow streets--Thames-street for instance, which is about three-quarters of a mile long--yield from 2-1/2 to 3-1/2 loads daily, according to the season; but a number of off-streets and open places, such as Long-alley, Alderman’s-walk, America-square, Monument-yard, Bridgewater-square, Austin-friars, and the like, are either streets without horse-thoroughfares, or are seldom traversed by vehicles. If, then, we calculate that there are 100 miles of paved streets adjoining the City, and yielding the same quantity of street mud daily as the above estimate, and 200 more miles in the less central parts of the metropolis, yielding only half that quantity, we find the following daily sum during the wet season:--

Loads. 150 miles of paved streets, yielding 1-1/2 load of street mud per mile 225

200 miles of paved streets, yielding 3/4 load of street mud per mile 150 --- 375

Weekly amount of street mud during the wet season 2,250

Total ditto for six months in the year 58,500 ------ 63,000 loads of street mud, at 3_s._ per load £8775

The great sale for this mud, perhaps nineteen-twentieths, is from the barges. A barge of street-manure, about one-fourth (more or less) “mac,” or rather “mac” mixed with its street proportion of dung, &c., and three-fourths mud, dung, &c., contains from 30 to 40 tons, or as many loads. These manure barges are often to be seen on the Thames, but nearly three-fourths of them are found on the canals, especially the Paddington, the Regent’s, and the Surrey, these being the most immediately connected with the interior part of the metropolis. A barge-load of this manure is usually sold at from 5_l._ to 6_l._ Calculating its average weight at 35 tons, and its average sale at 5_l._ 10_s._, the price is rather more than 3_s._ a load. “Common street mud,” I have been informed on good authority, “fetches 3_s._ per load from the farmer, when he himself carts it away.”

The price of the barge-load of manure is tolerably uniform, for the quality is generally the same. Some of the best, because the cleanest, street mud--as it is mixed only with horse-dung--is obtained from the wood streets, but this mode of pavement is so circumscribed that the contractors pay no regard to its manure produce, as a general rule, and mix it carelessly with the rest. Such, at least, is the account they themselves give, and they generally represent that the street manure is, owing to the outlay for cartage and boatage, little remunerative to them at the prices they obtain; notwithstanding, they are paid to remove it from the streets. Indeed, I heard of one contractor who was said to be so dissatisfied with the demand for, and the prices fetched by, his street-manure, that he has rented a few acres not far from the Regent’s Canal, to test the efficacy of street dirt as a fertilizer, and to ascertain if to cultivate might not be more profitable than to sell.

OF THE SURFACE-WATER OF THE STREETS OF LONDON.

The consideration of what Professor Way has called the “street waters” of the metropolis, is one of as great moment as any of those I have previously treated in my details concerning street refuse, whether “mac,” mud, or dung. Indeed, water enters largely into the composition of the two former substances, while even the street dung is greatly affected by the rain.

The feeders of the street, as regards the street surface-water, are principally the rains. I will first consider the amount of surface-water supplied by the rain descending upon the area of the metropolis: upon the roofs of the houses, and the pavement of the streets and roads.

The depth of rain falling in London in the different months, according to the observations and calculations of the most eminent meteorologists, is as follows:--

----------+----------------------------------------+------------+--------- | Depth of Rain in inches. | Quantity of|Number of +--------------+------------+------------+rain falling| days on Months. |Royal Society,| Howard, | Daniell, | in the | which | according to |according to|according to| different | rain | observation. |observation.|calculation.| seasons. | falls. ----------+--------------+------------+------------+------------+--------- January | 1·56 | 1·907 | 1·483 | | 14·4 February | 1·45 | 1·643 | 0·746 | Winter. | 15·8 March | 1·36 | 1·542 | 1·440 | 5·868 | 12·7 April | 1·55 | 1·719 | 1·786 | | 14·0 May | 1·67 | 2·036 | 1·853 | Spring. | 15·8 June | 1·98 | 1·964 | 1·830 | 4·813 | 11·8 July | 2·44 | 2·592 | 2·516 | | 16·1 August | 2·37 | 2·134 | 1·453 | Summer. | 16·3 September | 2·97 | 1·644 | 2·193 | 6·682 | 12·3 October | 2·46 | 2·872 | 2·073 | | 16·2 November | 2·58 | 2·637 | 2·400 | Autumn. | 15·0 December | 1·65 | 2·489 | 2·426 | 7·441 | 17·7 ----------+--------------+------------+------------+------------+--------- Totals | 24·04 | 25·179 | 22·199 | 24·804 | 178·1 -------------------------+------------+------------+------------+---------

The rainfall in London, according to a ten years’ average of the Royal Society’s observations, amounts to 23 inches; in 1848 it was as high as 28 inches, and in 1847 as low as 15 inches. The depth of rain annually falling near London is stated by Mr. Luke Howard to be, on an average of 23 years (1797-1819), as much as 25·179 inches. Mr. Daniell says that the average annual fall is 23-1/10 inches. The mean of the observations made at Greenwich between the years 1838 and 1849 was 24·84 inches.

The following extract from an account of the “Soft Water Springs of the Surrey Sands,” by the Hon. Wm. Napier, is interesting.

“The amount of rainfall,” says the Author, “is taken from a register kept at the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, from the year 1818 to 1846.

“The average fall of the last 15 years, during which time the register appears to have been correctly kept, is 22·64 inches. I consider this to be a very low estimate, however, of the average rainfall over the whole district. The fall on the ranges of the Hindhead must considerably exceed this amount, for I find in White’s ‘Selborne,’ a register for ten years at that place; the greatest fall being in 1782, 50·26 inches, the lowest, in 1788, 22·50 inches, and the average of all 37·58 inches. The elevation of the Hindhead is about 800 feet above mean tide.

“With reference to the measurement of rainfall, it is difficult indeed to obtain more than a very approximate idea for a given district of not very great extent; the method of measurement is so uncertain, as liable to be affected by currents of air and evaporation. It is well known that elevated regions attract by condensation more rain than low lands, and yet a rain-gauge placed on the ground will register a greater fall than one placed immediately, and even at a small height, above it.

“M. Arago has shown from 12 years’ observations at Paris, that the average depth of rain on the terrace of the Observatory was 19·88 inches, while 30 yards lower it was 22·21 inches. Dr. Heberden has shown the rainfall on the top of Westminster Cathedral, during a certain period to be only 12·09 inches, and at a lower level on the top of a house in the neighbourhood to be 22·608 inches. This fact has been observed all over the world, and I can only account for it as arising partly from the greater amount of condensation the nearer the earth’s surface, but probably also from currents of air depriving a rain-gauge at a high elevation of its fair share.”

The results of the above observations, as to the yearly quantity of rain falling in the metropolis, may be summed up as follows:--

Inches of Rain falling Annually. Royal Society (average of 20 years) 24·04 Mr. Howard (average of 23 years) 25·179 Professor Daniell 22·199 Dr. Heberden 22·608 ------ Mean 23·506

The “mean mean,” or average of all the averages here given is within a fraction the average of the Royal Society’s Observations for 10 years, and this is the quantity that I shall adopt in my calculations as to the gross volume of rain falling over the entire area of London.

I have shown, by a detail of the respective districts in the Registrar General’s department, that the metropolis contains 74,070 statute acres. Every square inch of this extent, as garden, arable, or pasture ground, or as road or street, or waste place, or house, or inclosed yard or lawn, of course receives its modicum of rain. Each acre comprises 6,272,640 square inches, and we thus find the whole metropolitan area to contain a number of square inches, almost beyond the terms of popular arithmetic, and best expressible in figures.

Area of metropolis in square inches, 464,614,444,800. Now, multiplying these four hundred and sixty four thousand, six hundred and fourteen millions, four hundred and forty-four thousand, eight hundred square inches, by 23, the number of inches of rain falling every year in London, we have the following result:--

Total quantity of rain falling yearly in the metropolis, 10,686,132,230,400 cubic inches.

Then, as a fraction more than 277-1/4 cubic inches of water represent a weight of 10 lbs., and an admeasurement of a gallon, we have the following further results:--

------------------+-----------------------+----------------------- | Weight in pounds | Admeasurement | and tons. | in gallons. ------------------+-----------------------+----------------------- Yearly Rainfall } | 385,399,721,220 lbs., | in the } | or | 38,539,972,122 gals. Metropolis } | 172,053,447 tons. | ------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------

The total quantity of water mechanically supplied every day to the metropolis is said to be in round numbers 55,000,000 gallons, the amount being made up in the following manner:--

DAILY MECHANICAL SUPPLY OF WATER TO METROPOLIS.

Sources of Supply. Average No. of Gallons per day. New River 14,149,315 East London 8,829,462 Chelsea 3,940,730 West Middlesex 3,334,054 Grand Junction 3,532,013 Lambeth 3,077,260 Southwark and Vauxhall 6,313,716 Kent 1,079,311 Hampstead 427,468 Total from Companies 44,383,329 Artesian Wells 8,000,000 Land Spring Pumps 3,000,000 ----------- Total daily 55,383,329

YEARLY MECHANICAL SUPPLY OF WATER.

From Companies 16,200,000,000 gals. „ Artesian Wells 1,920,000,000 „ „ Land Spring Pumps 1,095,000,000 „ -------------- Total yearly 19,215,000,000 „

Hence it would appear that the rain falling in London in the course of the year is rather more than double that of the entire quantity of water annually supplied to the metropolis by mechanical means, the rain-water being to the other as 2·005 to 1·000.

Now, in order to ascertain what proportion of the entire volume of rain comes under the denomination of street surface-water, we must first deduct from the gross quantity falling the amount said to be caught, and which, in contradistinction to that mechanically supplied to the houses of the metropolis is termed, “catch.” This is estimated at 1,000,000 gallons per diem, or 365,000,000 gallons yearly.

But we must also subtract from the gross quantity of rain-water that which falls on the roofs as well as on the “back premises” and yards of houses, and is carried off directly to the drains without appearing in the streets. This must be a considerable proportion of the whole, since the streets themselves, allowing them to be ten yards wide on an average, would seem to occupy only about one-tenth part of the entire metropolitan area, so that the rain falling directly upon the public thoroughfares will be but a tithe of the aggregate quantity. But the surface-water of the streets is increased largely by tributary shoots from courts and drainless houses, and hence we may fairly assume the natural supply to be doubled by such means. At this rate the volume of rain-water annually poured into and upon the metropolitan thoroughfares by natural means, will be between five and six thousand millions of gallons, or one hundred times the quantity that is daily supplied to the houses of the metropolis by mechanical agency.

Still only a part of this quantity appears in the form of surface-water, for a considerable portion of it is absorbed by the ground on which it falls--especially in dry weather--serving either to “lay the dust,” or to convert it into mud. Due regard, therefore, being had to all these considerations, we cannot, consistently with that caution which is necessary in all statistical inquiries, estimate the surface-water of the London streets at more than one thousand millions of gallons per annum, or twenty times the daily mechanical supply to the houses of the entire metropolis, and which it has been asserted is sufficient to exhaust a lake covering the area of St. James’s-park, 30 inches in depth.

The quantity of water annually poured upon the streets in the process of what is termed “watering” amounts, according to the returns of the Board of Health, to 275,000,000 gallons per annum! But as this seldom or never assumes the form of street surface-water, it need form no part of the present estimate.

What proportion of the thousand million gallons of “slop dirt” produced annually in the London streets is carried off down the drains, and what proportion is ladled up by the scavengers, I have no means of ascertaining, but that vast quantities run away into the sewers and there form large deposits of mud, everything tends to prove.

Mr. Lovick, on being asked, “How many loads of deposit have been removed in any one week in the Surrey and Kent district? What is the total quantity of deposit removed in any one week in the whole of the metropolitan district?” replied:

“It is difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain correctly the quantity removed, owing to the variety of forms of sewers and the ever-varying forms assumed by the deposit from the action of varying volumes of water; but I have had observations made on the rate of accumulation, from which I have been enabled roughly to approximate it. In one week, in the Surrey and Kent district, about 1000 yards were removed. In one week, in the whole of the metropolitan districts, including the Surrey and Kent district, between 4000 and 5000 yards were removed; but in portions of the districts these operations were not in progress.”

It is not here stated of what the deposit consisted, but there is no doubt that “mac” from the streets formed a great portion of it. Neither is it stated what period of time had sufficed for the accumulation; but it is evident enough that such deposits in the course of a year must be very great.

The street surface-water has been analyzed by Professor Way, and found to yield different constituents according to the different pavements from which it has been discharged. The results are as follows:--

“_Examination of Samples of Water from Street Drainage, taken from the Gullies in the Sewers during the rain of 6th May, 1850._

“The waters were all more or less turbid, and some of them gave off very noxious odours, due principally to the escape of sulphuretted hydrogen gas.

“Some of them were alkaline to test-paper, but the majority were neutral.

“The following table exhibits the quantity of matter (both in solution and in solid state) contained in an imperial gallon of each specimen.

“STREET WATERS.

-------+--------------------+----------+---------+-------------------------------- Number | | Quality | Quality | Residue in an Imperial Gallon. of | NAME OF STREET. | of | of +---------+----------+----------- Bottle.| | Paving. |Traffic. |Soluble. |Insoluble.| Both. -------+--------------------+----------+---------+---------+----------+----------- | | | | Grains. | Grains. | Grains. 1 |Duke-street, | | | | | | Manchester-square | Macadam |Middling | 92·80 | 105·95 | 198·75 7 |Foley-street | | | | | | (upper part) | „ | Little | 95·13 | 116·30 | 211·43 5 |Gower-street | Granite |Middling | 126·00 | 168·30 | 294·30 12 |Norton-street | „ | Little | 123·87 | 3·00 | 126·87 3 |Hampstead-road | | | | | | (above the canal) |Ballasted | Great | 96·00 | 84·00 | 180·00 4 |Ferdinand-street | „ |Middling | 44·00 | 48·30 | 92·30 2 |Ferdinand-place | „ | Little | 50·80 | 34·30 | 85·10 10 |Oxford-street | Granite | Great | 276·23 | 537·10 | 813·33 6 | „ | Macadam | „ | 194·62 | 390·30 | 584·92 11 | „ | Wood | „ | 34·00 | 5·00 | 39·00 -------+--------------------+----------+---------+---------+----------+-----------

“The influence of the quality of the paving on the composition of the drainage water,” says Professor Way, “is well seen in the specimens Nos. 10, 6, and 11, all of them from Oxford-street, the traffic being described as ‘Great.’

“The quantity of soluble salts is here found to be greatest from the granite matter from the macadamized road, and very inconsiderable from the wood pavement.

“The same relation between the granite and macadam pavement seems to hold good in the other instances; the granite for any quality of traffic affording more soluble salts to the water than the macadam.

“The ballasted pavement holds a position intermediate between the macadam and the wood, giving more soluble salts than the wood, but less than the macadam.

“The quantity of solid (insoluble) matter in the different samples of water, which is a measure of the mechanical waste of the different kinds of pavement, appears also to follow the same relation as that of the soluble salts; that is to say, granite greatest, next macadam, then ballasted, and, lastly, wood pavement, which affords a quantity of solid deposit almost too small to deserve notice.

“The influence of the quality of traffic on the composition of the different specimens of drainage is well marked in nearly all cases; the greatest amount of matter both insoluble and soluble being found in the water obtained from the streets of great traffic.

“The following table shows the composition of the soluble salts of four specimens, two of them being from the granite, and two from the macadam pavement.

“It appears from the table that the granite furnishes little or no magnesia to the water, whilst the quantity from the macadam is considerable.

“On the other hand, the quantity of potash is far greatest in the water derived from the granite.

“The traffic, as was before seen, has a very great influence on the quantity of the soluble salts. It seems also to influence their composition, for we find no carbonates either in the water from the granite, or that from the macadam, where the traffic is little; whereas, when it is great, carbonates of lime and potash are found in the water in large quantity, a circumstance which is no doubt attributable to the action of decaying organic matter on the mineral substances of the pavement.

“ANALYSIS OF THE SOLUBLE MATTER IN DIFFERENT SPECIMENS OF STREET DRAINAGE WATER.

-----------------------------------------+----------------------------------- | Grains in an Imperial Gallon. +-----------------+----------------- | Great Traffic. | Little Traffic. +--------+--------+--------+-------- |Granite.|Macadam.|Granite.|Macadam. | No. 10.| No. 6. | No. 12.| No. 7. -----------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+-------- Water of combination and some soluble | | | | organic matter | 77·56 | 29·07 | 22·72 | 13·73 Silica | ·51 | 2·81 | ... | ... Carbonic Acid | 15·84 | 12·23 | None | None Sulphuric Acid | 36·49 | 38·23 | 46·48 | 34·08 Lime | 6·65 | 13·38 | 25·90 | 16·10 Magnesia | None | 23·51 | Trace | 3·50 Oxide of Iron and Alumina, with a little | | | | Phosphate of Lime | 2·58 | 1·25 | ... | ... Chloride of Potassium | None | 10·99 | None | 2·79 „ Sodium | 53·84 | 44·88 | 18·44 | 19·70 Potash | 82·76 | 18·27 | 8·75 | 5·23 Soda | ... | ... | 1·58 | ... -----------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+-------- | 276·23 | 194·62 | 123·87 | 95·13 -----------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------

“The insoluble matter in the waters consists of the comminuted material of the road itself, with small fragments of straw and broken dung.

“The quantity of soluble salts (especially of salts of potash) in many of these samples of water is quite as great, and in some cases greater, than that found in the samples of sewer-water that have been examined; and it is open to question and further inquiry, whether the water obtained from the street-drainage of a crowded city might not often be of nearly equal value as liquid manure with the sewer-water with which it is at present allowed to mix.”

With regard to the “ballasted pavement” mentioned by Professor Way, I may observe that it cannot be considered a street-pavement, unless exceptionally. It is formed principally of Thames ballast mixed with gravel, and is used in the construction of what are usually private or pleasure walks, such as the “gravel walks” in the inclosures of some of the parks, and upon Primrose-hill, &c.

OF THE MASTER SCAVENGERS IN FORMER TIMES.

Degraded as the occupation of the scavenger may be in public estimation; though “I’d rather sweep the streets” may be a common remark expressive of the lowest deep of humiliation among those who never handled a besom in their lives; yet the very existence of a large body who are public cleansers betokens civilization. Their occupation, indeed, was defined, or rather was established or confirmed, in the early periods of our history, when municipal regulations were a sort of charter of civic protection, of civic liberties, and of general progress.

The noun Scavenger is said by lexicographers to be derived from the German schaben, to shave or scrape, “applied to those who scrape and clear away the filth from public streets or other places.” The more direct derivation, however, is from the Danish verb skaver, the Saxon equivalent of which is sceafan, whence the English shave. Formerly the word was written Scavager, and meant simply one who was engaged in removing the Scrapeage or Rakeage (the working men, it will be seen, were termed also “rakers”) from the surface of the streets. Hence it would appear that there is no authority for the verb to scavenge, which has lately come into use. The term from which the personal substantive is directly made, is scavage, a word formed from the verb in the same manner as sewage and rubbage (now fashionably corrupted into rubbish), and meaning the refuse which is or should be scraped away from the roads. The Latin equivalent from the Danish verb skave, is scabere.

I believe that the first mention of a scavenger in our earlier classical literature, is by Bishop Hall, one of the lights of the Reformation, in one of his “Satires.”

“To see the Pope’s blacke knight, a cloaked frere, Sweating in the channel like a scavengere.”

Many similar passages from the old poets and dramatists might be adduced, but I will content myself with one from the “Martial Maid” of Beaumont and Fletcher, as bearing immediately on the topic I have to discuss:--

“Do I not know thee for the alguazier, Whose dunghil all the parish scavengers Could never rid.”

Johnson defines a scavenger to be “a petty magistrate, whose province is to keep the streets clean;” and in the earlier times, certainly the scavenger was an officer to whom a certain authority was deputed, as to beadles and others.

One or two of these officials were appointed, according to the municipal or by-laws of the City of London, not to each parish, but to each ward. Of course, in the good old days, nothing could be done unless under “the sanction of an oath,” and the scavengers were sworn accordingly on the Gospel, the following being the form as given in the black letter of the laws relating to the city in the time of Henry VIII.

“The Oath of Scavagers, or Scavengers, of the Ward.

“Ye shal swear, That ye shal wel and diligently oversee that the pavements in every Ward be wel and rightfully repaired, and not haunsed to the noyaunce of the neighbours; and that the Ways, Streets, and Lanes, be kept clean from Donge and other Filth, for the Honesty of the City. And that all the Chimneys, Redosses, and Furnaces, be made of Stone for Defence of Fire. And if ye know any such ye shall shew it to the Alderman, that he may make due Redress therefore. And this ye shall not lene. So help you God.”[14]

To aid the scavengers in their execution of the duties of the office, the following among others were the injunctions of the civic law. They indicate the former state of the streets of London better than any description. A “Goung (or dung) fermour” appears to be a nightman, a dung-carrier or bearer, the servant of the master or ward scavenger.

“No Goungfermour shall spill any ordure in the Street, under pain of Thirteen Shillings and Four Pence.

“No Goungfermour shall carry any ordure till after nine of the clock in the Night, under pain of Thirteen Shillings and Four Pence. No man shall cast any urine boles, or ordure boles, into the Streets by Day or Night, afore the Hour of nine in the Night. And also he shall not cast it out, but bring it down and lay it in the Canel, under Pain of Three Shillings and Four Pence. And if he do so cast it upon any Person’s Head, the Person to have a lawful Recompense, if he have hurt thereby.

“No man shall bury any Dung, or Goung, within the Liberties of this City, under Pain of Forty Shillings.”

I will not dwell on the state of things which caused such enactments to be necessary, or on the barbarism of the law which ordered a lawful recompense to any person assailed in the manner intimated, only when he had “hurt thereby.”

These laws were for the government of the city, where a body of scavengers was sometimes called a “street-ward.” Until about the reign of Charles II., however, to legislate concerning such matters for the city was to legislate for the metropolis, as Southwark was then more or less under the city jurisdiction, and the houses of the nobility on the north bank of the Thames (the Strand), would hardly require the services of a public scavenger.

As new parishes or districts became populous, and established outside the city boundaries, the authorities seem to have regulated the public scavengery after the fashion of the city; but the whole, in every respect of cleanliness, propriety, regularity, or celerity, was most grievously defective.

Some time about the middle of the last century, the scavengers were considered and pronounced by the administrators or explainers of municipal law, to be “two officers chosen yearly in each parish in London and the suburbs, by the constables, churchwardens, and other inhabitants,” and their business was declared to be, that they should “hire persons called ‘rakers,’ with carts to clean the streets, and carry away the dirt and filth thereof, under a penalty of 40_s._”

The scavengers thus appointed we should now term surveyors. There is little reason to doubt that in the old times the duly-appointed scavagers or scavengers, laboured in their vocation themselves, and employed such a number of additional hands as they accounted necessary; but how or when the master scavenger ceased to be a labourer, and how or when the office became merely nominal, I can find no information. So little attention appears to have been paid to this really important matter, that there are hardly any records concerning it. The law was satisfied to lay down provisions for street-cleansing, but to enforce these provisions was left to chance, or to some idle, corrupt, or inefficient officer or body.

Neither can I find any precise account of what was formerly done with the dirt swept and scraped from the streets, which seems always to have been left to the discretion of the scavenger to deal with as he pleased, and such is still the case in a great measure. Some of this dirt I find, however, promoted “the goodly nutriment of the land” about London, and some was “delivered in waste places apart from habitations.” These waste places seem to have been the nuclei of the present dust-yards, and were sometimes “presented,” that is, they were reported by a jury of nuisances (or under other titles), as “places of obscene resort,” for lewd and disorderly persons, the lewd and disorderly persons consisting chiefly of the very poor, who came to search among the rubbish for anything that might be valuable or saleable; for there were frequent rumours of treasure or plate being temporarily hidden in such places by thieves. Some outcast wretches, moreover, slept within the shelter of these scavengers’ places, and occasionally a vigilant officer--even down to our own times, or within these few years--apprehended such wretches, charged them with destitution, and had them punished accordingly. Much of the street refuse thus “delivered,” especially the “dry rubbish,” was thrown into the streets from houses under repair, &c., (I now speak of the past century,) and no use seems to have been made of any part of it unless any one requiring a load or two of rubbish chose to cart it away.

I have given this sketch to show what master scavengers were in the olden times, and I now proceed to point out what is the present condition of the trade.

OF THE SEVERAL MODES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF STREET-CLEANSING.

We here come to the practical part of this complex subject. We have ascertained the length of the streets of London--we have estimated the amount of daily, weekly, and yearly traffic--calculated the quantity of mud, dung, “mac,” dust, and surface-water formed and collected annually throughout the metropolis--we have endeavoured to arrive at some notion as to the injury done by all this vast amount of filth owing to what the Board of Health has termed “imperfect scavenging,”--and we now come to treat of the means by which the loads of street refuse--the loads of dust--loads of “mac” and mud, and the tons of dung, are severally and collectively removed throughout the year.

There are two distinct, and, in a measure, diametrically opposed, methods of street-cleansing at present in operation.

1. That which consists in cleaning the streets when dirtied.

2. That which consists in cleaning them and keeping them clean.

These modes of scavenging may not appear, to those who have paid but little attention to the matter, to be very widely different means of effecting the same object. The one, however, removes the refuse from the streets (sooner or later) after it has been formed, whereas the other removes it as fast as it is formed. By the latter method the streets are never allowed to get dirty--by the former they must be dirty before they are cleansed.

The plan of street-cleansing before dirtied, or the pre-scavenging system, is of recent introduction, being the mode adopted by the “street-orderlies;” that of cleansing after having dirtied, or the post-scavenging system, is (so far as the more general or common method is concerned) the same as that pursued two centuries ago. I shall speak of each of these modes in due course, beginning with that last mentioned.

By the ordinary method of scavenging, the dirt is still swept or scraped to one side of the public way, then shovelled into a cart and conveyed to the place of deposit. In wet weather the dirt swept or scraped to one side is so liquified that it is known as “slop,” and is “lifted” into the cart in shovels hollowed like sugar-spoons. The only change of which I have heard in this mode of scavenging was in one of the tools. Until about nine years ago birch, or occasionally heather, brooms or besoms were used by the street-sweepers, but they soon became clogged in dirty weather, and then, as one working scavenger explained it to me, “they scattered and drove the dirt to the sides ’stead of making it go right a-head as you wants it.” The material now used for the street-sweeper’s broom is known as “bass,” and consists of the stems or branches of a New Zealand plant, a substance which has considerable strength and elasticity of fibre, and both “sweeps” and “scrapes” in the process of scavenging. The broom itself, too, is differently constructed, having divisions between the several insertions of bass in the wooden block of the head, so that clogging is less frequent, and cleaning easier, whereas the birch broom consisted of a close mass of twigs, and thus scattered while it swept the dirt. There was, of course, some outcry on the part of the “established-order-of-things” gentry among scavengers, against the innovation, but it is now general. As all the scavengers, no matter how they vary in other respects, work with the brooms described, this one mention of the change will suffice. No doubt the cleansing of the streets is accomplished with greater efficiency and with greater celerity than it was, but the mere process of manual toil is little altered.

In a work like the present, however, we have more particularly to deal with the labourers engaged; and, viewing the subject in this light, we may arrange the several modes of street-cleansing into the four following divisions:--

1. By paid manual-labourers, or men employed by the contractors, and paid in the ordinary ways of wages.

2. By paid “Machine”-labourers, differing from the first only or mainly in the means by which they attain their end.

3. By pauper labourers, or men employed by the parishes in which they are set to work, and either paid in money or in food, or maintained in the workhouses.

4. By street-orderlies, or men employed by philanthropists--a body of workmen with particular regulations and more organized than other scavengers.

By one or other of these modes of scavengery all the public ways of the metropolis are cleansed; and the subject is most peculiar, as including within itself all the several varieties of labour, if we except that of women and children--viz., manual labour, mechanical labour, pauper labour, and philanthropic labour.

By these several varieties of labour the highways and by-ways of the entire metropolis are cleansed, with one exception--the Mews, concerning which a few words here may not be out of place. All these localities, whether they be what are styled Private or Gentlemen’s Mews, or Public Mews, where stables, coach-houses, and dwelling-rooms above them, may be taken by any one (a good many of such places being, moreover, public or partial thoroughfares); or whether they be job-masters’ or cab-proprietors’ mews; are scavenged by the occupants, for the manure is valuable. The mews of London, indeed, constitute a world of their own. They are tenanted by one class--coachmen and grooms, with their wives and families--men who are devoted to one pursuit, the care of horses and carriages; who live and associate one among another; whose talk is of horses (with something about masters and mistresses) as if to ride or to drive were the great ends of human existence, and who thus live as much together as the Jews in their compulsory quarters in Rome. The mews are also the “chambers” of unemployed coachmen and grooms, and I am told that the very sicknesses known in such places have their own peculiarities. These, however, form matter for future inquiry.

Concerning the private scavenging of the metropolitan mews, the Medical Times, of July 26, 1851, contains a letter from Mr. C. Cochrane, in which that gentleman says:--

“It will be found, that in all the mews throughout the metropolis, the manure produced from each stable is packed up in a separate stack, until there is sufficient for a load for some market-gardener or farmer to remove. The groom or stable-man makes an arrangement, or agreement as it is called, with the market-gardener, to remove it at his convenience, and a gratuity of 1_s._ or 1_s._ 6_d._ per load is usually presented to the stable-man. In some places there are dung-pits containing the collectings of a fortnight’s dung, which, when disturbed for removal, casts out an offensive effluvium, as sickening as it is disgusting to the whole neighbourhood. In consequence of the arrangement in question, if a third party wished to buy some of this manure, he could not get it; and if he wished to get rid of any by giving it away, the stable-man would not receive it, as it would not be removed sufficiently quick by the farmer. The result is, that whilst the air is rendered offensive and insalubrious, manure becomes difficult to be removed or disposed of, and frequently is washed away into the sewer.

“Of this manure there are always (at a moderate computation) remaining daily, in the mews and stable-yards of the metropolis, at least 2000 cart-loads.

“To remedy these evils, I would suggest that a brief Act of Parliament should be passed, giving municipal and parochial authorities the same complete control over the manure as they have over the ‘ashes,’ with the provision, that owners should have the right of removing it themselves for their own use; but if they did not do so daily, then the control to return to the above authorities, who should have the right of selling it, and placing the proceeds in the parish funds. By this simple means immense quantities of valuable manure would be saved for the purposes of agriculture--food would be rendered cheaper and more abundant--more people would be employed--whilst the metropolis would be rendered clean, sweet, and healthy.”

I may dismiss this part of the subject with the remark, that I was informed that the mews’ manure was in regular demand and of ready sale, being removed by the market-gardeners with greater facility than can street-dirt, which the contractors with the parishes prefer to vend by the barge-load.

Having enumerated the four several modes of street-cleansing, I will now proceed to point out briefly the characteristics of each class of cleansing. This will also denote the quality of the employers and the nature of the employment.

1. The Paid Manual Labourers constitute the bulk of those engaged in scavenging, and the chief pay-masters are the contractors. Many of these labourers consider themselves the only “regular hands,” having been “brought up to the business;” but unemployed or destitute labourers or mechanics, or reduced tradesmen, will often endeavour to obtain employment in street-sweeping; this is the necessary evil of all unskilled labour, for since every one can do it (without previous apprenticeship), it follows that the beaten-out artisans or discarded trade assistants, beggared tradesmen, or reduced gentlemen, must necessarily resort to it as their only means of independent support; and hence the reason why dock labour and street labour, and indeed all the several forms of unskilled work, have a tendency to be overstocked with hands--the unskilled occupations being, as it were, the sink for all the refuse skilled labour and beggared industry of the country.

The “contractors,” like other employers, are separated by their men into two classes--such as, in more refined callings, are often designated the “honourable” and “dishonourable” traders--according as they pay or do not pay what is reputed “fair wages.”

I cannot say that I heard any especial appellation given by the working scavengers to the better-paying class of employers, unless it were the expressive style of “good-’uns.” The inferior paying class, however, are very generally known among their work-people as “scurfs.”

2. The Street-sweeping Machine Labourers.--Of the men employed as “attendant” scavengers, for so they may be termed, in connection with these mechanical and vehicular street-sweepers, little need here be said, for they are generally of the class of ordinary scavengers. It may, however, be necessary to explain that each of those machines must have the street refuse, for the “lick-in” of the machine, swept into a straight line wherever there is the slightest slope at the sides of a street towards the foot-path; the same, too, must sometimes be done, if the pavement be at all broken, even when the progress of the machine is, what I heard, not very appropriately, termed “plain sailing.” Sometimes, also, men follow the course of the street-sweeping machine, to “sweep up” any dirt missed or scattered, as the vehicle proceeds on a straightforward course, for at all to diverge would be to make the labour, where the machine alone is used, almost double.

3. The Pauper, or Parish-employed Scavengers present characteristics peculiarly their own, as regards open-air labour in London. They are employed less to cleanse the streets, than to prevent their being chargeable to the poor’s rate as out-door recipients, or as inmates of the workhouses. When paid, they receive a lower amount of wages than any other scavengers, and they are sometimes paid in food as well as in money, while a difference may be made between the wages of the married and of the unmarried men, and even between the married men who have and have not children; some, again, are employed in scavenging without any money receipt, their maintenance in the workhouse being considered a sufficient return for the fruits of their toil.

Some of these men are feeble, some are unskilful (even in tasks in which skill is but little of an element), and most of them are dissatisfied workmen. Their ranks comprise, or may comprise, men who have filled very different situations in life. It is mentioned in the second edition of one of the publications of the National Philanthropic Association, “Sanatory Progress” (1850), “that the once high-salaried cashier of a West-end bank died lately in St. Pancras-workhouse;--that the architect of several of the most fashionable West-end club-houses is now an inmate of St. James’s-workhouse;--and that the architect of St. Pancras’ New Church lately died in a back garret in Somers-town.” “These recent instances (a few out of many)” says the writer, “prove that ‘wealth has wings,’ and that Genius and Industry have but leaden feet, when overtaken by Adversity. A late number of the Globe newspaper states that, ‘among the police constables on the Great Western Railway, there are at present eight members of the Royal College of Surgeons, and three solicitors;’--and the Limerick Examiner, a few weeks ago, announced the fact, that ‘a gentlewoman is now an inmate of the workhouse of that city, whose husband, a few years ago, filled the office of High Sheriff of the county.’”

I do not know that either the cashier or the architect in the two workhouses in question was employed as a street-sweeper.

This second class, then, are situated differently to the paid street-sweepers (or No. 1 of the present division), who may be considered, more or less, independent or self-supporting labourers, while the paupers are, of course, dependent.

4. The “Street Orderlies.”--These men present another distinct body. They are not merely in the employment, but many of them are under the care, of the National Philanthropic Association, which was founded by, and is now under the presidency of, Mr. Cochrane. The objects of this society, as far as regards the street orderlies’ existence as a class of scavengers, are sufficiently indicated in its title, which declares it to be “For the Promotion of Street Cleanliness and the Employment of the Poor; so that able-bodied men may be prevented from burthening the parish rates, and preserved independent of workhouse alms and degradation. Supported by the contributions of the benevolent.”

The street orderlies, men and boys, are paid a fixed weekly wage, a certain sum being stopped from those single men who reside in houses rented for them by the association, where their meals, washing, &c., are provided. Among them are men of many callings, and some educated and accomplished persons.

The system of street orderlyism is, moreover, distinguished by one attribute unknown to any other mode; it is an effort, persevered in, despite of many hindrances and difficulties, to amend our street scavengery, indeed to reform it altogether; so that dust and dirt may be checked in their very origination.

The corporation, if I may so describe it, of the street orderlies, presents characteristics, again, varying from the other orders of what can only be looked upon either as the self-supporting or pauper workers.

These, then, are the several modes or methods of street-scavengery, and they show the following:--

CLASSES OF STREET-SWEEPING EMPLOYERS.

(1.) Traders, who undertake contracts for scavengery as a speculation. Under this denomination may be classed the contractors with parishes, districts, boards, liberties, divisions and subdivisions of parishes, markets, &c.

(2.) Parishes, who employ the men as a matter of parochial policy, with a view to the reduction of the rates, and with little regard to the men.

(3.) Philanthropists, who seek, more particularly, to benefit the men whom they employ, while they strive to promote the public good by increasing public cleanliness and order.

Under the head of “Traders” are the contractors with the parishes, &c., and the proprietors of the sweeping-machines, who are in the same capacity as the “regular contractors” respecting their dealings with labourers, but who substitute mechanical for manual operations.

Of these several classes of masters engaged in the scavengery of the metropolis I have much to say, and, for the clearer saying of it, I shall treat each of the several varieties of labour separately.

OF THE CONTRACTORS FOR SCAVENGERY.

The scavenging of the streets of the metropolis is performed directly or indirectly by the authorities of the several parishes “without the City,” who have the power to levy rates for the cleansing of the various districts; within the City, however, the office is executed under the direction of the Court of Sewers.

When the cleansing of the streets is performed indirectly by either the parochial or civic authorities, it is effected by contractors, that is to say, by traders who undertake for a certain sum to remove the street-refuse at stated intervals and under express conditions, and who employ paid servants to execute the work for them. When it is performed directly, the authorities employ labourers, generally from the workhouse, and usually enter into an agreement with some contractor for the use of his carts and appliances, together with the right to deposit in his wharf or yard the refuse removed from the streets.

I shall treat first of the indirect mode of scavenging--that is to say, of cleansing the streets by contract--beginning with the contractors, setting forth, as near as possible, the receipts and expenditure in connection with the trade, and then proceeding in due order to treat of the labourers employed by them in the performance of the task.

Some of the contractors agree with the parochial or district authorities to remove the dust from the house-bins as well as the dirt from the streets under one and the same contract; some undertake to execute these two offices under separate contracts; and some to perform only one of them. It is most customary, however, for the same contractor to serve the parish, especially the larger parishes, in both capacities.

There is no established or legally required form of agreement between a contractor and his principals; it is a bargain in which each side strives to get the best of it, but in which the parish representatives have often to contend against something looking like a monopoly; a very common occurrence in our day when capitalists choose to combine, which is legal, or unnoticed, but very heinous on the part of the working men, whose capital is only in their strength or skill. One contractor, on being questioned by a gentleman officially connected with a large district, as to the existence of combination, laughed at such a notion, but said there might be “a sort of understanding one among another,” as among people who “must look to their own interests, and see which way the cat jumped;” concluding with the undeniable assertion that “no man ought reasonably to be expected to ruin himself for a parish.”

There does not appear, however, to have been any countervailing qualities on the part of the parishes to this understanding among the contractors; for some of the authorities have found themselves, when a new or a renewed contract was in question, suddenly “on the other side of the hedge.” Thus, in the south-west district of St. Pancras, the contractor, five or six years ago, paid 100_l._ per annum for the removal and possession of the street-dirt, &c.; but the following year the district authorities had to pay him 500_l._ for the same labour and with the same privileges! Other changes took place, and in 1848-9 a contractor again paid the district 95_l._ I have shown, too, that in Shadwell the dust-contractor now receives 450_l._ per annum, whereas he formerly paid 240_l._ To prove, however, that a spirit of combination does occasionally exist among these contractors, I may cite the following minute from one of the parish books.

Extract from Minute-book, Nov. 7, 1839. Letter C, Folio 437.

“Commissioner’s Office,

“30, Howland-street,

“Nov. 7, 1839.

“REPORT of the Paving Committee to the General Board, relating to the watering the district for the past year.

“Your Committee beg leave to report that for the past three years the sums paid by contract for watering were respectively:--

“For 1836 £230 „ 1837 220 „ 1838 200

“That in the month of February in the present year the Board advertised in the usual manner for tenders to water the district, when the following were received, viz.:--

“Mr. Darke £315 „ Gore 318 „ Nicholls 312 „ Starkey 285

which was the lowest.

“Your Committee, anxious to prevent any increase in the watering-rate from being levied, and considering the amount required by the contractors for this service as excessive and exorbitant, and even evincing a spirit of combination, resolved to make an inroad upon this system, and after much trouble and attention adopted other measures for watering the district, the results of which they have great pleasure in presenting to the Board, by which it will be seen that a saving over the very lowest of the above tenders of 102_l._ 3_s._ has been effected; the sum of 18_l._ 18_s._ has been paid for pauper labour at the same time. Your Committee regret that, notwithstanding the efforts of themselves and their officers, the state of insubordination and insult of most of the paupers (in spite of all encouragement to industry) was such, that the Committee, on the 12th of July last, were reluctantly compelled to discontinue their services. The Committee cannot but congratulate the Board upon the result of their experiment, which will have the effect of breaking up a spirit of combination highly dangerous to the community at large, at the same time that their labours have caused a very considerable saving to the ratepayers; and they trust the work, considering all the numerous disadvantages under which they have laboured, has been performed in a satisfactory manner.

“P. CUNNINGHAM,

“Surveyor,

“30, Howland-street, Fitzroy-square.”

The following regulations sufficiently show the nature of the agreements made between the contractors and the authorities as to the cleansing of the more important thoroughfares especially. It will be seen that in the regulations I quote every street, court, or alley, must now be swept daily, a practice which has only been adopted within these few years in the City.

“SEWERS’ OFFICE, GUILDHALL, LONDON, RAKERS’ DUTIES,[15] MIDSUMMER, 1851, TO MIDSUMMER, 1852.

“CLEANSING.

“The whole surface of every Carriage-way, Court, and Alley shall be swept every day (Sundays excepted), and all mud, dust, filth, and rubbish, all frozen or partially frozen matter, and snow, animal and vegetable matter, and everything offensive or injurious, shall be properly pecked, scraped, swept up, and carted away therefrom; and the iron gutters laid across or along the footways, the air-grates over the sewers, the gulley-grates in the carriage-way of the streets respectively; and all public urinals are to be daily raked out, swept, and made clean and clear from all obstructions; and the Contractor or Contractors shall, in time of frost, continually keep the channels in the Streets and Places clear for water to run off: and cleanse and cart away refuse hogan or gravel (when called upon by the Inspector to do so) from all streets newly paved.

“The Mud and Dirt, &c., is to be carted away immediately that it is swept up.

“N.B. The Inspector of the District may, at any time he may think it necessary, order any Street or Place to be cleansed and swept a second time in any one day, and the Contractor or Contractors are thereupon bound to do the same.

“The Markets and their approaches are also to be thus cleansed DAILY, and the approaches thereto respectively are also to be thus cleansed at such an hour in the night of Saturday in each week as the Inspector of the District may direct.

“Every Street, Lane, Square, Yard, Court, Alley, Passage, and Place (except certain main Streets hereinafter enumerated), are to be thus cleansed within the following hours Daily: namely--

“In the months of April, May, June, July, August, and September. To be begun not earlier than 4 o’Clock in the morning, and finished not later than 1 o’Clock in the afternoon.

“In the months of October, November, December, January, February, and March. To be begun not earlier than 5 o’Clock in the morning, and finished not later than 2 o’Clock in the afternoon.

“The following main Streets are to be cleansed DAILY throughout the year (except Sundays), to be begun not earlier than 4 o’Clock in the morning, and finished not later than 9 o’Clock in the morning.

Fleet Street Ludgate Hill and Street St. Paul’s Church Yard Cheapside Newgate Street Poultry Watling Street, Budge Row, and Cannon St. Mansion House Street Cornhill Leadenhall Street Aldgate Street and Aldgate King William Street and London Bridge Fenchurch Street Holborn Holborn Bridge Skinner Street Old Bailey Lombard Street New Bridge Street Farringdon Street Aldersgate Street St. Martin-le-grand Prince’s Street Moorgate Street The Street called ‘The Pavement’ Finsbury Place, South Gracechurch Street Bishopsgate St., within and without The Minories Wood Street Gresham Street Coleman Street.

“N.B. In times of frost and snow these hours of executing the work may be extended at the discretion of the Local Commissioners.”

The other conditions relate to the removal of the dust from the houses (a subject I have already treated), and specify the fines, varying from 1_l._ to 5_l._, to be paid by the contractors, for the violation or neglect of any of the provisions of the contract. It is further required that “Each Foreman, Sweeper, and Dustman, in the employ of either of the Contractors,” (of whom there are four, Messrs. Sinnott, Rooke, Reddin, and Gould), “will be required to wear a Badge on the arm with these words thereon,--

“‘London Sewers, N^o. -- Guildhall,’

by which means any one having cause of complaint against any of the men in the performance of their several duties, may, by taking down the number of the man and applying at the Sewers’ Office, Guildhall, have reference to his name and employer.

“Any man working without his Badge, for each day he offends, the Contractor is liable to the penalty of Five Shillings.

“All the sweepings of the Streets, and all the dust and ashes from the Houses, are to be entirely carted away from the City of London, on a Penalty of Ten Pounds for each cart-load.”

These terms sufficiently show the general nature of the contracts in question; the principal difference being that in some parts, the contractor is not required to sweep the streets more than once, twice, or thrice a week in ordinary weather.

The number of individuals in London styling themselves Master Scavengers is 34. Of these, 10 are at present without a contract either for dust or scavenging, and 5 have a contract for removing the dust only; so that, deducting these two numbers, the gross number 34 is reduced to 19 scavenging contractors. Of the latter number 16 are in a large way of business, having large yards, possessing several carts and some waggons, and employing a vast number of men daily in sweeping the streets, carting rubbish, &c. The other 3 masters, however, are only in a small way of business, being persons of more limited means. A large master scavenger employs from 3 to 18 carts, and from 18 to upwards of 40 men at scavengery alone, while a small master employs only from 1 to 3 carts and from 3 to 6 men. By the table I have given, p. 186, vol. ii., it is shown that there are 52 contracts between the several district authorities and master scavengers, and nineteen contractors, without counting members of the same family, as distinct individuals; this gives an average of nearly three distinct contracts per individual. The contracts are usually for a twelvemonth.

Although the table above referred to shows but 19 contractors for public scavenging, there are, as I have said, more, or about 24, in London, most of them in a “large way,” and next year some of those who have no contracts at present may enter into agreements with the parishes. The smallness of this number, when we consider the vast extent of the metropolis, confirms the notion of the sort of monopoly and combination to which I have alluded. In the Post-Office Directory for 1851 there are no names under the heads of Scavengers or Dustmen, but under the head of “Rubbish Carters,” 28 are given, 9 names being marked as “Dust Contractors” and 10 as “Nightmen.”

Of large contractors, however, there are, as I have said, about 24, but they may not all obtain contracts every year, and in this number are included different members of the same family or firm, who may undertake specific contracts, although in the trade it is looked upon as “one concern.” The smaller contractors were represented to me as rather more numerous than the others, and perhaps numbered 40, but it is not easy to define what is to be accounted a contractor. In the table given in pp. 213, 214, I cite only 7 as being the better known. The others may be considered as small rubbish-carters and flying-dustmen.

There are yet other transactions in which the contractors are engaged with the parishes, independently of their undertaking the whole labour of street and house cleansing. In the parishes where pauper, or “poor” labour is resorted to--for it is not always that the men employed by the parishes are positive “paupers,” but rather the unemployed poor of the parish--in such parishes, I say, an agreement is entered into with a contractor for the deposit of the collected street dirt at his yard or wharf. For such deposit the contractor must of course be paid, as it is really an occupation and renting of a portion of his premises for a specific purpose. The street dirt, however, is usually left to the disposal of the contractor, for his own profit, and where he once paid 50_l._ for the possession of the street-collected dirt of a parish, collected by labour which was no cost to him, he may now receive half of such 50_l._, or whatever the terms of the agreement may be. I heard of one contractor who lately received 25_l._ where he once paid 50_l._

In another way, too, contractors are employed by parishes. Where pauper or poor labour in street cleansing is the practice, a contractor’s horses, carts, and cart-drivers are hired for the conveyance of the dirt from the streets. This of course is for a specific payment, and is in reality the work of the tradesmen who in the Post Office Directory are described as “Rubbish Carters,” and of whom I shall have to speak afterwards. Some parishes or paving boards have, however, their own horses and vehicles, but in the other respects they have dealings with the contractors.

To come to as correct a conclusion as possible in this complicated and involved matter, I have obtained the aid of some gentlemen long familiar with such procedures. One of them said that to procure the accounts of such transactions for a series of years, with all their chops and changes, or to obtain a perfectly precise return, for any three years, affecting the whole metropolis, would be the work of a parliamentary commission with full powers “to send for papers,” &c., &c., and that even then the result might not be satisfactory as a clear exposition. However, with the aid of the gentlemen alluded to, I venture upon the following approximation.

As my present inquiry relates only to the Scavenging Contractors in the metropolis, I will take the number of districts, markets, &c., which are specified in the table, p. 186, vol. ii. These are 83 in number, of which 29 are shown to be scavenged by the “parish.” I will not involve in this computation any of the more rural places which may happen to be in the outskirts of the metropolitan area, but I will take the contracts as 54, where the contractors do the entire work, and as 29 where they are but the rubbish-carters and dirt receivers of the parishes.

I am assured that it is a fair calculation that the scavengery of the streets, apart from the removal of the dust from the houses, costs in payments to the contractors, 150_l._ as an average, to each of the several 54 districts; and that in the 29 localities in which the streets are cleansed by parish labour, the sum paid is at the rate of 50_l._ per locality, some of them, as the five districts of Marylebone for instance, being very large. This is calculated regardless of the cases where parishes may have their own horses and vehicles, for the cost to the rate-payers may not be very materially different, between paying for the hire of carts and horses, and investing capital in their purchase and incurring the expense of wear and tear. The account then stands thus:--

Parish payment on 54 contracts, 150_l._ each £8100 Parish payment on 29 contracts, 50_l._ each 1450 ----- Yearly total sum paid for Scavenging of the Metropolis £9550 -----

or, apportioned among 19 contractors, upwards of 500_l._ each; and among 83 contracts, about 115_l._ per contract. Even if other contractors are employed where parish labour is pursued, the cost to the rate-payers is the same. This calculation is made, as far as possible, as regards scavengery alone; and is independent of the value of the refuse collected. It is about the scavengery that the grand fight takes place between the parishes and contractors; the house dust, being uninjured by rain or street surface-water, is more available for trade purposes.

From this it would appear that the cost of cleansing the streets of London may be estimated in round numbers at 10,000_l._ per annum.

The next point in the inquiry is, What is the value of the street dirt annually collected?

The price I have adduced for the dirt gained from the streets is 3_s._ per load, which is a very reasonable average. If the load be dung, or even chiefly dung, it is worth 5_s._ or 6_s._ With the proportion of dung and street refuse to be found in such a thoroughfare as the Haymarket, in dry, or comparatively dry weather, a load, weighing about a ton, is worth about 3_s._ in the purchaser’s own cart. On the other hand, as I have shown that quantities of mixed or slop “mac” have to be wasted, that some is sold at a nominal price, and a good deal at 1_s._ the load, 3_s._ is certainly a fair average.

A TABLE SHOWING THE NUMBER OF MEN AND CARTS EMPLOYED IN COLLECTING DUST, IN SCAVENGERY, AND AT RUBBISH CARTING, AS WELL AS THE NUMBER OF MEN, WOMEN, AND BOYS WORKING IN THE DUST-YARDS OF THE SEVERAL METROPOLITAN CONTRACTORS.

------------------------------+------------------+-------------------+------------------+---------------------------- Contractors (Large). | Dust. | Scavengery. | Rubbish Carting. | Working in the Yard. +---------+--------+---------+----------------------------+---------+---------+-------- | | | | Number | | | | | | | | |of Carts,| | | | | | Number | Number | Number | Waggons,| Number | Number | Number | Number | Number | of Men |of Carts| of Men | or | of Men |of Carts| of Men |of Women |of Boys |employed.| used. |employed.| Machines|employed.| used. |employed.|employed.|working. | | | | used. | | | | | ------------------------------+---------+--------+---------+---------+---------+--------+---------+---------+-------- Mr. Dodd | 20 | 10 | 26 | 13 | 20 | 20 | 9 | 12 | 4 „ Gould | 20 | 10 | 28 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 5 | 15 | 4 „ Redding | 32 | 16 | 41 | 18 | 22 | 22 | 5 | 12 | 4 „ Gore | 32 | 16 | 18 | 7 | none. | none. | 4 | 20 | 6 „ Rooke | 16 | 8 | 16 | 6 | 16 | 16 | 2 | 6 | 3 „ Stapleton & Holdsworth | 10 | 5 | 11 | 8 | 10 | 10 | 4 | 8 | 2 „ Tame | 20 | 10 | 5 | 1 | 12 | 12 | 4 | 8 | 2 „ Starkey | 10 | 5 | 22 | 8 | none. | none. | 4 | 12 | 3 „ Newman | 8 | 4 | 23 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 4 | 8 | 2 „ Pratt and Sewell | 10 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 20 | 20 | 2 | 6 | 2 „ W. Sinnott, Sen. | 28 | 14 | 5 | 2 | none. | none. | 5 | 15 | 5 „ J. Sinnott | 8 | 4 | 16 | 6 | ditto. | ditto. | none. | none. | none. „ Westley | 10 | 5 | 18 | 9 | ditto. | ditto. | 3 | 9 | 2 „ Parsons | 10 | 5 | 18 | 3 | ditto. | ditto. | 2 | 6 | 1 „ Hearne | 18 | 9 | 7 | 2 | 20 | 20 | 3 | 9 | 3 „ Humphries | 20 | 10 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 6 | 3 | 9 | 3 „ Calvert | 6 | 3 | none. | none. | 7 | 7 | 2 | 6 | 2 +---------+--------+-------------------+---------+--------+---------+---------+-------- | 278 | 139 | 262 | 107 | 152 | 152 | 61 | 161 | 48 | | | | | | | | | Contractors (Small). | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Mr. North | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 „ Milton | 6 | 3 | none. | none. | none. | none. | 3 | 6 | 2 „ Jenkins | 2 | 1 | 5 | 1 | ditto. | ditto. | 1 | 2 | 1 „ Stroud | 10 | 5 | none. | none. | ditto. | ditto. | 4 | 9 | 3 „ Martin | 2 | 1 | 6 | 3 | ditto. | ditto. | 1 | 2 | 1 „ Clutterbuck | 4 | 2 | none. | none. | 5 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 1 „ W. Sinnott, Jun. | 4 | 2 | ditto. | ditto. | 6 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 1 +---------+--------+-------------------+---------+--------+---------+---------+-------- | 32 | 16 | 13 | 5 | 15 | 15 | 12 | 26 | 10 | | | | | | | | | Contractors, but not having | | | | | | | | | any contract at present, | | | | | | | | | only carting rubbish, &c. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Mr. Darke | ... | ... | ... | ... | 36 | 36 | | | „ Tomkins | ... | ... | ... | ... | 6 | 6 | | | „ J. Cooper | ... | ... | ... | ... | 8 | 8 | | | „ T. Cooper, Sen. | ... | ... | ... | ... | 12 | 12 | | | „ Athill | ... | ... | ... | ... | 6 | 6 | | | „ Barnett (lately sold off) | | | | | | | | | „ Brown | ... | ... | ... | ... | 4 | 4 | | | „ Ellis | ... | ... | ... | ... | 6 | 6 | | | „ Limpus | ... | ... | ... | ... | 10 | 10 | | | „ Emmerson | ... | ... | ... | ... | 6 | 6 | | | | | | | +---------+--------+ | | | | | | | 94 | 94 | | |

--------------------------------+-------------+-------------------+-------------+----------------------- | Dust. | Scavengers. | Rubbish. | Employed in Yard. Machines. +------+------+-----+-------------+------+------+------+------+--------- | Men. |Carts.| Men.| Carts. | Men. |Carts.| Men. |Women.|Children. --------------------------------+------+------+-----+-------------+------+------+------+------+--------- Woods and Forests | none.| none.| 4 | 2 machines.| none.| none.| none.| none.| none. Regent-street and Pall-mall |ditto.|ditto.| 12 | 2 „ |ditto.|ditto.|ditto.|ditto.| ditto. St. Martin’s |ditto.|ditto.| 9 | 4 „ |ditto.|ditto.|ditto.|ditto.| ditto. +------+------+-----+---- | | | | | | | | 25 | 8 „ | | | | | Parishes. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Kensington[16] | ... | ... | 5 | 2 | | | | | Chelsea[16] | ... | ... | 5 | 2 | | | | | St. George’s, Hanover-sq.[16] | ... | ... | 5 | 1 | | | | | St. Margaret’s, Westminster[16] | ... | ... | 7 | 3 | | | | | Piccadilly[16] | ... | ... | 28 | 2 | | | | | St. Ann’s, Soho[16] | ... | ... | 4 | 2 | | | | | Paddington[16] | ... | ... | 6 | 2 | | | | | St. Marylebone[16] (5 Districts)| ... | ... | 35 | 4 | | | | | St. James’s, Westminster | ... | ... | 2 | 1 | | | | | {|No parochial |} | | | | | | Hampstead {| removal of |} 4 | 1 | | | | | {| dust. |} | | | | | | Highgate | ditto. | 4 | 1 | | | | | Islington[16] | ... | ... | 8 | 1 | | | | | Hackney | 8 | 4 | 7 | 1 | ... | ... | 2 | 6 | 2 St. Clement Danes[16] | ... | ... | 7 | 3 waggons. | | | | | Commercial-road, East[16] | ... | ... | 6 | 3 carts. | | | | | Poplar | 4 | 2 | 4 | 1 | ... | ... | 2 | 4 | 1 Bermondsey | 6 | 3 | 6 | 3 | ... | ... | 3 | 6 | 2 Newington | 8 | 4 | 6 | 2 | ... | ... | 2 | 6 | 2 Lambeth[16] | ... | ... | 16 | 3 | | | | | Ditto (Christchurch) | 4 | 2 | 20 | 3 | ... | ... | 1 | 4 | 1 Wandsworth | 4 | 2 | 4 | 1 | ... | ... | 1 | 4 | 1 Camberwell and Walworth | 8 | 4 | 6 | 2 | ... | ... | 2 | 5 | 3 Rotherhithe | 6 | 3 | 5 | 2 | ... | ... | 1 | 5 | 2 Greenwich | 4 | 2 | 5 | 2 | ... | ... | 1 | 3 | 1 Deptford | 4 | 2 | 4 | 2 | ... | ... | 1 | 3 | 1 Woolwich | none.| none.| 5 | 2 | | | | | Lewisham |ditto.|ditto.| 4 | 1 | | | | | +------+------+-----+---- | | | | | Total for Parishes | 56 | 28 ||218 | 50 carts. | | | 16 | 46 | 16 | | | | 3 waggons. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Total for large contractors | 278 | 139 | 262 |107 | 152 | 152 | 61 | 161 | 48 Total for small contractors | 32 | 16 | 13 | 5 | 15 | 15 | 12 | 26 | 10 Total for machines | ... | ... | 25 | 8 machines.| | | | | Total for street orderlies | ... | ... | 60 | 9 | | | | | +------+------+-----+---- |------|------|------|------|-------- Gross total | 366 | 183 | 578 |179 carts. | 167 | 167 | 89 | 233 | 74 | | | | 3 waggons. | | | | | --------------------------------+------+------+-----+-------------+------+------+------+------+--------

Men. Carts. Total employed at dust 366 183 „ „ scavenging 578 179 „ „ rubbish carting 167 167 „ (men, women, and children), in yard 396 ---- --- Total employed in the removal of house and street refuse 1507 529

Thus the annual sum of the street-dirt, as regards the quantity collected by the contracting scavengers (as shown in the table given at page 186), is, in round numbers, 89,000 cart-loads; that collected by parish labour, with or without the aid of the street-sweeping machines, at 52,000 cart-loads, or a total (I do not include what is collected by the orderlies) of 141,000 loads.

This result shows, then, that the contractors yearly collect by scavenging the streets with their own paid labourers, and receive as the produce of pauper labour, as follows:--

---------------+--------------+-------+--------- | Loads of | Per | | Street Dirt. | Load. | Total. ---------------+--------------+-------+--------- By Contractors | 89,000 | 3_s._ | £13,350 By Parishes | 52,000 | 3_s._ | 7,800 ---------------+--------------+-------+--------- Total | 141,000 | | £21,150 ---------------+--------------+-------+---------

or a value of rather more than 1113_l._ as the return to each individual contractor in the table, or about 255_l._ as the average on each contract. As, however, the whole of the parish-collected manure does not come into the hands of the contractors, it will be fair, I am assured, to compute the total at 19,000_l._, a sum of 1000_l._ to each contractor, or nearly 229_l._ on each contract.

It would appear, then, that the total receipts of the contractors for the scavenging of London amount to very nearly 30,000_l._; that is to say, 10,000_l._ as remuneration for the office, and 20,000_l._ as the value of the dirt collected. But against this sum as received, we have to set the gross expense of wages paid to men, wear and tear of carts and appliances, rent of wharfs, interest for money, &c.

Concerning the amount paid in wages, it appears by the table at pp. 186, 187, that the men employed by the scavenging contractors in wet weather, are 260 daily (being nearly half of the whole force of 531 men, the orderlies excepted). In dry weather, however, there are only 194 men employed. I will therefore calculate upon 194 men employed daily, and 66 employed half the year, making the total of 260. By the table here given, it will be seen that the total number of scavengers employed by the large and small contractors, is 275.

--------------------+--------------+------------- Number of Men. | Weekly Wage. | Yearly. --------------------+--------------+------------- 194 (for 12 months) | 16_s._[17] |£8070 8_s._ 66 (for 6 months) | 16_s._ | 1372 16_s._ --------------------+--------------+------------- Total | | £9443 4_s._ --------------------+--------------+-------------

There remains now to show the amount of capital which a large contractor must embark in his business: I include the amount of rent, and the expenditure on what must be provided for business purposes, and which is subject to wear and tear, to decay, and loss.

There are not now, I am told, more than twelve scavengers’ wharfs and 20 yards (the wharf being also a yard) in the possession of the contractors in regular work. These are the larger contractors, and their capital, I am assured, may be thus estimated:--

CAPITAL OF THE MASTER SCAVENGERS.

£ s. d.

179 Carts, 21_l._ each 3,759 0 0 3 Waggons, 32_l._ each 96 0 0 230 Horses, 25_l._ each 5,750 0 0 230 Sets of harness, 2_l._ each 460 0 0 600 Brooms, 9_d._ each 22 10 0 300 Shovels, 1_s._ each 15 0 0 100 Barges, 50_l._ each 5,000 0 0 ----------------- Total 15,102 10 0 -----------------

I have estimated according to what may be the present value, not the original cost, of the implements, vehicles, &c. A broom, when new, costs 1_s._ 2_d._, and is worn out in two or three weeks. A shovel, when new, costs 2_s._

The following appears to be the

YEARLY EXPENDITURE OF THE MASTER SCAVENGERS.

£ s. d. Wages to working scavengers (as before shown) 9,443 0 0 Wages to 48 bargemen, engaged in unloading the vessels with street-dirt, 4 men to each of 12 wharfs, at 16_s._ weekly wage 1,996 0 0 Keep of 300 horses (26_l._ each) 7,800 0 0 Wear and tear (say 15 per cent. on capital) 2,250 0 0 Rent of 20 wharfs and yards (average 100_l._ each) 2,000 0 0 Interest on 15,000_l._ capital, at 10 per cent. 1,500 0 0 ------------------ £24,989 0 0 ------------------

I have endeavoured in this estimate to confine myself, as much as possible, to the separate subject of scavengery, but it must be borne in mind that as the large contractors are dustmen as well as scavengers, the great charges for rent and barges cannot be considered as incurred solely on account of the street-dirt trade. Including, then, the payments from parishes, the account will stand thus:--

YEARLY RECEIPTS OF MASTER SCAVENGERS.

From Parishes £9,450 From Manure, &c. 19,000 ------- Total Income £28,450 Deduct yearly Expenditure 25,000 ------- Profit £3,450 -------

This gives a profit of nearly 182_l._ to each contractor, if equally apportioned, or a little more than 41_l._ on each contract for street-scavenging alone, and a profit no doubt affected by circumstances which cannot very well be reduced to figures. The profit may appear small, but it should be remembered that it is independent of the profits on the dust.

OF THE CONTRACTORS’ (OR EMPLOYERS’) PREMISES, &C.

At page 171 of the present volume I have described one of the yards devoted to the trade in house-dust, and I have little to say in addition regarding the premises of the contracting or employing scavengers. They are the same places, and the industrious pursuits carried on there, and the division and subdivision of labour, relate far more to the dustmen’s department than to the scavengers’. When the produce of the sweeping of the streets has been thrown into the cart, it is so far ready for use that it has not to be sifted or prepared, as has the house-dust, for the formation of brieze, &c., the “mac” being sifted by the purchaser.

These yards or wharfs are far less numerous and better conducted now than they were ten years ago. They are at present fast disappearing from the banks of the Thames (there is, however, one still at Whitefriars and one at Milbank). They are chiefly to be found on the banks of the canals. Some of the principal wharfs near Maiden-lane, St. Pancras, are to be found among unpaven, or ill-paved, or imperfectly macadamized roads, along which run rows of what were once evidently pleasant suburban cottages, with their green porches and their trained woodbine, clematis, jasmine, or monthly roses; these tenements, however, are now occupied chiefly by the labourers at the adjacent stone, coal, lime, timber, dust, and general wharfs. Some of the cottages still presented, on my visits, a blooming display of dahlias and other autumnal flowers; and in one corner of a very large and very black-looking dust-yard, in which rose a huge mound of dirt, was the cottage residence of the man who remained in charge of the wharf all night, and whose comfortable-looking abode was embedded in flowers, blooming luxuriantly. The gay-tinted holly-hocks and dahlias are in striking contrast with the dinginess of the dust-yards, while the canal flows along, dark, sluggish, and muddy, as if to be in keeping with the wharf it washes.

The dust-yards must not be confounded with the “night-yards,” or the places where the contents of the cess-pools are deposited, places which, since the passing of the Sanatory Act, are rapidly disappearing.

Upon entering a dust-yard there is generally found a heavy oppressive sort of atmosphere, more especially in wet or damp weather. This is owing to the tendency of charcoal to absorb gases, and to part with them on being saturated with moisture. The cinder-heaps of the several dust-yards, with their million pores, are so many huge gasometers retaining all the offensive gases arising from the putrefying organic matters which usually accompany them, and parting with such gases immediately on a fall of rain. It would be a curious calculation to estimate the quantity of deleterious gas thus poured into the atmosphere after a slight shower.

The question has been raised as to the propriety of devoting some special locality to the purposes of dust-yards, and it is certainly a question deserving public attention.

The chief disposal of the street manure is from barges, sent by the Thames or along the canals, and sold to farmers and gardeners. In the larger wharfs, and in those considered removed from the imputation of “scurfdom,” six men, and often but four, are employed to load a barge which contains from 30 to 40 tons. In such cases the dust-yard and the wharf are one and the same place. The contents of these barges are mixed, about one-fourth being “mac,” the rest street-mud and dung. This admixture, on board the vessel, is called by the bargemen and the contractors’ servants at the wharfs Leicester (properly Læsta, a load). We have the same term at the end of our word bal-last.

I am assured by a wharfinger, who has every means of forming a correct judgment, it may be estimated that there are dispatched from the contractors’ wharfs twelve barges daily, freighted with street-manure. This is independent of the house-dust barged to the country brick-fields. The weight of the cargo of a barge of manure is about 40 tons; 36 tons being a low average. This gives 3744 barge-loads, or 132,784 tons, or loads, yearly; for it must be recollected that the dirt gathered by pauper labour is dispatched from the contractors’ yards or wharfs, as well as that collected by the immediate servants of the contractors. The price per barge-load at the canal, basin, or wharf, in the country parts where agriculture flourishes, is from 5_l._ to 6_l._, making a total of 20,594_l._ The difference of that sum, and the total given in the table (21,147_l._) may be accounted for on the supposition that the remainder is sold in the yards and carted away thence. The slop and valueless dirt is not included in this calculation.

OF THE WORKING SCAVENGERS UNDER THE CONTRACTORS.

I have now to deal with what throughout the whole course of my inquiry into the state of London Labour and the London Poor I have considered the great object of investigation--the condition and characteristics of the working men; and what is more immediately the “labour question,” the relation of the labourer to his employer, as to rates of payment, modes of payment, hiring of labourers, constancy or inconstancy of work, supply of hands, the many points concerning wages, perquisites, family work, and parochial or club relief.

First, I shall give an account of the class employment, together with the labour season and earnings of the labourers, or “economical” part of the subject. I shall then pass to the social points, concerning their homes, general expenditure, &c., and then to the more moral and intellectual questions of education, literature, politics, religion, marriage, and concubinage of the men and of their families. All this will refer, it should be remembered, only to the working scavagers in the honourable or better-paid trade; the cheaper labourers I shall treat separately as a distinct class; the details in both cases I shall illustrate with the statement of men of the class described.

The first part of this multifarious subject appertains to the division of labour. This in the scavaging trade consists rather of that kind of “gang-work” which Mr. Wakefield styles “simple co-operation,” or the working together of a number of people at the same thing, as opposed to “complex co-operation,” or the working together of a number at different branches of the same thing. Simple co-operation is of course the ruder kind; but even this, rude as it appears, is far from being barbaric. “The savages of New Holland,” we are told, “never help each other even in the most simple operations; and their condition is hardly superior--in some respects it is inferior--to that of the wild animals which they now and then catch.”

As an instance of the advantages of “simple co-operation,” Mr. Wakefield tells us that “in a vast number of simple operations performed by human exertion, it is quite obvious that two men working together will do more than four, or four times four men, each of whom should work alone. In the lifting of heavy weights, for example, in the felling of trees, in the gathering of much hay and corn during a short period of fine weather, in draining a large extent of land during the short season when such a work may be properly conducted, in the pulling of ropes on board ship, in the rowing of large boats, in some mining operations, in the erection of a scaffolding for a building, and in the breaking of stones for the repair of a road, so that the whole road shall always be kept in good repair--in all these simple operations, and thousands more, it is absolutely necessary that many persons should work together at the same time, in the same place, and in the same way.”

To the above instances of simple co-operation, or gang-working, as it may be briefly styled in Saxon English, Mr. Wakefield might have added dock labour and scavaging.

The principle of complex co-operation, however, is not entirely unknown in the public cleansing trade. This business consists of as many branches as there are distinct kinds of refuse, and these appear to be four. There are (1) the wet and (2) the dry house-refuse (or dust and night-soil), and (3) the wet and (4) the dry street-refuse (or mud and rubbish); and in these four different branches of the one general trade the principle of complex co-operation is found commonly, though not invariably, to prevail.

The difference as to the class employments of the general body of public cleansers--the dustmen, street-sweepers, nightmen, and rubbish-carters--seems to be this:--any nightman will work as a dustman or scavager; but it is not all the dustmen and scavagers who will work as nightmen. The reason is almost obvious. The avocations of the dustman and the nightman are in some degree hereditary. A rude man provides for the future maintenance of his sons in the way which is most patent to his notice; he makes the boy share in his own labour, and grow up unfit for anything else.

The regular working scavagers are then generally a distinct class from the working dustmen, and are all paid by the week, while the dustmen are paid by the load. In very wet weather, when there is a great quantity of “slop” in the streets, a dustman is often called upon to lend a helping hand, and sometimes when a working scavager is out of employ, in order to keep himself from want, he goes to a “job of dust work,” but seldom from any other cause.

In a parish where there is a crowded population, the dustman’s labours consume, on an average, from six to eight hours a day. In scavagery, the average hours of daily work are twelve (Sundays of course excepted), but they sometimes extended to fifteen, and even sixteen hours, in places of great business traffic; while in very fine dry weather, the twelve hours may be abridged by two, three, four, or even more. Thus it is manifest that the consumption of time alone prevents the same working men being simultaneously dustmen and scavagers. In the more remote and quiet parishes, however, and under the management of the smaller contractors, the opposite arrangement frequently exists; the operative is a scavager one day, and a dustman the next. This is not the case in the busier districts, and with the large contractors, unless exceptionally, or on an emergency.

If the scavagers or dustmen have completed their street and house labours in a shorter time than usual, there is generally some sort of employment for them in the yards or wharfs of the contractors, or they may sometimes avail themselves of their leisure to enjoy themselves in their own way. In many parts, indeed, as I have shown, the street-sweeping must be finished by noon, or earlier.

Concerning the division of labour, it may be said, that the principle of complex co-operation in the scavaging trade exists only in its rudest form, for the characteristics distinguishing the labour of the working scavagers are far from being of that complicated nature common to many other callings.

As regards the act of sweeping or scraping the streets, the labour is performed by the gangsman and his gang. The gangsman usually loads the cart, and occasionally, when a number are employed in a district, acts as a foreman by superintending them, and giving directions; he is a working scavager, but has the office of overlooker confided to him, and receives a higher amount of wage than the others.

For the completion of the street-work there are the one-horse carmen and the two-horse carmen, who are also working scavagers, and so called from their having to load the carts drawn by one or two horses. These are the men who shovel into the cart the dirt swept or scraped to one side of the public way by the gang (some of it mere slop), and then drive the cart to its destination, which is generally their master’s yard. Thus far only does the street-labour extend. The carmen have the care of the vehicles in cleaning them, greasing the wheels, and such like, but the horses are usually groomed by stablemen, who are not employed in the streets.

The division of labour, then, among the working scavagers, may be said to be as follows:--

1st. The ganger, whose office it is to superintend the gang, and shovel the dirt into the cart.

2nd. The gang, which consists of from three to ten or twelve men, who sweep in a row and collect the dirt in heaps ready for the ganger to shovel into the cart.

3rd. The carman (one-horse or two-horse, as the case may be), who attends to the horse and cart, brushes the dirt into the ganger’s shovel, and assists the ganger in wet sloppy weather in carting the dirt, and then takes the mud to the place where it is deposited.

There is only one mode of payment for the above labours pursued among the master scavagers, and that is by the week.

1st. The ganger receives a weekly salary of 18_s._ when working for an “honourable” master; with a “scurf,” however, the ganger’s pay is but 16_s._ a week.

2nd. The gang receive in a large establishment each 16_s._ per week, but in a small one they usually get from 14_s._ to 15_s._ a week. When working for a small master they have often, by working over hours, to “make eight days to the week instead of six.”

3rd. The one-horse carman receives 16_s._ a week in a large, and 15_s._ in a small establishment.

4th. The two-horse carman receives 18_s._ weekly, but is employed only by the larger masters.

On the opposite page I give a table on this point.

Some of these men are paid by the day, some by the week, and some on Wednesdays and Saturdays, perhaps in about equal proportions, the “casuals” being mostly paid by the day, and the regular hands (with some exceptions among the scurfs) once or twice a week. The chance hands are sometimes engaged for a half day, and, as I was told, “jump at a bob and a joey (1_s._ 4_d._), or at a bob.” I heard of one contractor who not unfrequently said to any foreman or gangsman who mentioned to him the applications for work, “O, give the poor devils a turn, if it’s only for a day now and then.”

Piece-work, or, as the scavagers call it, “by the load,” did at one time prevail, but not to any great extent. The prices varied, according to the nature and the state of the road, from 2_s._ to 2_s._ 6_d._ the load. The system of piece-work was never liked by the men; it seems to have been resorted to less as a system, or mode of labour, than to insure assiduity on the part of the working scavagers, when a rapid street-cleansing was desirable. It was rather in the favour of the working man’s individual emoluments than otherwise, as may be shown in the following way. In Battle-bridge, four men collect five loads in dry, and six men seven loads in wet weather. If the average piece hire be 2_s._ 3_d._ a load, it is 2_s._ 9-3/4_d._ for each of the five men’s day’s work; if 2_s._ 2_d._ a load, it is 2_s._ 8-1/2_d._ (the regular wage, and an extra halfpenny); if 2_s._, it is 2_s._ 6_d._; and if less (which has been paid), the day’s wage is not lower than 2_s._ At the lowest rates, however, the men, I was informed, could not be induced to take the necessary pains, as they would struggle to “make up half-a-crown;” while, if the streets were scavaged in a slovenly manner, the contractor was sure to hear from his friends of the parish that he was not acting up to his contract. I could not hear of any men now set to piece-work within the precincts of the places specified in the table. This extra work and scamping work are the two great evils of the piece system.

In their payments to their men the contractors show a superiority to the practices of some traders, and even of some dock-companies--the men are never paid at public-houses; the payment, moreover, is always in money. One contractor told me that he would like all his men to be teetotallers, if he could get them, though he was not one himself.

But these remarks refer only to the nominal wages of the scavagers; and I find the nominal wages of operatives in many cases are widely different (either from some additions by way of perquisites, &c., or deductions by way of fines, &c., but oftener the latter) from the actual wages received by them. Again, the average wages, or gross yearly income of the casually-employed men, are very different from those of the constant hands; so are the gains of a particular individual often no criterion of the general or average earnings of the trade. Indeed I find that the several varieties of wages may be classified as follows:--

1. Nominal Wages.--Those said to be paid in a trade.

2. Actual Wages.--Those really received, and which are equal to the nominal wages, plus the additions to, or minus the deductions from, them.

3. Casual Wages.--The earnings of the men who are only occasionally employed.

4. Average Casual or Constant Wages.--Those obtained throughout the year by such as are either occasionally or regularly employed.

5. Individual Wages.--Those of particular hands, whether belonging to the scurf or honourable trade, whether working long or short hours, whether partially or fully employed, and the like.

6. General Wages.--Or the average wages of the whole trade, constant or casual, fully or partially employed, honourable or scurf, long and short hour men, &c., &c., all lumped together and the mean taken of the whole.

Now in the preceding account of the working scavagers’ mode and rate of payment I have spoken only of the nominal wages; and in order to arrive at their actual wages we must, as we have seen, ascertain what additions and what deductions are generally made to and from this amount. The deductions in the honourable trade are, as usual, inconsiderable.

TABLE SHOWING THE DIVISION OF LABOUR, MODE AND RATES OF PAYMENT, NATURE OF WORK PERFORMED, TIME UNEMPLOYED, AND AVERAGE EARNINGS OF THE OPERATIVE SCAVAGERS OF LONDON.

-------------------------+------------+-------------------------+----------------------------------------------+ | Mode of | Rates of | | OPERATIVE SCAVAGERS. | Payment. | Payment. | Nature of Work performed. | -------------------------+------------+-------------------------+----------------------------------------------+ | | | | I. Manual Labourers. | | | | A. Better Paid. | | | | Ganger |By the day. |18_s._ weekly, and 2_s._ | To load the cart and superintend the men. | | | allowance. | | Carman (2 horse) | „ „ |18_s._ weekly, and 2_s._ | To take care of the horses, help to load the | | | allowance. | cart, and take the dirt and slop to the | | | | dust-yard. | Ditto (1 horse) | „ „ |16_s._ weekly, and 2_s._ | Ditto. ditto. ditto. | | | allowance. | | Sweepers | „ „ |16_s._ weekly, and 2_s._ | To sweep the district to which they are sent,| | | allowance. | and collect the dirt or slop ready for | | | | carting away. | B. Worse Paid. | | | | Ganger | „ „ |16_s._ weekly, and 1_s._ | To load the cart and superintend the men. | | | allowance. | | Carman | „ „ |15_s._ weekly, and 1_s._ | To take charge of the horse and cart, help | | | allowance. | to load the cart, and take the dirt or slop| | | | to the dust-yard. | Sweepers | „ „ |15_s._ weekly, and 1_s._ | To sweep the district, collect the dirt or | | | allowance. | slop ready for carting off, work in the | | | | yard, and load the barge. | | | | | II. Machine Men. | | | | Carman | „ „ |16_s._ weekly. | To take charge of the horse and machine, | | | | collect the dirt and take it to the yard. | Sweepers | „ „ |16_s._ weekly. | To sweep where the machine cannot touch, | | | | work in the yard, and load the barges. | | | | | III. Parish Men. | | | | A. Out-door Paupers. | | | | 1. Paid in Money. | | | | Married men | „ „ |9_s._ weekly. | Sweep the streets and courts belonging to | | | | the parish, and collect the dirt or slop | | | | ready for carting away. | Single men | „ „ |6_s._ weekly. | Ditto. ditto. ditto. | 2. Paid part in kind. | | | | Married men | „ „ |6_s._ 9_d._ weekly, and | Ditto. ditto. ditto. | | | 3 quartern loaves. | | Single men | „ „ |5_s._ and 3 half-quartern| Ditto. ditto. ditto. | | | loaves. | | B. In-door Paupers |All in kind.|Food, lodging, and | Ditto. ditto. ditto. | | | clothes. | | | | | | IV. Street-Orderlies. | | | | Foreman or Ganger |By the day. |15_s._ weekly. | Superintend the men and see that their work | | | | is done well. | Sweepers | „ „ |12_s._ weekly. | Collect the dirt or slop ready for carting | | | | away. | Barrow men | „ „ | | Collect the short dung as it gathers in the | | | | district to which they are appointed. | Barrow boys | „ „ | | Ditto. ditto. ditto. |

+-------------------------------+------------------------------------- | Time unemployed during | Average casual (or constant) gains | the Year. | throughout the Year. +-------------------------------+------------------------------------- | | | | | | | Not two days during the year. | 20_s._ per week. | | | Seldom or never out of | 20_s._ „ | employment. | | | | Ditto. ditto. | 18_s._ „ | | | About three months during | 13_s._ 6_d._ „ | the year. | | | | | | Three months during the year. | 12_s._ 9_d._ „ | | | Ditto. ditto. | 12_s._ „ | | | | | Ditto. ditto. | 12_s._ „ | | | | | | | | | Ditto. ditto. | 12_s._ „ | | | Ditto. ditto. | 12_s._ „ | | | | | | | | | | | Six months during the year. | 4_s._ 6_d._ „ | | | | | Ditto. ditto. | 3_s._ „ | | | Ditto. ditto. | 3_s._ 4-1/2_d._ and 3 quartern loaves | | weekly. | Ditto. ditto. | 2_s._ 6_d._ and 3 half-quartern loaves | | weekly. | | Food, lodging, and clothes. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

All the tools used by operative scavagers are supplied to them by their employers--the tools being only brooms and shovels; and for this supply there are no stoppages to cover the expense.

Neither by fines nor by way of security are the men’s wages reduced.

The truck system, moreover, is unknown, and has never prevailed in the trade. I heard of only one instance of an approach to it. A yard foreman, some years ago, who had a great deal of influence with his employer, had a chandler’s-shop, managed by his wife, and it was broadly intimated to the men that they must make their purchases there. Complaints, however, were made to the contractor, and the foreman dismissed. One man of whom I inquired did not even know what the “truck system” meant; and when informed, thought they were “pretty safe” from it, as the contractor had nothing which he could truck with the men, and if “he polls us hisself,” the man said, “he’s not likely to let anybody else do it.”

There are, moreover, no trade-payments to which the men are subjected; there are no trade-societies among the working men, no benefit nor sick clubs; neither do parochial relief and family labour characterize the regular hands in the honourable trade, although in sickness they may have no other resource.

Indeed, the working scavagers employed by the more honourable portion of the trade, instead of having any deductions made from their nominal wages, have rather additions to them in the form of perquisites coming from the public. These perquisites consist of allowances of beer-money, obtained in the same manner as the dustmen--not through the medium of their employers (though, to say the least, through their sufferance), but from the householders of the parish in which their labours are prosecuted.

The scavagers, it seems, are not required to sweep any places considered “private,” nor even to sweep the public foot-paths; and when they do sweep or carry away the refuse of a butcher’s premises, for instance--for, by law, the butcher is required to do so himself--they receive a gratuity. In the contract entered into by the city scavagers, it is expressly covenanted that no men employed shall accept gratuities from the householders; a condition little or not at all regarded, though I am told that these gratuities become less every year. I am informed also by an experienced butcher, who had at one time a private slaughter-house in the Borough, that, until within these six or seven years, he thought the scavagers, and even the dustmen, would carry away entrails, &c., in the carts, from the butcher’s and the knacker’s premises, for an allowance.

I cannot learn that the contractors, whether of the honourable or scurf trade, take any advantage of these “allowances.” A working scavager receives the same wage, when he enjoys what I heard called in another trade “the height of perquisites,” or is employed in a locality where there are no such additions to his wages. I believe, however, that the contracting scavagers let their best and steadiest hands have the best perquisited work.

These perquisites, I am assured, average from 1_s._ to 2_s._ a week, but one butcher told me he thought 1_s._ 6_d._ might be rather too high an average, for a pint of beer (2_d._) was the customary sum given, and that was, or ought to be, divided among the gang. “In my opinion,” he said, “there’ll be no allowances in a year or two.” By the amount of these perquisites, then, the scavagers’ gains are so far enhanced.

The wages, therefore, of an operative scavager in full employ, and working for the “honourable” portion of the trade, may be thus expressed:--

Nominal weekly wages 16_s._

Perquisites in the form of allowances for beer from the public 2_s._ ------ Actual weekly wages 18_s._

OF THE “CASUAL HANDS” AMONG THE SCAVAGERS.

Of the scavagers proper there are, as in all classes of unskilled labour, that is to say, of labour which requires no previous apprenticeship, and to which any one can “turn his hand” on an emergency, two distinct orders of workmen, “the regulars and casuals” to adopt the trade terms; that is to say, the labourers consist of those who have been many years at the trade, constantly employed at it, and those who have but recently taken to it as a means of obtaining a subsistence after their ordinary resources have failed. This mixture of constant and casual hands is, moreover, a necessary consequence of all trades which depend upon the seasons, and in which an additional number of labourers are required at different periods. Such is necessarily the case with dock labour, where an easterly wind prevailing for several days deprives thousands of work, and where the change from a foul to a fair wind causes an equally inordinate demand for workmen. The same temporary increase of employment takes place in the agricultural districts at harvesting time, and the same among the hop growers in the picking season; and it will be hereafter seen that there are the same labour fluctuations in the scavaging trade, a greater or lesser number of hands being required, of course, according as the season is wet or dry.

This occasional increase of employment, though a benefit in some few cases (as enabling a man suddenly deprived of his ordinary means of living to obtain “a job of work” until he can “turn himself round”), is generally a most alarming evil in a State. What are the casual hands to do when the extra employment ceases? Those who have paid attention to the subject of dock labour and the subject of casual labour in general, may form some notion of the vast mass of misery that must be generally existing in London. The subject of hop-picking again belongs to the same question. Here are thousands of the very poorest employed only for a few days in the year. What, the mind naturally asks, do they after their short term of honest independence has ceased? With dock labour the poor man’s bread depends upon the very winds; in scavaging and in street life generally it depends upon the rain; and in market-gardening, harvesting, hop-picking, and the like, it depends upon the sunshine. How many thousands in this huge metropolis have to look immediately to the very elements for their bread, it is overwhelming to contemplate; and yet, with all this fitfulness of employment we wonder that an extended knowledge of reading and writing does not produce a decrease of crime! We should, however, ask ourselves whether men can stay their hunger with alphabets or grow fat on spelling books; and wanting employment, and consequently food, and objecting to the incarceration of the workhouse, can we be astonished--indeed is it not a natural law--that they should help themselves to the property of others?

* * * * *

Concerning the “regular hands” of the contracting scavagers, it may, perhaps, be reasonable to compute that little short of one-half of them have been “to the manner born.” The others are, as I have said, what these regular hands call “casuals,” or “casualties.” As an instance of the peculiar mixture of the regular and casual hands in the scavaging trade, I may state that one of my informants told me he had, at one period, under his immediate direction, fourteen men, of whom the former occupations had been as follows:--

7 Always Scavagers (or dustmen, and six of them nightmen when required). 1 Pot-boy at a public-house (but only as a boy). 1 Stable-man (also nightman). 1 Formerly a pugilist, then a showman’s assistant. 1 Navvy. 1 Ploughman (nightman occasionally). 2 Unknown, one of them saying, but gaining no belief, that he had once been a gentleman. -- 14

In my account of the street orderlies will be given an interesting and elaborate statement of the former avocations, the habits, expenditure, &c., of a body of street-sweepers, 67 in number. This table will be found very curious, as showing what classes of men have been driven to street-sweeping, but it will not furnish a criterion of the character of the “regular hands” employed by the contractors.

The “casuals” or the “casualties” (always called among the men “cazzelties”), may be more properly described as men whose employment is accidental, chanceful, or uncertain. The regular hands of the scavagers are apt to designate any new comer, even for a permanence, any sweeper not reared to or versed in the business, a casual (“cazzel”). I shall, however, here deal with the “casual hands,” not only as hands newly introduced into the trade, but as men of chanceful and irregular employment.

These persons are now, I understand, numerous in all branches of unskilled labour, willing to undertake or attempt any kind of work, but perhaps there is a greater tendency on the part of the surplus unskilled to turn to scavaging, from the fact that any broken-down man seems to account himself competent to sweep the streets.

To ascertain the number of these casual or outside labourers in the scavaging trade is difficult, for, as I have said, they are willing in their need to attempt any kind of work, and so may be “casuals” in divers departments of unskilled labour.

I do not think that I can better approximate the number of casuals than by quoting the opinion of a contracting scavager familiar with his workmen and their ways. He considered that there were always nearly as many hands on the look-out for a job in the streets, as there were regularly employed at the business by the large contractors; this I have shown to be 262, let us estimate therefore the number of casuals at 200.

According to the table I have given at pp. 213, 214, the number of men regularly or constantly employed at the metropolitan trade is as follows:--

Scavagers employed by large contractors 262 Ditto small contractors 13 Ditto machines 25 Ditto parishes 218 Ditto street-orderlies 60 --- Total working scavagers in London 578

But the prior table given at pp. 186, 187, shows the number of scavagers employed throughout the metropolis in wet and dry weather (exclusive of the street-orderlies) to be as follows:--

Scavagers employed in wet weather 531 Ditto in dry weather 358 --- Difference 173

Hence it would appear that about one-third less hands are required in the dry than in the wet season of the year. The 170 hands, then, discharged in the dry season are the casually employed men, but the whole of these 170 are not turned adrift immediately they are no longer wanted, some being kept on “odd jobs” in the yard, &c.; nor can that number be said to represent the entire amount of the surplus labour in the trade; but only that portion of it which does obtain even casual employment. After much trouble, and taking the average of various statements, it would appear that the number of casualty or quantity of occasional surplus labour in the scavaging trade may be represented at between 200 and 250 hands.

The scavaging trade, however, is not, I am informed, so overstocked with labourers now as it was formerly. Seven years ago, and from that to ten, there were usually between 200 and 300 hands out of work; this was owing to there being a less extent of paved streets, and comparatively few contractors; the scavaging work, moreover, was “scamped,” the men, to use their own phrase, “licking the work over any how,” so that fewer hands were required. Now, however, the inhabitants are more particular, I am told, “about the crooks and corners,” and require the streets to be swept oftener. Formerly a gang of operative scavagers would only collect six loads of dirt a day, but now a gang will collect nine loads daily. The causes to which the surplus of labourers at present may be attributed are, I find, as follows:--Each operative has to do nearly double the work to what he formerly did, the extra cleansing of the streets having tended not only to employ more hands, but to make each of those employed do more work. The result has, however been followed by an increase in the wages of the operatives; seven years ago the labourers received but 2_s._ a day, and the ganger 2_s._ 6_d._, but now the labourers receive 2_s._ 8_d._ a day, and the ganger 3_s._

In the city the men have to work very long hours, sometimes as many as 18 hours a day without any extra pay. This practice of overworking is, I find, carried on to a great extent, even with those master scavagers who pay the regular wages. One man told me that when he worked for a certain large master, whom he named, he has many times been out at work 28 hours in the wet (saturated to the skin) without having any rest. This plan of overworking, again, is generally adopted by the small masters, whose men, after they have done a regular day’s labour, are set to work in the yard, sometimes toiling 18 hours a day, and usually not less than 16 hours daily. Often so tired and weary are the men, that when they rise in the morning to pursue their daily labour, they feel as fatigued as when they went to bed. “Frequently,” said one of my informants, “have I gone to bed so worn out, that I haven’t been able to sleep. However” (he added), “there is the work to be done, and we must do it or be off.”

This system of overwork, especially in those trades where the quantity of work to be done is in a measure fixed, I find to be a far more influential cause of surplus labour than “over population.” The mere number of labourers in a trade is, per se, no criterion as to the quantity of labour employed in it; to arrive at this three things are required:--

(1) The number of hands; (2) The hours of labour; (3) The rate of labouring;

for it is a mere point of arithmetic, that if the hands in the scavaging trade work 18 hours a day, there must be one-third less men employed than there otherwise would, or in other words one-third of the men who are in work must be thus deprived of it. This is one of the crying evils of the day, and which the economists, filled as they are with their over-population theories, have entirely overlooked.

There are 262 men employed in the Metropolitan Scavaging Trade; one-half of these at the least may be said to work 16 hours per diem instead of 12, or one-third longer than they should; so that if the hours of labour in this trade were restricted to the usual day’s work, there would be employment for one-sixth more hands, or nearly 50 individuals extra.

The other causes of the present amount of surplus labour are--

The many hands thrown out of employment by the discontinuance of railway works.

A less demand for unskilled labour in agricultural districts, or a smaller remuneration for it.

A less demand for some branches of labour (as ostlers, &c.), by the introduction of machinery (applied to roads), or through the caprices of fashion.

It should, however, be remembered, that men often found their opinions of such causes on prejudices, or express them according to their class interests, and it is only a few employers of unskilled labourers who care to inquire into the antecedent circumstances of men who ask for work.

As regards the population part of the question, it cannot be said that the surplus labour of the scavaging trade is referable to any inordinate increase in the families of the men. Those who are married appear to have, on the average, four children, and about one-half of the men have no family at all. Early marriages are by no means usual. Of the casual hands, however, full three-fourths are married, and one-half have families.

There are not more than ten or a dozen Irish labourers who have taken to the scavaging, though several have “tried it on;” the regular hands say that the Irish are too lazy to continue at the trade; but surely the labour of the hodman, in which the Irish seem to delight, is sufficient to disprove this assertion, be the cause what it may. About one-fourth of the scavagers entering the scavaging trade as casual hands have been agricultural labourers, and have come up to London from the several agricultural districts in quest of work; about the same proportion appear to have been connected with horses, such as ostlers, carmen, &c.

The brisk and slack seasons in the scavaging trade depend upon the state of the weather. In the depth of winter, owing to the shortness of the days, more hands are usually required for street cleansing; but a “clear frost” renders the scavager’s labour in little demand. In the winter, too, his work is generally the hardest, and the hardest of all when there is snow, which soon becomes mud in London streets; and though a continued frost is a sort of lull to the scavagers’ labour, after “a great thaw” his strength is taxed to the uttermost; and then, indeed, new hands have had to be put on. At the West End, in the height of the summer, which is usually the height of the fashionable season, there is again a more than usual requirement of scavaging industry in wet weather; but perhaps the greatest exercise of such industry is after a series of the fogs peculiar to the London atmosphere, when the men cannot see to sweep. The table I have given shows the influence of the weather, as on wet days 531 men are employed, and on dry days only 358; this, however, does not influence the Street-Orderly system, as under it the men are employed every day, unless the weather make it an actual impossibility.

According to the rain table given at p. 202, there would appear to be, on an average of 23 years, 178 wet days in London out of the 365, that is to say, about 100 in every 205 days are “rainy ones.” The months having the greatest and least number of wet days are as follows:--

No. of days in the month in which rain falls. December 17 July, August, October 16 February, May, November 15 January, April 14 March, September 12 June 11

Hence it would appear that June is the least and December the most showery month in the course of the year; the greatest quantity of rain falling in any month is, however, in October, and the least quantity in March. The number of wet days, and the quantity of rain falling in each half of the year, may be expressed as follows:--

Total Total in depth No. of of rain wet falling days. in inches. The first six months in the year ending June there are 84 10 The second six months in the year ending December there are 93 14

Hence we perceive that the quantity of work for the scavagers would fluctuate in the first and last half of the year in the proportion of 10 to 14, which is very nearly in the ratio of 358 to 531, which are the numbers of hands given in table pp. 186, 187, as those employed in wet and dry weather throughout the metropolis.

If, then, the labour in the scavaging trade varies in the proportion of 5 to 7, that is to say, that 5 hands are required at one period and 7 at another to execute the work, the question consequently becomes, how do the 2 casuals who are discharged out of every 7 obtain their living when the wet season is over?

When a scavager is out of employ, he seldom or never applies to the parish; this he does, I am informed, only when he is fairly “beaten out” through sickness or old age, for the men “hate the thought of going to the big house” (the union workhouse). An unemployed operative scavager will go from yard to yard and offer his services to do anything in the dust trade or any other kind of employment in connection with dust or scavaging.

Generally speaking, an operative scavager who is casually employed obtains work at that trade for six or eight months during the year, and the remaining portion of his time is occupied either at rubbish-carting or brick-carting, or else he gets a job for a month or two in a dust-yard.

Many of these men seem to form a body of street-jobbers or operative labourers, ready to work at the docks, to be navvies (when strong enough), bricklayers’ labourers, street-sweepers, carriers of trunks or parcels, window-cleaners, errand-goers, porters, and (occasionally) nightmen. Few of the class seem to apply themselves to trading, as in the costermonger line. They are the loungers about the boundaries of trading, but seldom take any onward steps. The street-sweeper of this week, a “casual” hand, may be a rubbish-carter or a labourer about buildings the next, or he may be a starving man for days together, and the more he is starving with the less energy will he exert himself to obtain work: “it’s not in” a starving or ill-fed man to exert himself otherwise than what may be called passively; this is well known to all who have paid attention to the subject. The want of energy and carelessness begotten by want of food was well described by the tinman, at p. 355 in vol. i.

One casual hand told me that last year he was out of work altogether three months, and the year before not more than six weeks, and during the six weeks he got a day’s work sometimes at rubbish carting and sometimes at loading bricks. Their wives are often employed in the yards as sifters, and their boys, when big enough, work also at the heap, either in carrying off, or else as fillers-in; if there are any girls, one is generally left at home to look after the rest and get the meals ready for the other members of the family. If any of the children go to school, they are usually sent to a ragged school in the neighbourhood, though they seldom attend the school more than two or three times during the week.

The additional hands employed in wet weather are either men who at other times work in the yards, or such as have their “turns” in street-sweeping, if not regularly employed. There appears, however, to be little of system in the arrangement. If more hands are wanted, the gangsman, who receives his orders from the contractor or the contractor’s managing man, is told to put on so many new hands, and over-night he has but to tell any of the men at work that Jack, and Bob, and Bill will be wanted in the morning, and they, if not employed in other work, appear accordingly.

There is nothing, however, which can be designated a labour market appertaining to the trade. No “house of call,” no trade society. If men seek such employment, they must apply at the contractor’s premises, and I am assured that poor men not unfrequently ask the scavagers whom they see at work in the streets where to apply “for a job,” and sometimes receive gruff or abusive replies. But though there is nothing like a labour market in the scavager’s trade, the employers have not to “look out” for men, for I was told by one of their foremen, that he would undertake, if necessary, which it never was, by a mere “round of the docks,” to select 200 new hale men, of all classes, and strong ones, too, if properly fed, who in a few days would be tolerable street-sweepers. It is a calling to which agricultural labourers are glad to resort, and a calling to which any labourer or any mechanic may resort, more especially as regards sweeping or scraping, apart from shovelling, which is regarded as something like the high art of the business.

We now come to estimate the earnings of the casual hands, whose yearly incomes must, of course, be very different from those of the regulars. The constant weekly wages of any workman are of course the average of his casual--and hence we shall find the wages of those who are regularly employed far exceed those of the occasionally employed men:--

£ s. d. Nominal yearly wages at scavaging for 25 weeks in the year, at 16_s._ per week 20 16 0 Perquisites for 26 weeks, at 2_s._ 2 12 0 ------------------ Actual yearly wages at scavaging 23 8 0 Nominal and actual weekly wages at rubbish carting for 20 weeks in the year, at 12_s._ 12 0 0 Unemployed six weeks in the year 0 0 0 ----------------- Gross yearly earnings 35 8 0 ----------------- Average casual or constant weekly wages throughout the year 15 4-1/2

Hence the difference between the earnings of the casual and the regular hand would appear to be one-sixth. But the great evil of all casual labour is the uncertainty of the income--for where there is the greatest chance connected with an employment, there is not only the greatest necessity for providence, but unfortunately the greatest tendency to improvidence. It is only when a man’s income becomes regular and fixed that he grows thrifty, and lays by for the future; but where all is chance-work there is but little ground for reasoning, and the accident which assisted the man out of his difficulties at one period is continually expected to do the same good turn for him at another. Hence the casual hand, who passes the half of the year on 18_s._, and twenty weeks on 12_s._, and six weeks on nothing, lives a life of excess both ways--of excess of “guzzling” when in work, and excess of privation when out of it--oscillating, as it were, between surfeit and starvation.

A man who had worked in an iron-foundry, but who had “lost his work” (I believe through some misconduct) and was glad to get employment as a street-sweeper, as he had a good recommendation to a contractor, told me that “the misery of the thing” was the want of regular work. “I’ve worked,” he said, “for a good master for four months an end at 2_s._ 8_d._ a day, and they were prime times. Then I hadn’t a stroke of work for a fortnight, and very little for two months, and if my wife hadn’t had middling work with a laundress we might have starved, or I might have made a hole in the Thames, for it’s no good living to be miserable and feel you can’t help yourself any how. We was sometimes half-starved, as it was. I’d rather at this minute have regular work at 10_s._ a week all the year round, than have chance-work that I could earn 20_s._ a week at. I once had 15_s._ in relief from the parish, and a doctor to attend us, when my wife and I was both laid up sick. O, there’s no difference in the way of doing the work, whatever wages you’re on for; the streets must be swept clean, of course. The plan’s the same, and there’s the same sort of management, any how.”

STATEMENT OF A “REGULAR SCAVAGER.”

The following statement of his business, his sentiments, and, indeed, of the subjects which concerned him, or about which he was questioned, was given to me by a street-sweeper, so he called himself, for I have found some of these men not to relish the appellation of “scavager.” He was a short, sturdy, somewhat red-faced man, without anything particular in his appearance to distinguish him from the mass of mere labourers, but with the sodden and sometimes dogged look of a man contented in his ignorance, and--for it is not a very uncommon case--rather proud of it.

“I don’t know how old I am,” he said--I have observed, by the by, that there is not any excessive vulgarity in these men’s tones or accent so much as grossness in some of their expressions--“and I can’t see what that consarns any one, as I’s old enough to have a jolly rough beard, and so can take care of myself. I should think so. My father was a sweeper, and I wanted to be a waterman, but father--he hasn’t been dead long--didn’t like the thoughts on it, as he said they was all drownded one time or ’nother; so I ran away and tried my hand as a Jack-in-the-water, but I was starved back in a week, and got a h---- of a clouting. After that I sifted a bit in a dust-yard, and helped in any way; and I was sent to help at and larn honey-pot and other pot making, at Deptford; but honey-pots was a great thing in the business. Master’s foreman married a relation of mine, some way or other. I never tasted honey, but I’ve heered it’s like sugar and butter mixed. The pots was often wanted to look like foreign pots; I don’t know nothing what was meant by it; some b---- dodge or other. No, the trade didn’t suit me at all, master, so I left. I don’t know why it didn’t suit me; cause it didn’t. Just then, father had hurt his hand and arm, in a jam again’ a cart, and so, as I was a big lad, I got to take his place, and gave every satisfaction to Mr. ----. Yes, he was a contractor and a great man. I can’t say as I knows how contracting’s done; but it’s a bargain atween man and man. So I got on. I’m now looked on as a stunning good workman, I can tell you.

“Well, I can’t say as I thinks sweeping the streets is hard work. I’d rather sweep two hours than shovel one. It tires one’s arms and back so, to go on shovelling. You can’t change, you see, sir, and the same parts keeps getting gripped more and more. Then you must mind your eye, if you’re shovelling slop into a cart, perticler so; or some feller may run off with a complaint that he’s been splashed o’ purpose. Is a man ever splashed o’ purpose? No, sir, not as I knows on, in coorse not. [Laughing.] Why should he?

“The streets must be done as they’re done now. It always was so, and will always be so. Did I ever hear what London streets were like a thousand years ago? It’s nothing to me, but they must have been like what they is now. Yes, there was always streets, or how was people that has tin to get their coals taken to them, and how was the public-houses to get their beer? It’s talking nonsense, talking that way, a-asking sich questions.” [As the scavager seemed likely to lose his temper, I changed the subject of conversation.]

“Yes,” he continued, “I have good health. I never had a doctor but twice; once was for a hurt, and the t’other I won’t tell on. Well, I think nightwork’s healthful enough, but I’ll not say so much for it as you may hear some on ’em say. I don’t like it, but I do it when I’s obligated under a necessity. It pays one as overwork; and werry like more one’s in it, more one may be suited. I reckon no men works harder nor sich as me. O, as to poor journeymen tailors and sich like, I knows they’re stunning badly off, and many of their masters is the hardest of beggars. I have a nephew as works for a Jew slop, but I don’t reckon that work; anybody might do it. You think not, sir? Werry well, it’s all the same. No, I won’t say as I could make a veskit, but I’ve sowed my own buttons on to one afore now.

“Yes, I’ve heered on the Board of Health. They’ve put down some night-yards, and if they goes on putting down more, what’s to become of the night-soil? I can’t think what they’re up to; but if they don’t touch wages, it may be all right in the end on it. I don’t know that them there consarns does touch wages, but one’s naterally afeard on ’em. I could read a little when I was a child, but I can’t now for want of practice, or I might know more about it. I yarns my money gallows hard, and requires support to do hard work, and if wages goes down, one’s strength goes down. I’m a man as understands what things belongs. I was once out of work, through a mistake, for a good many weeks, perhaps five or six or more; I larned then what short grub meant. I got a drop of beer and a crust sometimes with men as I knowed, or I might have dropped in the street. What did I do to pass my time when I was out of work? Sartinly the days seemed wery long; but I went about and called at dust-yards, till I didn’t like to go too often; and I met men I know’d at tap-rooms, and spent time that way, and axed if there was any openings for work. I’ve been out of collar odd weeks now and then, but when this happened, I’d been on slack work a goodish bit, and was bad for rent three weeks and more. My rent was 2_s._ a week then; its 1_s._ 9_d._ now, and my own traps.

“No, I can’t say I was sorry when I was forced to be idle that way, that I hadn’t kept up my reading, nor tried to keep it up, because I couldn’t then have settled down my mind to read; I know I couldn’t. I likes to hear the paper read well enough, if I’s resting; but old Bill, as often wolunteers to read, has to spell the hard words so, that one can’t tell what the devil he’s reading about. I never heers anything about books; I never heered of Robinson Crusoe, if it wasn’t once at the Wic. [Victoria Theatre]; I think there was some sich a name there. He lived on a deserted island, did he, sir, all by hisself? Well, I think, now you mentions it, I have heered on him. But one needn’t believe all one hears, whether out of books or not. I don’t know much good that ever anybody as I knows ever got out of books; they’re fittest for idle people. Sartinly I’ve seen working people reading in coffee-shops; but they might as well be resting theirselves to keep up their strength. Do I think so? I’m sure on it, master. I sometimes spends a few browns a-going to the play; mostly about Christmas. It’s werry fine and grand at the Wic., that’s the place I goes to most; both the pantomimers and t’ other things is werry stunning. I can’t say how much I spends a year in plays; I keeps no account; perhaps 5_s._ or so in a year, including expenses, sich as beer, when one goes out after a stopper on the stage. I don’t keep no accounts of what I gets, or what I spends, it would be no use; money comes and it goes, and it often goes a d----d sight faster than it comes; so it seems to me, though I ain’t in debt just at this time.

“I never goes to any church or chapel. Sometimes I hasn’t clothes as is fit, and I s’pose I couldn’t be admitted into sich fine places in my working dress. I was once in a church, but felt queer, as one does in them strange places, and never went again. They’re fittest for rich people. Yes, I’ve heered about religion and about God Almighty. What religion have I heered on? Why, the regular religion. I’m satisfied with what I knows and feels about it, and that’s enough about it. I came to tell you about trade and work, because Mr. ---- told me it might do good; but religion hasn’t nothing to do with it. Yes, Mr. ----’s a good master, and a religious man; but I’ve known masters as didn’t care a d--n for religion, as good as him; and so you see it comes to much the same thing. I cares nothing about politics neither; but I’m a chartist.

“I’m not a married man. I was a-going to be married to a young woman as lived with me a goodish bit as my housekeeper” [this he said very demurely]; “but she went to the hopping to yarn a few shillings for herself, and never came back. I heered that she’d taken up with an Irish hawker, but I can’t say as to the rights on it. Did I fret about her? Perhaps not; but I was wexed.

“I’m sure I can’t say what I spends my wages in. I sometimes makes 12_s._ 6_d._ a week, and sometimes better than 21_s._ with night-work. I suppose grub costs 1_s._ a day, and beer 6_d._; but I keeps no accounts. I buy ready-cooked meat; often cold b’iled beef, and eats it at any tap-room. I have meat every day; mostly more than once a day. Wegetables I don’t care about, only ingans and cabbage, if you can get it smoking hot, with plenty of pepper. The rest of my tin goes for rent and baccy and togs, and a little drop of gin now and then.”

The statement I have given is sufficiently explicit of the general opinions of the “regular scavagers” concerning literature, politics, and religion. On these subjects the great majority of the regular scavagers have no opinions at all, or opinions distorted, even when the facts seem clear and obvious, by ignorance, often united with its nearest of kin, prejudice and suspiciousness. I am inclined to think, however, that the man whose narrative I noted down was more dogged in his ignorance than the body of his fellows. All the intelligent men with whom I conversed, and whose avocations had made them familiar for years with this class, concurred in representing them as grossly ignorant.

This description of the scavagers’ ignorance, &c., it must be remembered, applies only to the “regular hands.” Those who have joined the ranks of the street-sweepers from other callings are more intelligent, and sometimes more temperate.

The system of concubinage, with a great degree of fidelity in the couple living together without the sanction of the law--such as I have described as prevalent among the costermongers and dustmen--is also prevalent among the regular scavagers.

I did not hear of habitual unkindness from the parents to the children born out of wedlock, but there is habitual neglect of all or much which a child should be taught--a neglect growing out of ignorance. I heard of two scavagers with large families, of whom the treatment was sometimes very harsh, and at others mere petting.

Education, or rather the ability to read and write, is not common among the adults in this calling, so that it cannot be expected to be found among their children. Some labouring men, ignorant themselves, but not perhaps constituting a class or a clique like the regular scavagers, try hard to procure for their children the knowledge, the want of which they usually think has barred their own progress in life. Other ignorant men, mixing only with “their own sort,” as is generally the case with the regular scavagers, and in the several branches of the business, often think and say that what they did without their children could do without also. I even heard it said by one scavager that it wasn’t right a child should ever think himself wiser than his father. A man who knew, in the way of his business as a private contractor for night-work, &c., a great many regular scavagers, “ran them over,” and came to the conclusion that about four or five out of twenty could read, ill or tolerably well, and about three out of forty could write. He told me, moreover, that one of the most intelligent fellows generally whom he knew among them, a man whom he had heard read well enough, and always understood to be a tolerable writer, the other day brought a letter from his son, a soldier abroad with his regiment in Lower Canada, and requested my informant to read it to him, as “that kind of writing,” although plain enough, was “beyond him.” The son, in writing, had availed himself of the superior skill of a corporal in his company, so that the letter, on family matters and feelings, was written by deputy and read by deputy. The costermongers, I have shown, when themselves unable to read, have evinced a fondness for listening to exciting stories of courts and aristocracies, and have even bought penny periodicals to have their contents read to them. The scavagers appear to have no taste for this mode of enjoying themselves; but then their leisure is far more circumscribed than that of the costermongers.

It must be borne in mind that I have all along spoken of the regular (many of them hereditary) scavagers employed by the more liberal contractors.

There are yet accounts of habitations, statements of wages, &c., &c., to be given, in connection with men working for the honourable masters, before proceeding to the scurf-traders.

The working scavagers usually reside in the neighbourhood of the dust-yards, occupying “second-floor backs,” kitchens (where the entire house is sublet, a system often fraught with great extortion), or garrets; they usually, and perhaps always, when married, or what they consider “as good,” have their own furniture. The rent runs from 1_s._ 6_d._ to 2_s._ 3_d._ weekly, an average being 1_s._ 9_d._ or 1_s._ 10_d._ One room which I was in was but barely furnished,--a sort of dresser, serving also for a table; a chest; three chairs (one almost bottomless); an old turn-up bedstead, a Dutch clock, with the minute-hand broken, or as the scavager very well called it when he saw me looking at it, “a stump;” an old “corner cupboard,” and some pots and domestic utensils in a closet without a door, but retaining a portion of the hinges on which a door had swung. The rent was 1_s._ 10_d._, with a frequent intimation that it ought to be 2_s._ The place was clean enough, and the scavager seemed proud of it, assuring me that his old woman (wife or concubine) was “a good sort,” and kept things as nice as ever she could, washing everything herself, where “other old women lushed.” The only ornaments in the room were three profiles of children, cut in black paper and pasted upon white card, tacked to the wall over the fire-place, for mantel-shelf there was none, while one of the three profiles, that of the eldest child (then dead), was “framed,” with a glass, and a sort of bronze or “cast” frame, costing, I was told, 15_d._ This was the apartment of a man in regular employ (with but a few exceptions).

Another scavager with whom I had some conversation about his labours as a nightman, for he was both, gave me a full account of his own diet, which I find to be sufficiently specific as to that of his class generally, but only of the regular hands.

The diet of the regular working scavager (or nightman) seems generally to differ from that of mechanics, and perhaps of other working men, in the respect of his being fonder of salt and strong-flavoured food. I have before made the same remark concerning the diet of the poor generally. I do not mean, however, that the scavagers are fond of such animal food as is called “high,” for I did not hear that nightmen or scavagers were more tolerant of what approached putridity than other labouring men, and, despite their calling, might sicken at the rankness of some haunches of venison; but they have a great relish for highly-salted cold boiled beef, bacon, or pork, with a saucer-full of red pickled cabbage, or dingy-looking pickled onions, or one or two big, strong, raw onions, of which most of them seem as fond as Spaniards of garlic. This sort of meat, sometimes profusely mustarded, is often eaten in the beer-shops with thick “shives” of bread, cut into big mouthfuls with a clasp pocket-knife, while vegetables, unless indeed the beer-shop can supply a plate of smoking hot potatoes, are uncared for. The drink is usually beer. The same style of eating and the same kind of food characterize the scavager and nightman, when taking his meal at home with his wife or family; but so irregular, and often of necessity, are these men’s hours, that they may be said to have no homes, merely places to sleep or dose in.

A working scavager and nightman calculated for me his expenses in eating and drinking, and other necessaries, for the previous week. He had earned 15_s._, but 1_s._ of this went to pay off an advance of 5_s._ made to him by the keeper of a beer-shop, or, as he called it, a “jerry.”

Daily. Weekly. d. s. d. Rent of an unfurnished room 1 9 Washing (average) 3 [The man himself washed the dress in which he worked, and generally washed his own stockings.] Shaving (when twice a week) 1 Tobacco 1 7 [Short pipes are given to these men at the beer-shops, or public-houses which they “use.”] Beer 4 2 4 [He usually spent more than 4_d._ a day in beer, he said, “it was only a pot;” but this week more beer than usual had been given to him in nightwork.] Gin 2 1 2 [The same with gin.] Cocoa (pint at a coffee-shop). 1-1/2 10-1/2 Bread (quartern loaf) (sometimes 5-1/2_d._) 6 3 6 Boiled salt beef (3/4 lb. or 1/2 lb. daily, “as happened,” for two meals, 6_d._ per pound, average) 4 2 4 Pickles or Onions 0-1/4 1-3/4 Butter 1 Soap 1 -------------------- 13 2-1/4

Perhaps this informant was excessive in his drink. I believe he was so; the others not drinking so much regularly. The odd 9_d._, he told me, he paid to “a snob,” because he said he was going to send his half-boots to be mended.

This man informed me he was a “widdur,” having lost his old ’oman, and he got all his meals at a beer or coffee-shop. Sometimes, when he was a street-sweeper by day and a nightman by night, he had earned 20_s._ to 22_s._; and then he could have his pound of salt meat a day, for three meals, with a “baked tatur or so, when they was in.” I inquired as to the apparently low charge of 6_d._ per pound for cooked meat, but I found that the man had stated what was correct. In many parts good boiled “brisket,” fresh cut, is 7_d._ and 8_d._ per lb., with mustard into the bargain; and the cook-shop keepers (not the eating-house people) who sell boiled hams, beef, &c., in retail, but not to be eaten on the premises, vend the hard remains of a brisket, and sometimes of a round, for 6_d._, or even less (also with mustard), and the scavagers like this better than any other food. In the brisk times my informant sometimes had “a hot cut” from a shop on a Sunday, and a more liberal allowance of beer and gin. If he had any piece of clothing to buy he always bought it at once, before his money went for other things. These were his proceedings when business was brisk.

In slacker times his diet was on another footing. He then made his supper, or second meal, for tea he seldom touched, on “fagots.” This preparation of baked meats costs 1_d._ hot--but it is seldom sold hot except in the evening--and 3/4_d._, or more frequently two for 1-1/2_d._, cold. It is a sort of cake, roll, or ball, a number being baked at a time, and is made of chopped liver and lights, mixed with gravy, and wrapped in pieces of pig’s caul. It weighs six ounces, so that it is unquestionably a cheap, and, to the scavager, a savoury meal; but to other nostrils its odour is not seductive. My informant regretted the capital fagots he used to get at a shop when he worked in Lambeth; superior to anything he had been able to meet with on the Middlesex side of the water. Or he dined off a saveloy, costing 1_d._, and bread; or bought a pennyworth of strong cheese, and a farthing’s worth of onions. He would further reduce his daily expenditure on cocoa (or coffee sometimes) to 1_d._, and his bread to three-quarters of a loaf. He ate, however, in average times, a quarter of a quartern loaf to his breakfast (sometimes buying a halfpennyworth of butter), a quarter or more to his dinner, the same to his supper, and the other, with an onion for a relish, to his beer. He was a great bread eater, he said; but sometimes, if he slept in the daytime, half a loaf would “stand over to next day.” He was always hungriest when at work among the street-mud, or night-soil, or when he had finished work.

On my asking him if he meant that he partook of the meals he had described daily, he answered “no,” but that was mostly what he had; and if he bought a bit of cold boiled, or even roast pork, “what offered cheap,” the expense was about the same. When he was drinking, and he did “make a break sometimes,” he ate nothing, and “wasn’t inclined to,” and he seemed rather to plume himself on this, as a point of economy. He had tasted fruit pies, but cared nothing for them; but liked four penn’orth of a hot meat or giblet pie on a Sunday. Batter-pudding he only liked if smoking hot; and it was “uncommon improved,” he said, “with an ingan!” Rum he preferred to gin, only it was dearer, but most of the scavagers, he thought, liked Old Tom (gin) best; but “they was both good.”

Of the drinking of these men I heard a good deal, and there is no doubt that some of them tope hard, and by their conduct evince a sort of belief that the great end of labour is beer. But it must be borne in mind that if inquiries are made as to the man best adapted to give information concerning any rude calling (especially), some talkative member of the body of these working men, some pot-house hero who has persuaded himself and his ignorant mates that he is an oracle, is put forward. As these men are sometimes, from being trained to, and long known in their callings, more prosperous than their fellows, their opinions seem ratified by their circumstances. But in such cases, or in the appearance of such cases, it has been my custom to make subsequent inquiries, or there might be frequent misleadings, were the statements of these men taken as typical of the feelings and habits of the whole body. The statement of the working scavager given under this head is unquestionably typical of the character of a portion of his co-workers, and more especially of what was, and in the sort of hereditary scavagers I have spoken of is, the character of the regular hands. There are now, however, many checks to prolonged indulgence in “lush,” as every man of the ruder street-sweeping class will call it. The contractors must be served regularly; the most indulgent will not tolerate any unreasonable absence from work, so that the working scavagers, at the jeopardy of their means of living, must leave their carouse at an hour which will permit them to rise soon enough in the morning.

The beer which these men imbibe, it should be also remembered, they regard as a proper part of their diet, in the same light, indeed, as they regard so much bread, and that among them the opinion is almost universal, that beer is necessary to “keep up their strength;” there are a few teetotallers belonging to the class; one man thought he knew five, and had heard of five others.

I inquired of the landlord of a beer-shop, frequented by these men, as to their potations, but he wanted to make it appear that they took a half-pint, now and then, when thirsty! He was evidently tender of the character of his customers. The landlord of a public house also frequented by them informed me that he really could not say what they expended in beer, for labourers of all kinds “used his tap,” and as all tap-room liquor was paid for on delivery in his and all similar establishments, he did not know the quantity supplied to any particular class. He was satisfied these men, as a whole, drank less than they did at one time; though he had no doubt some (he seemed to know no distinctions between scavagers, dustmen, and nightmen) spent 1_s._ a day in drink. He knew one scavager who was dozing about not long since for nearly a week, “sleepy drunk,” and the belief was that he had “found something.” The absence of all accounts prevents my coming to anything definite on this head, but it seems positive that these men drink less than they did. The landlord in question thought the statement I have given as to diet and drink perfectly correct for a regular hand in good earnings. I am assured, however, and it is my own opinion, after long inquiry, that one-third of their earnings is spent in drink.

OF THE INFLUENCE OF FREE TRADE ON THE EARNINGS OF THE SCAVAGERS.

As regards the influence of Free Trade upon the scavaging business, I could gain little or no information from the body of street-sweepers, because they have never noticed its operation, and the men, with the exception of such as have sunk into street-sweeping from better-informed conditions of life, know nothing about it. Among all, however, I have heard statements of the blessing of cheap bread; always cheap bread. “There’s nothing like bread,” say the men, “it’s not all poor people can get meat; but they must get bread.” Cheap food all labouring men pronounce a blessing, as it unquestionably is, but “somehow,” as a scavager’s carman said to me, “the thing ain’t working as it should.”

In the course of the present and former inquiries among unskilled labourers, street-sellers, and costermongers, I have found the great majority of the more intelligent declare that Free Trade had not worked well for them, because there were more labourers and more street-sellers than were required, for each man to live by his toil and traffic, and because the numbers increased yearly, and the demand for their commodities did not increase in proportion. Among the ignorant, I heard the continual answers of, “I can’t say, sir, what it’s owing to, that I’m so bad off;” or, “Well, I can’t tell anything about that.”

It is difficult to state, however, without positive inquiry, whether this extra number of hands be due to diminished employment in the agricultural districts, since the repeal of the Corn Laws, or whether it be due to the insufficiency of occupation generally for the increasing population. One thing at least is evident, that the increase of the trades alluded to cannot be said to arise directly from diminished agricultural employment, for but few farm labourers have entered these businesses since the change from Protection to Free Trade. If, therefore, Free-Trade principles have operated injuriously in reducing the work of the unskilled labourers, street-sellers, and the poorer classes generally, it can have done so only indirectly; that is to say, by throwing a mass of displaced country labour into the towns, and so displacing other labourers from their ordinary occupations, as well as by decreasing the wages of working-men generally. Hence it becomes almost impossible, I repeat, to tell whether the increasing difficulty that the poor experience in living by their labour, is a consequence or merely a concomitant of the repeal of the Corn Laws; if it be a consequence, of course the poor are no better for the alteration; if, however, it be a coincidence rather than a necessary result of the measure, the circumstances of the poor are, of course, as much improved as they would have been impoverished provided that measure had never become law. I candidly confess I am as yet without the means of coming to any conclusion on this part of the subject.

Nor can it be said that in the scavagers’ trade wages have in any way declined since the repeal of the Corn Laws; so that were it not for the difficulty of obtaining employment among the casual hands, this class must be allowed to have been considerable gainers by the reduction in the price of food, and even as it is, the constant hands must be acknowledged to be so.

I will now endeavour to reduce to a tabular form such information as I could obtain as to the expenditure of the labourer in scavaging before and after the establishment of Free Trade. I inquired, the better to be assured of the accuracy of the representations and accounts I received from labourers, the price of meat then and now. A butcher who for many years has conducted a business in a populous part of Westminster and in a populous suburb, supplying both private families with the best joints, and the poor with their “little bits” their “block ornaments” (meat in small pieces exposed on the chopping-block), their purchases of liver, and of beasts’ heads. In 1845, the year I take as sufficiently prior to the Free-Trade era, my informant from his recollection of the state of his business and from consulting his books, which of course were a correct guide, found that for a portion of the year in question, mutton was as much as 7-1/2_d._ per lb. (Smithfield prices), now the same quality of meat is but 5_d._ This, however, was but a temporary matter, and from causes which sometimes are not very ostensible or explicable. Taking the butcher’s trade that year as a whole, it was found sufficiently conclusive, that meat was generally 1_d._ per lb. higher then than at present. My informant, however, was perfectly satisfied that, although situated in the same way, and with the same class of customers, he did not sell so much meat to the poor and labouring classes as he did five or six years ago, he believed not by one-eighth, although perhaps “pricers of his meat” among the poor were more numerous. For this my informant accounted by expressing his conviction that the labouring men spent their money in drink more than ever, and were a longer time in recovering from the effects of tippling. This supposition, from what I have observed in the course of the present inquiry, is negatived by facts.

Another butcher, also supplying the poor, said they bought less of him; but he could not say exactly to what extent, perhaps an eighth, and he attributed it to less work, there being no railways about London, fewer buildings, and less general employment. About the wages of the labourers he could not speak as influencing the matter. From this tradesmen also I received an account that meat generally was 1_d._ per lb. higher at the time specified. Pickled Australian beef was four or five years ago very low--3_d._ per lb.--salted and prepared, and “swelling” in hot water, but the poor “couldn’t eat the stringy stuff, for it was like pickled ropes.” “It’s better now,” he added, “but it don’t sell, and there’s no nourishment in such beef.”

But these tradesmen agreed in the information that poor labourers bought less meat, while one pronounced Free Trade a blessing, the other declared it a curse. I suggested to each that cheaper fish might have something to do with a smaller consumption of butcher’s meat, but both said that cheap fish was the great thing for the Irish and the poor needle-women and the like, who were never at any time meat eaters.

From respectable bakers I ascertained that bread might be considered 1_d._ a quartern loaf dearer in 1845 than at present. Perhaps the following table may throw a fuller light on the matter. I give it from what I learned from several men, who were without accounts to refer to, but speaking positively from memory; I give the statement per week, as for a single man, without charge for the support of a wife and family, and without any help from other resources.

------------------+----------------------+----------------+------------ | | | Saving | Before Free | After Free | since | Trade. | Trade. | Free | | | Trade. ------------------+----------------------+----------------+------------ Rent | 1_s._ 6_d._ | 1_s._ 6_d._ | ... Bread (5 loaves) | 2_s._ 11_d._ | 2_s._ 6_d._ | 5_d._ Butter (1/2 lb.) | 5_d._ | 5_d._ | ... Tea (2 oz.) | 8_d._ | 8_d._ | ... Sugar (1/2 lb.) | 3_d._ | 2_d._ | 1_d._ Meat (3 lb.) | 1_s._ 6_d._ | 1_s._ 3_d._ | 3_d._ Bacon (1 lb.) | 5_d._ | 5_d._ | ... Fish (a dinner |3_d._, or 1_s._ 6_d._ |2_d._, or 1_s._ | a day, 6 days) | weekly. | weekly. | 6_d._ Potatoes or | | | Vegetables | | | (1/2_d._ a day) | 3-1/2_d._ | 3-1/2_d._ | ... Beer (pot) | 3-1/2_d._ | 3-1/2_d._ | ... ------------------+----------------------+----------------+------------ Total saving, per week, since Free Trade | 1_s._ 3_d._ ----------------------------------------------------------+------------

In butter, bacon, potatoes, &c., and beer, I could hear of no changes, except that bacon might be a trifle cheaper, but instead of a good quality selling better, although cheaper, there was a demand for an inferior sort.

In the foregoing table the weekly consumption of several necessaries is given, but it is not to be understood that one man consumes them all in a week; they are what may generally be consumed when such things are in demand by the poor, one week after another, or one day after another, forming an aggregate of weeks.

Thus, Free Trade and cheap provisions are an unquestionable benefit, if unaffected by drawbacks, to the labouring poor.

The above statement refers only to a fully employed hand.

The following table gives the change since Free Trade in the earnings of casual hands, and relates to the past and the present expenditure of a scavager. The man, who was formerly a house painter, said he could bring me 50 men similarly circumstanced to himself.

--------------------------+------------------------- In 1845, per Week. | In 1851, per Week. --------------------------+------------------------- s. d. | s. d. Rent 1 4 |Rent 1 8 5 loaves 2 11 |4 loaves 2 0 Butter 0 5 |Butter 0 5 Tea 0 6 |Tea 0 5 Meat (3 lbs.) 1 6 |Meat (3 lbs.) 1 0 Potatoes 0 3 |Potatoes 0 2 Beer (a pot) 0 4 |Beer (a pint) 0 2 --------------------------+------------------------- 7 3 | 5 10 --------------------------+-------------------------

Here, then, we find a positive saving in the expenditure of 1_s._ 5_d._ per week in this man’s wages, since the cheapening of food.

His earnings, however, tell a different story.

--------------------+------------+------------- | 1845. | 1851. --------------------+------------+------------- | s. d. | s. d. Earnings of 6 days | 15 0 | Ditto 3 days | | 7 6 +------------+------------- Weekly Income | 15 0 | 7 6 Expenditure | 7 3 | 5 10 +------------+------------- Difference | 7 9 | 1 8 --------------------+------------+------------

Thus we perceive that the beneficial effects of cheapness are defeated by the dearth of employment among labourers.

It is impossible to come to precise statistics in this matter, but all concurrent evidence, as regards the unskilled work of which I now treat, shows that labour is attainable at almost any rate.

Another drawback to the benefits of cheap food I heard of first in my inquiries (for the Letters on Labour and the Poor, in the Morning Chronicle) among the boot and shoemakers--their rents had been raised in consequence of their landlords’ property having been subjected to the income tax. Numbers of large houses are now let out in single rooms, in the streets off Tottenham-court-road, and near Golden-square, as well as in many other quarters--to men, who, working for West-end tradesmen, must live, for economy of time, near the shops from which they derive their work. Near and in Cunningham-street and other streets, two men, father and son, rent upwards of 30 houses, the whole of which they let out in one or two rooms, it is believed at a very great profit; in fact they live by it.

The rent of these houses, among many others, was raised when the income tax was imposed, the sub-lettors declaring, with what truth no one knew, that the rents were raised to them. It is common enough for capitalists to fling such imposts on the shoulders of the poor, and I heard scavagers complain, that every time they had to change their rooms, they had either to pay more rent by 2_d._ or 3_d._ a week, or put up with a worse place. One man who lived at the time of the passing of the Income Tax Bill in Shoe-lane, found his rent raised suddenly 3_d._ a week, a non-resident landlord or agent calling for it weekly. He was told that the advance was to meet the income tax. “I know nothing about what income tax means,” he said, “but it’s some ---- roguery as is put on the poor.” I heard complaints to the same purport from several working scavagers, and the lettors of rooms are the most exacting in places crowded with the poor, and where the poor think or feel they must reside “to be handy for work.” What connection there may be between the questions of Free Trade and the necessity of the income tax, it is not my business now to dilate upon, but it is evident that the circumstances of the country are not sufficiently prosperous to enable parliament to repeal this “temporary” impost.

From a better informed class than the scavagers, I might have derived data on which to form a calculation from account books, &c., but I could hear of none being kept. I remember that a lady’s shoemaker told me that the weekly rents of the ten rooms in the house in which he lived were 4_s._ 3_d._ higher than before the income tax, which “came to the same thing as an extra penny on over 50 loaves a week.” It is certain that the great tax-payers of London are the labouring classes.

I have endeavoured to ascertain the facts in connection with this complex subject in as calm and just a manner as possible, leaning neither to the Protectionist nor the Free-Trade side of the question, and I must again in honesty acknowledge, that to the constant hands among the scavagers and dustmen of the metropolis, the repeal of the Corn Laws appears to have been an unquestionable benefit.

I shall conclude this exposition of the condition and earnings of the working scavagers employed by the more honourable masters, with an account of the average income and expenditure of the better-paid hands (regular and casual, as well as single and married), and first, of the unmarried regular hand.

The following is an estimate of the income and expenditure of an unmarried operative scavager regularly employed, working for a large contractor:--

WEEKLY INCOME. | WEEKLY EXPENDITURE. £ s. d. | £ s. d. Constant Wages. | Rent 0 2 0 Nominal weekly wages 0 16 0 | Washing and mending 0 0 10 Perquisites 0 2 0 | Clothes, and repairing ------------ | ditto 0 0 10 Actual weekly wages 0 18 0 | Butcher’s meat 0 3 6 | Bacon 0 0 8 | Vegetables 0 0 4 | Cheese 0 0 4 | Beer 0 3 0 | Spirits 0 1 0 | Tobacco 0 0 10-1/2 | Butter 0 0 7-1/2 | Sugar 0 0 4 | Tea 0 0 3 | Coffee 0 0 3 | Fish 0 0 4 | Soap 0 0 2 | Shaving 0 0 1 | Fruit 0 0 4 | Keep of 2 dogs 0 0 6 | Amusements, as | skittles, &c. 0 1 9 | ------------- | 0 18 0

The subjoined represents the income of an unmarried operative scavager casually employed by a small master scavager six months during the year, at 15_s._ a week, and 20 weeks at sand and rubbish carting, at 12_s._ a week.

Casual Wages. £ s. d. Nominal weekly wages at scavaging, 16_s._ for 26 weeks during the year 20 16 0 Perquisites, 2_s._ for 26 weeks during the year 2 12 0 ---------------- Actual weekly wages for 26 weeks during the year 0 16 0 Nominal and actual weekly wages at rubbish carting, 12_s._ for 20 weeks more during the year 12 0 0 ---------------- Average casual or constant weekly wages throughout the year 0 15 4-1/2

The expenditure of this man when in work was nearly the same as that of the regular hand; the main exceptions being that his rent was 1_s._ instead of 2_s._, and no dogs were kept. When in work he saved nothing, and when out of work lived as he could.

The married scavagers are differently circumstanced from the unmarried; their earnings are generally increased by those of their family.

The labour of the wives and children of the scavagers is not unfrequently in the capacity of sifters in the dust-yards, where the wives of the men employed by the contractors have the preference, and in other but somewhat rude capacities. One of their wives I heard of as a dresser of sheep’s trotters; two as being among the most skilful dressers of tripe for a large shop; one as “a cat’s-meat seller” (her father’s calling); but I still speak of the regular scavagers--I could not meet with one woman “working a slop-needle.” One, indeed, I saw who was described to me as a “feather dresser to an out-and-out negur,” but the woman assured me she was neither badly paid nor badly off. Perhaps by such labour, as an average on the part of the wives, 9_d._ a day is cleared, and 1_s._ “on tripe and such like.” Among the “casual’s” wives there are frequent instances of the working for slop shirt-makers, &c., upon the coarser sorts of work, and at “starvation wages,” but on such matters I have often dwelt. I heard from some of these men that it was looked upon as a great thing if the wife’s labour could clear the week’s rent of 1_s._ 6_d._ to 2_s._

The following may be taken as an estimate of the income and outlay of a better paid and fully employed operative scavager, with his wife and two children:--

WEEKLY INCOME OF THE FAMILY. | WEEKLY EXPENDITURE OF THE FAMILY. £ s. d.| £ s. d. Nominal weekly | Rent 0 3 0 wages of man, | Candle 0 0 3-1/2 16_s._ | Bread 0 2 1 Perquisites, 2_s._ | Butter 0 0 10 Actual weekly | Sugar 0 0 8 wages of man 0 18 0 | Tea 0 0 10 Nominal weekly | Coffee 0 0 4 wages of wife, | Butcher’s meat 0 3 6 6_s._ | Bacon 0 1 2 Perquisites in | Potatoes 0 0 10 coal and wood, | Raw fish 0 0 4 1_s._ 4_d._ | Herrings 0 0 4 Actual weekly | Beer (at home) 0 2 0 wages of wife. 0 7 4 | „ (at work) 0 1 6 Nominal weekly | Spirits 0 1 0 wages of boy. 0 3 0 | Cheese 0 0 6 ----------- | Flour 0 0 3 1 8 4 | Suet 0 0 3 | Fruit 0 0 3 | Rice 0 0 0-1/2 | Soap 0 0 6 | Starch 0 0 0-1/2 | Soda and blue 0 0 1 | Dubbing 0 0 0-1/2 | Clothes for the | whole family, | and repairing | ditto 0 2 0 | Boots and shoes | for ditto, ditto 0 1 6 | Milk 0 0 7 | Salt, pepper, and | mustard 0 0 1 | Tobacco 0 0 9 | Wear and tear of | bedding, crocks, | &c. 0 0 3 | Schooling for | girl 0 0 3 | Baking Sunday’s | dinner 0 0 2 | Mangling 0 0 3 | Amusements and | sundries 0 1 0 | -------------- | 1 7 6

The subjoined, on the other hand, gives the income and outlay of a casually employed operative scavager (better paid) with his wife and two boys in constant work:--

WEEKLY INCOME OF THE FAMILY. | WEEKLY EXPENDITURE OF THE FAMILY. £ s. d. | £ s. d. Nominal wages | Rent 0 3 6 of man at scavaging | Candle 0 0 6 for six | Soap 0 0 4 months, at 16_s._ | Soda, starch, and weekly. | blue 0 0 2-1/2 Ditto at rubbish | Bread 0 2 6 carting three | Butter 0 0 9 months, 12_s._ | Dripping 0 0 5 weekly. | Sugar 0 0 8 Average casual | Tea 0 0 8 wages throughout | Coffee 0 0 6 the year 0 15 0 | Butcher’s meat 0 3 6 Nominal weekly | Bacon 0 1 0 wages of wife, | Potatoes 0 1 0 6_s._ (constant). | Cheese 0 0 6 Perquisites in | Raw fish 0 0 4 wood and coal, | Herrings 0 0 3 1_s._ 4_d._ | Fried fish 0 0 3 Actual weekly | Flour 0 0 3 wages of wife 0 7 4 | Suet 0 0 2 Nominal weekly | Fruit 0 0 6 wages of two | Rice 0 0 1-1/2 boys, 7_s._ the | Beer (at home) 0 2 0 two. | „ (at work) 0 1 9 Perquisites for | Spirits 0 1 0 running on | Tobacco 0 0 9 messages, 1_s._ | Pepper, salt, and the two | mustard 0 0 1 (constant). | Milk 0 0 7 Actual weekly | Clothes for man, wages of the | wife, and family 0 2 0 two boys. 0 8 0 | Repairing ditto ----------- | for ditto 0 0 6 1 10 4 | Boots and shoes | for ditto 0 1 6 | Repairing ditto | for ditto 0 0 8 | Wear and tear of | bedding, crocks, | &c. 0 0 3 | Baking Sunday’s | dinner 0 0 2 | Mangling 0 0 2 | Amusements, | sundries, &c. 0 1 0 | --------------- | 1 10 4

OF THE WORSE PAID SCAVAGERS, OR THOSE WORKING FOR SCURF[18] EMPLOYERS.

There are in the scavagers’ trade the same distinct classes of employers as appertain to all other trades; these consist of:--

1. The large capitalists. 2. The small capitalists.

As a rule (with some few honourable and dishonourable exceptions, it is true) I find that the large capitalists in the several trades are generally the employers who pay the higher wages, and the small men those who pay the lower. The reasons for this conduct are almost obvious. The power of the capital of the “large master” must be contended against by the small one; and the usual mode of contention in all trades is by reducing the wages of the working men. The wealthy master has, of course, many advantages over the poor one. (1) He can pay ready money, and obtain discounts for immediate payment. (2) He can buy in large quantities, and so get his stock cheaper. (3) He can purchase what he wants in the best markets, and that directly of the producer, without the intervention and profit of the middleman. (4) He can buy at the best times and seasons; and “lay in” what he requires for the purposes of his trade long before it is needed, provided he can obtain it “a bargain.” (5) He can avail himself of the best tools and mechanical contrivances for increasing the productiveness or “economizing the labour” of his workmen. (6) He can build and arrange his places of work upon the most approved plan and in the best situations for the manufacture and distribution of the commodities. (7) He can employ the highest talent for the management or design of the work on which he is engaged. (8) He can institute a more effective system for the surveillance and checking of his workmen. (9) He can employ a large number of hands, and so reduce the secondary expenses (of firing, lighting, &c.) attendant upon the work, as well as the number of superintendents and others engaged to “look after” the operatives. (10) He can resort to extensive means of making his trade known. (11) He can sell cheaper (even if his cost of production be the same), from employing a larger capital, and being able to “do with” a less rate of profit. (12) He can afford to give credit, and so obtain customers that he might otherwise lose.

The small capitalist, therefore, enters the field of competition by no means equally matched against his more wealthy rival. What the little master wants in “substance,” however, he generally endeavours to make up in cunning. If he cannot buy his materials as cheap as a trader of larger means, he uses an inferior or cheaper article, and seeks by some trick or other to palm it off as equal to the superior and dearer kind. If the tools and appliances of the trade are expensive, he either transfers the cost of providing them to the workmen, or else he charges them a rent for their use; and so with the places of work, he mulcts their wages of a certain sum per week for the gas by which they labour, or he makes them do their work at home, and thus saves the expense of a workshop; and, lastly, he pays his men either a less sum than usual for the same quantity of labour, or exacts a greater quantity from them for the same sum of money. By one or other of these means does the man of limited capital seek to counterbalance the advantages which his more wealthy rival obtains by the possession of extensive “resources.” The large employer is enabled to work cheaper by the sheer force of his larger capital. He reduces the cost of production, not by employing a cheaper labour, but by “economizing the labour” that he does employ. The small employer, on the other hand, seeks to keep pace with his larger rival, and strives to work cheap, not by “the economy of labour” (for this is hardly possible in the small way of production), but by reducing the wages of his labourers. Hence the rule in almost every trade is that the smaller capitalists pay a lower rate of wages. To this, however, there are many honourable exceptions among the small masters, and many as dishonourable among the larger ones in different trades. Messrs. Moses, Nicoll, and Hyams, for instance, are men who certainly cannot plead deficiency of means as an excuse for reducing the ordinary rate of wages among the tailors.

Those employers who seek to reduce the prices of a trade are known technologically as “cutting employers,” in contradistinction to the standard employers, or those who pay their workpeople and sell their goods at the ordinary rates.

Of “cutting employers” there are several kinds, differently designated, according to the different means by which they gain their ends. These are:--

1. “Drivers,” or those who compel the men in their employ to do more work for the same wages; of this kind there are two distinct varieties:--

a. The long-hour masters, or those who make the men work longer than the usual hours of labour.

b. The strapping masters, or those who make the men (by extra supervision) “strap” to their work, so as to do a greater quantity of labour in the usual time.

2. Grinders, or those who compel the workmen (through their necessities) to do the same amount of work for less than the ordinary wages.

The reduction of wages thus brought about may or may not be attended with a corresponding reduction in the price of the goods to the public; if the price of the goods be reduced in proportion to the reduction of wages, the consumer, of course, is benefited at the expense of the producer. When it is not followed by a like diminution in the selling price of the article, and the wages of which the men are mulct go to increase the profits of the capitalist, the employer alone is benefited, and is then known as a “grasper.”

Some cutting tradesmen, however, endeavour to undersell their more wealthy rivals, by reducing the ordinary rate of profit, and extending their business on the principle of small profits and quick returns, the “nimble ninepence” being considered “better than the slow shilling.” Such traders, of course, cannot be said to reduce wages directly--indirectly, however, they have the same effect, for in reducing prices, other traders, ever ready to compete with them, but, unwilling, or perhaps unable, to accept less than the ordinary rate of profit, seek to attain the same cheapness by diminishing the cost of production, and for this end the labourers’ wages are almost invariably reduced.

Such are the characteristics of the cheap employers in all trades. Let me now proceed to point out the peculiarities of what are called the scurf employers in the scavaging trade.

The insidious practices of capitalists in other callings, in reducing the hire of labour, are not unknown to the scavagers. The evils of which these workmen have to complain under scurf or slop masters are:--

1. Driving, or being compelled to do more work for the same pay.

2. Grinding, or being compelled to do the same or a greater amount of work for less pay.

1. Under the first head, if the employment be at all regular, I heard few complaints, for the men seemed to have learned to look upon it as an inevitable thing, that one way or other they must submit, by the receipt of a reduced wage, or the exercise of a greater toil, to a deterioration in their means.

The system of driving, or, in other words, the means by which extra work is got out of the men for the same remuneration, in the scavagers’ trade is as follows:--some employers cause their scavagers after their day’s work in the streets, to load the barges with the street and house-collected manure, without any additional payment; whereas, among the more liberal employers, there are bargemen who are employed to attend to this department of the trade, and if their street scavagers are so employed, which is not very often, it is computed as extra work or “over hours,” and paid for accordingly. This same indirect mode of reducing wages (by getting more work done for the same pay) is seen in many piece-work callings. The slop boot and shoe makers pay the same price as they did six or seven years ago, but they have “knocked off the extras,” as the additional allowance for greater than the ordinary height of heel, and the like. So the slop Mayor of Manchester, Sir Elkanah Armitage, within the last year or two, sought to obtain from his men a greater length of “cut” to each piece of woven for the same wages.

Some master scavagers or contractors, moreover, reduce wages by making their men do what is considered the work of “a man and a half” in a week, without the recompense due for the labour of the “half” man’s work; in other words, they require the men to condense eight or nine days’ labour into six, and to be paid for the six days only; this again is usual in the strapping shops of the carpenters’ trade.

Thus the class of street-sweepers do not differ materially in the circumstances of their position from other bodies of workers skilled and unskilled.

Let me, however, give a practical illustration of the loss accruing to the working scavagers by the driving method of reducing wages.

A is a large contractor and a driver. He employs 16 men, and pays them the “regular wages” of the honourable trade; but, instead of limiting the hours of labour to 12, as is usual among the better class of employers, he compels each of his men to work at the least 16 hours per diem, which is one-third more, and for which the men should receive one-third more wages. Let us see, therefore, how much the men in his employ lose annually by these means.

---------------------------+--------------+-----------+----------- | Sum received | Sum they | | per | should | | Annum. | receive. |Difference. ---------------------------+--------------+-----------+----------- 4 Gangers, at 18_s._ a } | £ s. | £ s. | £ s. week, for 9 months } | 140 8 | 210 12 | 70 4 in the year } | | | 12 Sweepers, at 16_s._ a } | | | week, for 9 months } | 374 8 | 499 4 | 124 16 in the year } | | | ---------------------------+--------------+-----------+----------- Total wages per Ann. | 514 16 | 709 16 | 195 0

Here, then, we find the annual loss to these men through the system of “driving” to be 195_l._ per annum.

But A is not the only driver in the scavagers’ trade; out of the 19 masters having contracts for scavaging, as cited in the table given at pp. 213, 214, there are 4 who are regular drivers; and, making the same calculation as above, we have the following results:--

-------------------------+-------------+-----------+----------- |Sum received | Sum they | | per | should |Difference. | Annum. | receive. | -------------------------+-------------+-----------+----------- 26 Gangers, at 18_s._ a }| £ s. | £ s.| £ s. week, for 9 months }| 912 12 | 1216 16 | 304 4 in the year }| | | 80 Sweepers, at 16_s._ a}| | | week, for 9 months }| 2496 0 | 3328 0 | 832 0 in the year }| | | -------------------------+-------------+-----------+----------- | 3308 12 | 4544 16 | 1136 4 -------------------------+-------------+-----------+-----------

Thus we find that the gross sum of which the men employed by these drivers are deprived, is no less than 1136_l._ per annum.

2. The second or indirect mode of reducing the wages of the men in the scavaging trade is by Grinding; that is to say, by making the men do the same amount of work for less pay. It requires nothing but a practical illustration to render the injury of this particular mode of reduction apparent to the public.

B is a master scavager (a small contractor, though the instances are not confined to this class), and a “Grinder.” He pays 1_s._ a week less than the “regular wages” of the honourable trade. He employs six men; hence the amount that the workmen in his pay are mulct of every year is as follows:--

-------------------------+-------------+-----------+----------- |Sum received | Sum they | | per | should |Difference. | Annum. | receive. | -------------------------+-------------+-----------+----------- 6 men, at 15_s._ a week,}| £ s. | £ s. | £ s. for 9 months in the }| 175 10 | 187 4 | 11 14 year }| | | -------------------------+-------------+-----------+-----------

Here the loss to the men is 11_l._ 14_s._ per annum, and there is but one such grinder among the 19 master scavagers who have contracts at present.

3. The third and last method of reducing the earnings of the men as above enumerated, is by a combination of both the systems before explained, viz., by grinding and driving united, that is to say, by not only paying the men a smaller wage than the more honourable masters, but by compelling them to work longer hours as well. Let me cite another illustration from the trade.

C is a large contractor, and both a grinder and driver. He employs 28 men, and not only pays them less wages, but makes them work longer hours than the better class of employers. The men in his pay, therefore, are annually mulct of the following sums.

SUMS THE MEN RECEIVE. | SUMS THEY SHOULD RECEIVE. £ s. d.| £ s. d. | 7 Gangers, at 16_s._ | 7 Gangers, at 18_s._ a week, for 9 | a week, for 9 months in the | months in the year 218 8 0 | year 245 14 0 21 Sweepers, at | Over work, 4 15_s._ a week 614 5 0 | hours per day 61 8 6 ------------- | 21 Sweepers, at 832 13 0 | 16_s._ a week, 12 | hours a day 655 4 0 | Over work, 4 | hours a day 163 6 0 | -------------- | 1125 12 6

Here the annual loss to the men employed by this one master is 292_l._ 19_s._ 6_d._

Among the 19 master scavagers there are altogether 7 employers who are both grinders and drivers. These employ among them no less than 111 hands; hence, the gross amount of which their workmen are yearly defrau--no, let me adhere to the principles of political economy, and say deprived--is as under:--

SUM THE MEN ANNUALLY RECEIVE. | SUM THEY SHOULD ANNUALLY RECEIVE. £ s. d.| £ s. d. 28 Gangers, at 16_s._ | 28 Gangers, at a week, employed | 18_s._ a week for 9 months | (12 hours a in the year 873 12 0 | day), for 9 | months in the 83 Sweepers, at | year 982 16 0 15_s._ a week, | Over work, 4 employed for | hours per day 245 14 0 9 months in | 83 Sweepers, at the year 2427 15 0 | 16_s._ a week, -------------- | 12 hours a day 2589 12 0 3301 7 0 | Over work, 4 | hours per day 647 8 0 | -------------- | 4465 10 0

Here we perceive the gross loss to the operatives from the system of combined grinding and driving to be no less than 1164_l._ 3_s._ per annum.

Now let us see what is the aggregate loss to the working men from the several modes of reducing their wages as above detailed.

£. s. d. Loss to the working scavagers by the “driving” of employers 1136 4 0 Ditto by the “grinding” 11 14 0 Ditto by the “grinding and driving” of employers 1164 3 0 -------------- Total loss to the working scavagers per annum 2312 1 0

Now this is a large sum of money to be wrested annually out of the workmen--that it is so wrested is demonstrated by the fact cited at p. 174 in connection with the dust trade.

The wages of the dustmen employed by the large contractors, it is there stated, have been increased within the last seven years from 6_d._ to 8_d._ per load. This increase in the rate of remuneration was owing to complaints made by the men to the Commissioners of Sewers, that they were not able to live on their earnings; an inquiry took place, and the result was that the Commissioners decided upon letting the contracts only to such parties as would undertake to pay a fair price to their workmen. The contractors accordingly increased the remuneration of the labourers as mentioned.

Now political economy would tell us that the Commissioners interfered with wages in a most reprehensible manner--preventing the natural operation of the law of Supply and Demand; but both justice and benevolence assure us that the Commissioners did perfectly right. The masters in the dust trade were forced to make good to the men what they had previously taken from them, and the same should be done in the scavaging trade--the contracts should be let only to these masters who will undertake to pay the regular rate of wages, and employ their men only the regular hours; for by such means, and by such means alone, can justice be done to the operatives.

This brings me to the cause of the reduction of wages in the scavaging trade. The scurf trade, I am informed, has been carried on among the master scavagers upwards of 20 years, and arose partly from the contractors having to pay the parishes for the house-dust and street-sweepings, brieze and street manure at that period often selling for 30_s._ the chaldron or load. The demand for this kind of manure 20 years ago was so great, that there was a competition carried on among the contractors themselves, each out-bidding the other, so as to obtain the right of collecting it; and in order not to lose anything by the large sums which they were induced to bid for the contracts, the employers began gradually to “grind down” their men from 17_s._ 6_d._ (the sum paid 20 years back) to 17_s._ a week, and eventually to 15_s._, and even 12_s._ weekly. This is a curious and instructive fact, as showing that even an increase of prices will, under the contract system, induce a reduction of wages. The greed of traders becomes, it appears, from the very height of the prices, proportionally intensified, and from the desire of each to reap the benefit, they are led to outbid one another to such an extent, and to offer such large premiums for the right of appropriation, as to necessitate a reduction of every possible expense in order to make any profit at all upon the transaction. Owing, moreover, to the surplus labour in the trade, the contractors were enabled to offer any premiums and reduce wages as they pleased; for the casually-employed men, when the wet season was over, and their services no longer required, were continually calling upon the contractors, and offering their services at 2_s._ and 3_s._ less per week than the regular hands were receiving. The consequence was, that five or six of the master scavagers began to reduce the wages of their labourers, and since that time the number has been gradually increasing, until now there are no less than 21 scurf masters (8 of whom have no contracts) out of the 34 contractors; so that nearly three-fifths of the entire trade belong to the grinding class. Within the last seven or eight years, however, there has been an increase of wages in connection with the city operative scavagers. This was owing mainly to the operatives complaining to the Commissioners that they could not live upon the wages they were then receiving--12_s._ and 14_s._ a week. The circumstances inducing the change, I am informed, were as follows:--one of the gangers asked a tradesman in the city to give the street-sweepers “something for beer,” whereupon the tradesman inquired if the men could not find beer out of their wages, and on being assured that they were receiving only 12_s._ a week, he had the matter brought before the Board. The result was, that the wages of the operatives were increased from 12_s._ to 15_s._ and 16_s._ weekly, since which time there has been neither an increase nor a decrease in their pay. The cheapness of provisions seems to have caused no reduction with them.

Now there are but two “efficient causes” to account for the reduction of wages among the scurf employers in the scavagers’ trade:--(1) The employers may diminish the pay of their men from a disposition to “grind” out of them an inordinate rate of profit. (2) The price paid for the work may be so reduced that, consistent with the ordinary rate of profit on capital, and remuneration for superintendence, greater wages cannot be paid. If the first be the fact, then the employers are to blame, and the parishes should follow the example of the Commissioners of Sewers, and let the work to those contractors only who will undertake to pay the “regular wages” of the honourable trade; but if the latter be the case, as I strongly suspect it is, though some of the masters seem to be more “grasping” than the rest--but in the paucity of returns on this matter, it is difficult to state positively whether the price paid for the labour of the working scavager is in all the parishes proportional to the price paid to the employers for the work (a most important fact to be solved)--if, however, I repeat, the decrease of the wages be mainly due to the decrease in the sums given for the performance of the contract, then the parishes are to blame for seeking to get their work done at the expense of the working men.

The contract system of work, I find, necessarily tends to this diminution of the men’s earnings in a trade. Offer a certain quantity of work to the lowest bidder, and the competition will assuredly be maintained at the operative’s expense. It is idle to expect that, as a general rule, traders will take less than the ordinary rate of profit. Hence, he who underbids will usually be found to underpay. This, indeed, is almost a necessity of the system, and one which the parochial functionaries more than all others should be guarded against--seeing that a decrease of the operative’s wages can but be attended with an increase of the very paupers, and consequently of the parochial expenses, which they are striving to reduce.

A labourer, in order to be self-supporting and avoid becoming a “burden” on the parish, requires something more than bare subsistence-money in remuneration for his labour, and yet this is generally the mode by which we test the sufficiency of wages. “A man can live very comfortably upon that!” is the exclamation of those who have seldom thought upon what constitutes the minimum of self-support in this country. A man’s wages, to prevent pauperism, should include, besides present subsistence, what Dr. Chalmers has called “his secondaries;” viz., a sufficiency to pay for his maintenance: 1st, during the slack season; 2nd, when out of employment; 3rd, when ill; 4th, when old[19]. If insufficient to do this, it is evident that the man at such times must seek parochial relief; and it is by the reduction of wages down to bare subsistence, that the cheap employers of the present day shift the burden of supporting their labourers when unemployed on to the parish; thus virtually perpetuating the allowance system or relief in aid of wages under the old Poor Law. Formerly the mode of hiring labourers was by the year, so that the employer was bound to maintain the men when unemployed. But now journey-work, or hiring by the day, prevails, and the labourers being paid--and that mere subsistence-money--only when wanted, are necessitated to become either paupers or thieves when their services are no longer required. It is, moreover, this change from yearly to daily hirings, and the consequent discarding of men when no longer required, that has partly caused the immense mass of surplus labourers, who are continually vagabondizing through the country begging or stealing as they go--men for whom there is but some two or three weeks’ work (harvesting, hop-picking, and the like) throughout the year.

That there is, however, a large system of jobbing pursued by the contractors for the house-dust and cleansing of the streets, there cannot be the least doubt. The minute I have cited at page 210 gives us a slight insight into the system of combination existing among the employers, and the extraordinary fluctuations in the prices obtained by the contractors would lead to the notion that the business was more a system of gambling than trade. The following returns have been procured by Mr. Cochrane within the last few days:--

“Average yearly cost of cleansing the whole of the public ways within the City of London, including the removal of dust, ashes, &c., from the houses of the inhabitants, for eight years, terminating at Michaelmas in the year 1850 £4,643

Square yards of carriage-way, estimated at 430,000

Square yards of footway, estimated at 300,000

A more specific and later return is as follows:--

Received Paid for for Dust. cleansing, &c. £ s. d. £ s. d. { Streets not 1845 0 0 0 2833 2 0 { cleansed { daily. 1846 1354 5 0 6034 6 0 } 1847 4455 5 0 8014 2 0 } Streets 1848 1328 15 0 7226 1 6 } cleansed 1849 0 0 0 7486 11 6 } daily. 1850 0 0 0 6779 16 0 }

“From the above return,” says Mr. Cochrane, “it may be inferred that the annual sums paid for cleansing in each year of 1844 and 1843 did not exceed 2281_l._, as this would make up the eight years’ average calculation of 4643_l._”

Since the streets have been cleansed daily, it will be seen that the average has been 7188_l._ The smallest amount, in 1846, was 6034_l._; and the largest, in 1847, 8014_l._; which was a sudden increase of 1980_l._

Here, then, we perceive an immediate increase in the price paid for scavaging between 1846 and 1847 of nearly 33 per cent., and since the wages of the workmen were not proportionately increased in the latter year by the employers, it follows that the profits of the contractors must have been augmented to that enormous extent. The only effectual mode of preventing this system of jobbing being persevered in, at the expense of the workmen, is by the insertion of a clause in each parish contract similar to that introduced by the Commissioners of Sewers--that at least a fair living rate of wages shall be paid by each contractor to the men employed by him. This may be an interference with the freedom of labour, according to the economists’ “cant” language, but at least it is a restriction of the tyranny of capital, for free labour means, when literally translated, the unrestricted use of capital, which is (especially when the moral standard of trade is not of the highest character) perhaps the greatest evil with which a State can be afflicted.

* * * * *

Let me now speak of the Scurf labourers. The moral and social characteristics of the working scavagers who labour for a lower rate of hire do not materially differ from those of the better paid and more regularly employed body, unless, perhaps, in this respect, that there are among them a greater proportion of the “casuals,” or of men reared to the pursuit of other callings, and driven by want, misfortune, or misconduct, to “sweep the streets;” and not only that, but to regard the “leave to toil” in such a capacity a boon. These constitute, as it were, the cheap labourers of this trade.

Among the parties concerned in the lower-priced scavaging, are the usual criminations. The parish authorities will not put up any longer with the extortions of the contractors. The contractors cannot put up any longer with the stinginess of the parishes. The working scavagers, upon whose shoulders the burthen falls the heaviest--as it does in all depreciated tradings--grumble at both. I cannot aver, however, that I found among the men that bitter hatred of their masters which I found actuating the mass of operative tailors, shoemakers, dressmakers, &c., toward the slop capitalists who employed them.

I have pointed out in what the “scurf” treatment of the labourers was chiefly manifested--in extra work for inferior pay; in doing eight or nine days’ work in six; and in being paid for only six days’ labour, and not always at the ordinary rate even for the lighter toil--not 2_s._ 8_d._, but 2_s._ 6_d._ or even 2_s._ 4_d._ a day. To the wealthy, this 2_d._ or 4_d._ a day may seem but a trifling matter, but I heard a working scavager (formerly a house-painter) put it in a strong light: “that 3_d._ or 4_d._ a day, sir, is a poor family’s rent.” The rent, I may observe, as a result of my inquiries among the more decent classes of labourers, is often the primary consideration: “You see, sir, we must have a roof over our heads.”

A scavager, working for a scurf master, gave me the following account. He was a middle-aged man, decently dressed, for when I saw him, he was in his “Sunday clothes,” and was quiet in his tones, even when he spoke bitterly.

“My father,” he said, “was once in business as a butcher, but he failed, and was afterwards a journeyman butcher, but very much respected, I know, and I used to job and help him. O dear, yes! I can read and write, but I have very seldom to write, only I think one never forgets it, it’s like learning to swim, that way; and I read sometimes at coffee-shops. My father died rather sudden, and me and a brother had to look out. My brother was older than me, he was 20 or 21 then, and he went for a soldier, I believe to some of the Ingees, but I’ve never heard of him since. I got a place in a knacker’s yard, but I didn’t like it at all, it was so confining, and should have hooked it, only I left it honourable. I can’t call to mind how long that’s back, perhaps 16 or 18 years, but I know there was some stir at the time about having the streets and yards cleaner. A man called and had some talk with the governor, and says he, says the governor, says he, ‘if you want a handy lad with his besom, and he’s good for nothing else’--but that was his gammon--‘here’s your man;’ so I was engaged as a young sweeper at 10_s._ a week. I worked in Hackney, but I heard so much about railways, that I saved my money up to 10_s._, and popped [pledged] a suit of mourning I’d got after my father’s death for 22_s._, and got to York, both on foot and with lifts. I soon got work on a rail; there was great call for rails then, but I don’t know how long it’s since, and I was a navvy for six or seven years, or better. Then I came back to London. I don’t know just what made me come back, but I was restless, and I thought I could get work as easy in London as in the country, but I couldn’t. I brought 21 gold sovereigns with me to London, twisted in my fob for safeness, in a wash-leather bag. They didn’t last so long as they ought to. I didn’t care for drinking, only when I was in company, but I was a little too gay. One night I spent over 12_s._ in the St. Helena Gardens at Rotherhithe, and that sort of thing soon makes money show taper. I got some work with a rubbish carter, a regular scurf. I made only about 8_s._ a week under him, for he didn’t want me this half day or that whole day, and if I said anything, he told me I might go and be d----d, he could get plenty such, and I knew he could. I got on then with a gangsman I knew, at street-sweeping. I had 15_s._ a week, but not regular work, but when the work wer’n’t regular, I had 2_s._ 8_d._ a day. I then worked under another master for 14_s._ a week, and was often abused that I wasn’t better dressed, for though that there master paid low wages, he was vexed if his men didn’t look decent in the streets. I’ve heard that he said he paid the best of wages when asked about it. I had another job after that, at 15_s._, and then 16_s._ a week, with a contractor as had a wharf; but a black nigger slave was never slaved as I was. I’ve worked all night, when it’s been very moonlight, in loading a barge, and I’ve worked until three and four in the morning that way, and then me and another man slept an hour or two in a shed as joined his stables, and then must go at it again. Some of these masters is ignorant, and treats men like dirt, but this one was always civil, and made his people be civil. But, Lord, I hadn’t a rag left to my back. Everything was worn to bits in such hard work, and then I got the sack. I was on for Mr. ---- next. He’s a jolly good ’un. I was only on for him temp’ry, but I was told it was for temp’ry when I went, so I can’t complain. I’m out of work this week, but I’ve had some jobs from a butcher, and I’m going to work again on Monday. I don’t know at what wages. The gangsmen said they’d see what I could do. It’ll be 15_s._, I expect, and over-work if it’s 16_s._

“Yes, I like a pint of beer now and then, and one requires it, but I don’t get drunk. I dusted for a fortnight once while a man was ill, and got more beer and twopences give me than I do in a year now; aye, twice as much. My mate and me was always very civil, and people has said, ‘there’s a good fellow, just sweep together this bit of rubbish in the yard here, and off with it.’ That was beyond our duty, but we did it. I have very little night-work, only for one master; he’s a sweep as well. I get 2_s._ 6_d._ a job for it. Yes, there’s mostly something to drink, but you can’t demand nothing. Night-work’s nothing, sir; no more ain’t a knacker’s yard.

“I pay 2_s._ a week rent, but I’m washed for and found soap as well. My landlady takes in washing, and when her husband, for they’re an old couple, has the rheumatics, I make a trifle by carrying out the clothes on a barrow, and Mrs. Smith goes with them and sees to the delivery. I’ve my own furniture.

“Well, I don’t know what I spend in my living in a week. I have a bit of meat, or a saveloy or two, or a slice of bacon every day, mostly when I’m at work. I sometimes make my own meals ready in my room. No, I keep no accounts. There’d be very little use or pleasure in doing it when one has so little to count. When I’m past work, I suppose I must go to the workhouse. I sometimes wish I’d gone for a soldier when I was young enough. I shouldn’t have minded going abroad. I’d have liked it better than not, for I like to be about; yes, I like a change.

“I go to chapel every Sunday night, and have regularly since Mr. ---- (the butcher) gave me this cast-off suit. I promised him I would when I got the togs.

“Things would be well enough with me if I’d constant work and fair pay. I don’t know what makes wages so low. I suppose it’s rich people trying to get all the money they can, and caring nothing for poor men’s rights, and poor men’s sometimes forced to undersell one another, ’cause half a loaf you know, sir, is better than no bread at all” (a proverb, by the way, which has wrought no little mischief).

In conclusion, I may remark, that although I was told, in the first instance, there was sub-letting in street sweeping, I could not hear of any facts to prove it. I was told, indeed, by a gentleman who took great interest in parochial matters, with a view to “reforms” in them, that such a thing was most improbable, for if a contractor sub-let any of his work it would soon become known, and as it would be evident that the work could be accomplished at a lower rate, the contractor would be in a worse position for his next contract.

OF THE STREET-SWEEPING MACHINE, AND THE STREET-SWEEPERS EMPLOYED WITH IT.

Until the introduction of the machines now seen in London, I believe that no mechanical contrivances for sweeping the streets had been attempted, all such work being executed by manual labour, and employing throughout the United Kingdom a great number of the poor. The street-sweeping machine, therefore, assumes an importance as another instance of the displacement, or attempted displacement, of the labour of man by the mechanism of an engine.

The street-sweeping machines were introduced into London about five years ago, after having been previously used, under the management of a company, in Manchester, the inventor and maker being Mr. Whitworth, of that place. The novelty and ingenuity of the apparatus soon attracted public attention, and for the first week or two the vehicular street-sweeper was accompanied in its progress by a crowd of admiring and inquisitive pedestrians, so easily attracted together in the metropolis. In the first instance the machines were driven through the streets merely to display their mode and power of work, and the drivers and attendants not unfrequently came into contact with the regular scavagers, when a brisk interchange of street wit took place, the populace often enough encouraging both sides. At present the street-sweeping machine proceeds on its line of operation as little noticed, except by visitors, and foreigners especially, as any other vehicle. The body of the sweeping machine, although the sizes may not all be uniform, is about 5 feet in length, and 2 feet 8 inches or 3 feet in width; the height is about 5 feet 6 inches or 6 feet, and the form that of a covered cart, with a rounded top. The sides of the exterior are of cast iron, the top being of wood. At the hinder part of the cart is fixed the sweeping-machine itself, covered by sloping boards which descend from the top of the cart, projecting slightly behind the vehicle to the ground; under the sloping boards is an endless chain of brushes as wide as the cart, 16 in number, placed at equal distances, and so arranged, that when made to revolve, each brush in turn passes over the ground, sweeping the mud along with it to the bottom sloping board, and so carrying it up to the interior of the cart. The chain of brushes is set in motion, over the surface of the pavement, by the agency of three cog wheels of cast iron; these are worked by the rotation of the wheels of the cart, the cogs acting upon the spindles to which the brooms are attached. The spindles, brushes, and the sloped boards can be raised or lowered by the winding of an instrument called the broom winder; or the whole can be locked. The brooms are raised when any acclivity is to be swept, and lowered at a declivity. The vehicle must be water-tight, in order to contain the slop.

When full the machine holds about half a cart load or half a ton of dirt; this is emptied by letting down the back in the manner of a trap door. If the contents be solid, they have to be forked out; if more sloppy, they are “shot” out, as from a cart, the interior generally being roughly scraped to complete the emptying.

The districts which have as yet been cleansed by the machines are what may be considered a government domain, being the public thoroughfares under the control of the Commissioners of the Woods and Forests, running from Westminster Abbey to the Regent-circus in Piccadilly, and including Spring-gardens, Carlton-gardens, and a portion of the West Strand, where they were first employed in London; they have been used also in parts of the City; and are at present employed by the parish of St. Martin-in-the-Fields. The company by whom the mechanical street-sweeping business is carried on employ 12 machines, 4 water carts, 19 horses, and 24 men. They have also the use, but not the sole use, of two wharfs and barges at Whitefriars and Millbank. The machines altogether collect about 30 cart-loads of street-dirt a day, which is equivalent to four or five barge-loads in a week, if all were boated. Two barges per week are usually sent to Rochester, the others up the river to Fulham, &c. The average price is 5_l._ 10_s._ to 6_l._ per barge load, but when the freight has been chiefly dung, as much as 8_l._ has been paid for it by a farmer.

The street-sweeping machine seems to have commanded the approbation of the General Board of Health, although the Board’s expression of approval is not without qualification. “Even that efficient and economical implement,” says one of the Reports, “the street-sweeping machine, leaves much filth between the interstices of the stones and some on the surface.” One might have imagined, however, that an efficient and economical implement would not have left this “much filth” in its course; but the Board, I presume, spoke comparatively.

The reason of the circumscribed adoption of the machine--I say it with some reluctance, but from concurrent testimony--appears to be that it does not sweep sufficiently clean. It sweeps the surface, but only the surface; not cleansing what the scavagers call the “nicks” and “holes,” and the Board of Health the “interstices,” in the pavement.

One man is obliged to go along with each machine, to sweep the ridge of dirt invariably left at the edge of the track of the vehicle into the line of the next machine, so that it may be “licked up.” In fine weather this work is often light enough. It is also the occupation of the accompanying scavager to sweep the dirt from the sloping edges of the public ways into the direct course of the machine, for the brushes are of no service along such slopes; he must also sweep out the contents of any hole or hollow there may be in the streets, as is frequently the case when the pavement has been disturbed in the relaying or repairing of the gas or water pipes. But for this arrangement, I was told, the brushes would pass “clean over” such places, or only disturb without clearing away the dirt. Indeed irregularities of any kind in the pavement are great obstructions to the efficiency of the street-sweeping machine.

There are some places, moreover, wholly unsweepable by the machine; in many parts of St. Martin’s parish, for instance, there are localities where the machine cannot be introduced; such are--St. Martin’s-court; the flagged ways about the National Gallery; and the approach, alongside the church, to the Lowther Arcade; the pavement surrounding the fountains which adorn the “noblest site in Europe;” and a variety of alleys, passages, yards, and minor streets, which must be cleansed by manual labour.

In fair weather, again, water carts are indispensable before machine sweeping, for if the ground be merely dry and dusty, the set of brooms will not “bite.”

We now come to estimate the relative values of the mechanical and manual labour applied to the scavaging of the streets. The average progress of the street-sweeping machine, in the execution of the scavagers’ work, is about two miles an hour. It must not be supposed, however, that two streets each a mile in length, could be swept in one hour; for to do this the vehicle would have to travel up and down those streets as many times as the streets are wider than the machine. The machines, sometimes two, sometimes three or four, follow alongside each other’s tracks in sweeping a street, so as to leave no part unswept. Thus, supposing a street half a mile long and nine yards wide, and that each machine swept a breadth of a yard, then three such machines, driven once up, and once again down, and once more up such a street, would cleanse it in three quarters of an hour. To do this by manual labour in the same or nearly the same time, would require the exertions of five men. Each machine has been computed to have mechanical power equal to the industry of five street-sweepers; and such, from the above computation, would appear to be the fact. I do not include the drivers in this enumeration, as of course the horse in the scavagers’ cart, and in the machine require alike the care of a man, and there is to each vehicle (whether mechanical or not) one hand (besides the carman) to sweep after the ordinary work. Hence every two men with the machine do the work of seven men by hand.

Having, then, ascertained the relative values of the two forces employed in cleansing the streets, let me now proceed to set forth what is “the economy of labour” resulting from the use of the sweeping machine. In the following table are given the number of men at present engaged by the machine company in the cleansing of those districts where the machine is in operation, as well as the annual amount of wages paid to the machine labourers; these facts are then collocated with the number of manual labourers that would be required to do the same work under the ordinary contract system (assuming every two labourers with the machine to do the work of seven labourers by hand), as well as the amount of wages that would be paid to such manual labourers; and finally, the number of men and amount of wages under the one system of street-cleansing is subtracted from the other, in order to arrive at the number of street-sweepers at present displaced by machine labour, and the annual loss in wages to the men so displaced; or, to speak economically, the last column represents the amount by which the Wage Fund of the street-sweepers is diminished by the employment of the machine.

TABLE SHOWING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF MEN AT PRESENT ENGAGED IN STREET-SWEEPING BY MACHINES, AND THE NUMBER THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO SWEEP THE SAME DISTRICTS BY HAND, TOGETHER WITH THE ANNUAL AMOUNT OF WAGES ACCRUING TO EACH.

+--------------------+----------------------------------+ | Machine Labour. | +----------------------------------+ | Number | Annual Wages | DISTRICTS. | of Men | received | | employed to | by Machine | | attend | Men, at 16s. | | Machines. | a Week. | +--------------------+------------------+---------------+ | | £ s. | St. Martin’s-in-the} | | | Fields } | 8 | 332 16 | | | | Regent-street and } | | | Pall-mall (see } | 12 | 499 4 | table, p. 214) } | | | | | | Other places, } | | | connected } | | | with Woods } | 4 | 166 8 | and Forests } | | | +--------------------+------------------+---------------+ Total | 24 | 998 8 | +--------------------+------------------+---------------+

+--------------------+----------------------------------+ | Manual Labour. | +----------------------------------+ | Number of | Annual | | men that | Wages that | DISTRICTS. | would be | would be | | required to | received by | | sweep the | Manual | | Streets by | Labourers, at | | Manual labour. | 15s. a Week. | +--------------------+------------------+---------------+ | | £ s. | St. Martin’s-in-the} | | | Fields } | 28 | 1092 0 | | | | Regent-street and } | | | Pall-mall (see } | 42 | 1638 0 | table, p. 214) } | | | | | | Other places, } | | | connected } | | | with Woods } | 14 | 546 0 | and Forests } | | | +--------------------+------------------+---------------+ Total | 84 | 3276 0 | +--------------------+------------------+---------------+

+--------------------+------------------+---------------+ | Difference. | +----------------------------------+ | Number | Annual Loss | DISTRICTS. | of | in Wages to | | Men displaced | Manual | | by Machine-work. | Labourers by | | | Machine-work. | +------------------+---------------+ | | £ s. | St. Martin’s-in-the} | | | Fields } | 20 | 759 4 | | | | Regent-street and } | | | Pall-mall (see } | 30 | 1138 16 | table, p. 214) } | | | | | | Other places, } | | | connected } | | | with Woods } | 10 | 379 12 | and Forests } | | | +--------------------+------------------+---------------+ Total | 60 | 2277 12 | +--------------------+------------------+---------------+

Hence, we perceive that no less than 60 street-sweepers are deprived of work by the street-sweeping machine, and that the gross Wage Fund of the men is diminished by the employment of mechanical labour no less than 2277_l._ per annum.

But let us suppose the street-sweeping machine to come into general use, and all the men who are at present employed by the contractors, both large and small, to sweep the street by hand to be superseded by it, what would be the result? how much money would the manual labourers be deprived of per annum, and how many self-supporting labourers would be pauperized thereby? The following table will show us: in the first compartment given below we have the number of manual labourers employed throughout London by the large and small contractors, and the amount of wages annually received by them[20]; in the second compartment is given the number of men that would be required to sweep the same districts by the machine, and the amount of wages that would be received by them at the present rate; and the third and last compartment shows the gross number of hands that would be displaced, and the annual loss that would accrue to the operatives by the substitution of mechanical for manual labour in the sweeping of the streets.

TABLE SHOWING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF CONTRACTORS’ MEN AT PRESENT EMPLOYED TO SWEEP THE STREETS BY HAND, AND THE NUMBER THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO SWEEP THE SAME DISTRICTS BY MACHINE WORK, TOGETHER WITH THE AMOUNT OF WAGES ACCRUING TO EACH.

----------------------+---------------------------------------- | Manual Labour. +--------------------+------------------- | Number of | Annual Wages | Men at present | received by | employed | Contractors’ | by Contractors | Men for | to sweep the | sweeping the | streets. | Streets, at 15_s._ | | a Week. ----------------------+--------------------+------------------- | | £ s. Districts at present} | | swept by large } | 262 | 10,218 0 contractors (see } | | table, p. 214) } | | | | Districts swept by } | 13 | 507 0 small contractors } | | ----------------------+--------------------+------------------- Total | 275 | 10,725 0 ----------------------+--------------------+-------------------

----------------------+---------------------------------------- | Machine Labour. +--------------------+------------------- | Number of | Annual Wages | Machine Men | that would be | that would be | received by | required to | Machine Men, | attend the | at 16_s._ a | Street-sweeping | Week. | Machines. | ----------------------+--------------------+------------------- | | £ s. Districts at present} | | swept by large } | 75 | 3120 0 contractors (see } | | table, p. 214) } | | | | Districts swept by } | 4 | 166 8 small contractors } | | ----------------------+--------------------+------------------- Total | 79 | 3286 8 ----------------------+--------------------+-------------------

----------------------+---------------------------------------- | Difference. +--------------------+------------------- | Number of | Annual Loss | Men that | that would | would be displaced | accrue to | by | Manual | Machine-work. | Labourers by | | Machine-work. ----------------------+--------------------+------------------- | | £ s. Districts at present} | | swept by large } | 187 | 7098 0 contractors (see } | | table, p. 214) } | | | | Districts swept by } | 9 | 340 12 small contractors } | | ----------------------+--------------------+-------------------- Total | 196 | 7438 12 ----------------------+--------------------+--------------------

Here we find that nearly 200 men would be pauperized, losing upwards of 7000_l._ per annum, if the street-sweeping machine came into general use throughout London. But, before the introduction of machines, the thoroughfares of St. Martin’s parish were swept only once a week in dry weather, and three times a week in sloppy weather, and since the introduction of the machines they have been swept daily; allowing, therefore, the extra cleansing to have arisen from the extra cheapness of the machine work--though it seems to have been the result of improved sanatory regulations, for in parts where the machine has not been used the same alteration has taken place--making such allowance, however, it may, perhaps, be fair to say, that the same increase of cleansing would take place throughout London; that is to say, that the streets would be swept by the machines, were they generally used, twice as often as they are at present by hand. At this rate 158 machine men, instead of 79 as above calculated, would be required for the work; so that, reckoning for the increased employment which might arise from the increased cheapness of the work, we see that, were the street-sweeping machines used throughout the metropolis, nearly 120 of the 275 manual labourers now employed at scavaging by the large and small contractors, would be thrown out of work, and deprived of no less a sum than 4680_l._ per annum.

This amount, of course, the parishes would pocket, minus the sum that it would cost them to keep the displaced scavagers as paupers, so that in this instance, at least, we perceive that, however great a benefit cheapness may be to the wealthy classes, to the poorer classes it is far from being of the same advantageous character; for, just as much as the rate-payers are the gainers in the matter of street-cleansing must the labourers be the losers--the economy of labour in a trade where there are too many labourers already, and where the quantity of work does not admit of indefinite increase, meaning simply the increase of pauperism[21].

The “labour question” as connected with the sweeping-machine work, requires but a brief detail, as it presents no new features. The majority of the machine men may be described as having been “general (unskilled) labourers” before they embarked in their present pursuits: labourers for builders, brick-makers, rubbish-carters, the docks, &c.

Among them there is but one who was brought up as a mechanic; the others have all been labourers, brick-makers, and what I heard called “barrow-workers” on railways, the latter being the most numerous.

Employment is obtained by application at the wharfs. There is nothing of the character of a trade society among the machine-men; nothing in the way of benefit or sick clubs, unless the men choose to enrol themselves in a general benefit society, of which I did not hear one instance.

The payment is by the week, and without drawback in the guise or disguise of fines, or similar inflictions for the use of tools, &c.; the payment, moreover, is always in money.

The only perquisite is in the case of anything being found in the streets; but the rule as to perquisites seems to be altogether an understanding among the men. The disposal of what may be picked up in the streets appears, moreover, to be very much in the discretion of the picker up. If anything be found in the contents of the vehicle, when emptied, it is the perquisite of the driver, who is also the unloader; he, however, is expected to treat the men “on the same beat” out of any such “treasure trove,” when the said treasure is considerable enough to justify such bounty. Odd sixpences, shillings, or copper coin, I was informed, were found almost every week, but I could ascertain no general average. One man, some time ago, found a purse inside the vehicle containing 20_s._, and “spent it out and out all on hisself,” in a carouse of three days. He lost his situation in consequence.

The number of men employed by the company in this trade is 24, and these perform all the work required in the driving and attendance upon the machines in the street, in loading the barges, grooming the horses, &c. There is, indeed, a twenty-fifth man, but he is a blacksmith, and his wages of 35_s._ weekly are included in the estimate as to wear and tear given below, for he shoes the horses and repairs the machines.

The rate of wages paid by the machine company is 16_s._ a week, so that the full amount of wages is paid to the men.

But though the company cannot be ranked among the grinders of the scavaging trade, they must be placed among “the drivers.”

I am assured, by those who are familiar with such labour, that the 24 men employed by the machine masters do the work of upwards of 30 in the honourable trade, with a corresponding saving to their employers, from an adherence to the main point of the scurf system, the overworking of the men without extra payment.

It has been before stated that, in dry weather, the roads require to be watered before being swept, so that the brushes may bite. In summer the machine-men sometimes commence this part of their business at three in the morning; and at the other periods of the year, sometimes at early morning, when moonlight. In summer the hours of labour in the streets are from three, four, five, or six in the morning, to half-past four in the afternoon; in winter, from light to light, and after street there may be yard and barge work.

The saving by this scurf system, then, is:--

30 men (honourable trade), 16_s._ weekly £1248 yearly. 24 men (scurf-trade) doing same work, 16_s._ weekly 998 „ ----- Saving to capitalist and loss to labourer £250 „

It now but remains to sum up the capital, income, and expenditure of the machine-scavaging trade.

The cost of a street-sweeping machine is 50_l._ to 60_l._, with an additional 5_l._ 5_s._ for the set of brooms. The wear and tear of these machines are very considerable. A man who had the care of one told me that when there was a heavy stress on it he had known the iron cogs of the inner wheels “go rattle, rattle, snap, snap,” until it became difficult to proceed with the work. The brooms, too, in hard work and “cloggy” weather, are apt to snap short, and in the regular course of wear have to be renewed every four or five weeks. The sets of brooms are of bass, worked strongly with copper wire. The whole apparatus can be unscrewed and taken to pieces, to be cleaned or repaired. The repairs, independently of the renewal of the brooms, have been calculated at 7_l._ yearly each machine. The capital invested, then, in twelve street-sweeping machines, in the horses, and what may be considered the appurtenances of the trade, together with the yearly expenditure, may be thus calculated:--

CAPITAL OF STREET-SWEEPING MACHINE TRADE.

12 machines, 60_l._ each £720 12 sets of brooms, 5_l._ 5_s._ each set 63 19 horses, 25_l._ each 475 4 water-carts, 20_l._ each 80 19 sets of harness (new), 7_l._ each set 133 4 barges, 50_l._ each 200 ----- £1671

YEARLY EXPENDITURE.

24 men, 16_s._ weekly £998 120 sets of brooms for 12 machines, 4_l._ per set 480 Wear and tear, &c. (15 per cent.) 255 Keep of 19 horses, 10_s._ each weekly 494 Rent (say) 150 Clerk (say) 100 Interest on capital, at 10 per cent. 170 ----- £2674

In this calculation I have included wear and tear of the whole of the implements of the stock-in-trade, &c., taking that of the brooms on the most moderate estimate. According to the scale of payment by the parish of St. Martin (which is now 1000_l._ per annum) the probable receipts of a single year will be:--

YEARLY RECEIPTS.

£ s. d. For hire of 12 machines 2500 0 0 200 barge-loads of manure, 5_l._ 15_s._ per barge 1150 10 0 --------------- 3650 10 0 Yearly expenditure 2674 0 0 --------------- Profit 976 10 0

OF THE CLEANSING OF THE STREETS BY PAUPER LABOUR.

Under the head of the several modes and characteristics of street-cleansing, I stated at p. 207 of the present volume that there were no less than four distinct kinds of labourers employed in the scavaging of the public thoroughfares of the metropolis. These were:--

1. The self-supporting manual labourers. 2. The self-supporting machine labourers. 3. The pauper labourers. 4. The “philanthropic” labourers.

I have already set forth the distinguishing features of the first two of these different orders of workmen in connection with the scavaging trade, and now proceed in due order to treat of the characteristics of the third.

The subject of pauper labour generally is one of the most difficult topics that the social philosopher can deal with. It is not possible, however, to do more here than draw attention to the salient points of the question. The more comprehensive consideration of the matter must be reserved till such time as I come to treat of the poor specially under the head of those that cannot work.

By the 43 Eliz., which is generally regarded as the basis of the existing poor laws in this country, it was ordained that in every parish a fund should be raised by local taxation, not merely for the relief of the aged and infirm, but for setting to work all persons having no means to maintain themselves, and using no ordinary or daily trade of life to get their living by.

It was, however, soon discovered that it was one thing to pass an act for setting able-bodied paupers to work, and another thing to do so. “In every place,” as Mr. Thornton truly says in his excellent treatise on “Over Population,” “there is only a certain amount of work to be done,” (limited by the extent of the market) “and only a certain amount of capital to pay for it; and, if the number of workmen be more than proportionate to the work, employment can only be given to those who want it by taking from those who have.”

Let me illustrate this by the circumstances of the scavaging trade. There are 1760 miles of streets throughout London, and these would seem to require about 600 scavagers to cleanse them. It is self-evident, therefore, that if 400 paupers be “set” to sweep particular districts, the same number of self-supporting labourers must be deprived of employment, and if these cannot obtain work elsewhere, they of course must become paupers too, and, seeking relief, be put upon the same kind of work as they were originally deprived of, and that only to displace and pauperize in their turn a similar number of independent operatives.

The work of a country then being limited (by the capital and market for the produce), there can be but two modes of setting paupers to labour: (1) by throwing the self-supporting operatives out of employment altogether, and substituting pauper labourers in their stead; (2) by giving a portion of the work to the paupers, and so decreasing the employment, and consequently the wages, of the regular operatives. In either case, however, the independent labourers must be reduced to a state of comparative or positive dependence, for it is impossible to make labourers of the paupers of an over-populated country without making paupers of the labourers.

Some economists argue that, as paupers are consumers, they should, whenever they are able to work, be made producers also, or otherwise they exhaust the national wealth, to which they do not contribute. This might be a sound axiom were there work sufficient for all. But in an over-populated country there is not work enough, as is proven by the mere fact of the over-population; and the able-bodied paupers are paupers simply because they cannot obtain work, so that to employ those who are out of work is to throw out those who are in work, and thus to pauperize the self-supporting.

The whole matter seems to hinge upon this one question--

Who are to maintain the paupers? The ratepaying traders or the non-ratepaying workmen?

If the paupers be set to work in a country like Great Britain, they must necessarily be brought into competition with the self-supporting workmen, and so be made to share the wage fund with them, decreasing the price of labour in proportion to the extra number of such pauper labourers among whom the capital of the trade has to be shared. Hence the burden of maintaining the paupers will be virtually shifted from the capitalist to the labourer, the poor-rate being thus really paid out of the wages of the operatives, instead of the profits of the traders, as it should be.

And here lies the great wrong of pauper labour. It saddles the poor with the maintenance of their poorer brethren, while the rich not only contribute nothing to their support, but are made still richer by the increased cheapness resulting from the depreciation of labour and their consequent ability to obtain a greater quantity of commodities for the same amount of money.

In illustration of this argument let us say the wages of 600 independent scavagers amount, at 15_s._ a week each the year through, to 23,400_l._ per annum; and let us say, moreover, that the keep of 400 paupers amounts, at 5_s._ a week each, to, altogether, 5200_l._; hence the total annual expense to the several metropolitan parishes for cleansing the streets and maintaining 400 paupers would be 23,400_l._ + 5200_l._ = 28,600_l._

If, however, the 400 paupers be set to scavaging work, and made to do something for their keep, one of two things must follow: (1) either the 400 extra hands will receive their share of the 23,400_l._ devoted to the payment of the operative scavagers, in which case the wages of each of the regular hands will be reduced from 15_s._ to 9_s._ a week; hence the maintenance of the paupers will be saddled upon the 600 independent operatives, who will lose no less than 9360_l._ per annum, while the ratepayers will be saved the maintenance of the 400 paupers and so gain 5200_l._ per annum by the change; (2) or else 400 of the self-supporting operatives must be thrown out of work, in which case the displaced labourers will lose no less than 15,600_l._, while the ratepayers will gain upwards of 5000_l._

The reader is now, I believe, in a position to comprehend the wrong done to the self-supporting scavagers by the employment of pauper labour in the cleansing of the streets.

The preparation of the material of the roads of a parish seems, as far as the metropolis is concerned, at one time to have supplied the chief “test,” to which parishes have resorted, as regards the willingness to labour on the part of the able-bodied applicants for relief. When the casual wards of the workhouses were open for the reception of all vagrants who sought a night’s shelter, each tramper was required to break so many stones in the morning before receiving a certain allowance of bread, soup, or what not for his breakfast; and he then might be received again into the shelter of this casual asylum. In some parishes the wards were open without the test of stone-breaking, and there was a crowded resort to them, especially during the prevalence of the famine in Ireland and the immigration of the Irish peasants to England. The favourite resort of the vagrants was Marylebone workhouse, and Irish immigrants very frequently presented slips of paper on which some tramper whom they had met with on their way had written “Marylebone workhouse,” as the best place at which they could apply, and these the simple Irish offered as passports for admission!

Gradually, the asylum of these wards, with or without labour tests, was discontinued, and in one where the labour test used to be strongly insisted upon--in St. Pancras--a school for pauper children has been erected on the site of the stone-yard.

This labour test was unequal when applied to all comers; for what was easy work to an agricultural labourer, a railway excavator, a quarryman, or to any one used to wield a hammer, was painful and blistering to a starving tailor. Nor was the test enforced by the overseers or regarded by the paupers as a proof of willingness to work, but simply as a punishment for poverty, and as a means of deterring the needy from applying for relief. To make labour a punishment, however, is not to destroy, but really to confirm, idle habits; it is to give a deeper root to the vagrant’s settled aversion to work. “Well, I always thought it was unpleasant,” the vagabond will say to himself “that working for one’s bread, and now I’m convinced of it!” Again, in many of the workhouses the labour to which the paupers were set was of a manifestly unremunerative character, being work for mere work’s sake; and to apply people to unproductive labour is to destroy all the ordinary motives to toil--to take away the only stimulus to industry, and remove the very will to work which the labour test was supposed to discover[22].

The labour test, then, or setting the poor to work as a proof of their willingness to labour, appears to be as foolish as it is vicious; the objections to it being--(1) the inequality of the test applied to different kinds of work-people; (2) the tendency of it to confirm rather than weaken idle habits by making labour inordinately repulsive; (3) the removal of the ordinary stimulus to industry by the unproductiveness of the work to which the poor are generally applied.

And now, having dealt with the subject of parish labour as a test of the willingness to work on the part of the applicants for relief, I will proceed to deal with that portion of the work itself which is connected with the cleansing of the streets.

And first as to the employment of paupers at all in the streets. If pauperism be a disgrace, then it is unjust to turn a man into the public thoroughfares, wearing the badge of beggary, to be pointed at and scorned for his poverty, especially when we are growing so particularly studious of our criminals that we make them wear masks to prevent even their faces being seen[23]. Nor is it consistent with the principles of an enlightened national morality that we should force a body of honest men to labour upon the highways, branded with a degrading garb, like convicts. Neither is it wise to do so, for the shame of poverty soon becomes deadened by the repeated exposure to public scorn; and thus the occasional recipient of parish relief is ultimately converted into the hardened and habitual pauper. “Once a pauper always a pauper,” I was assured was the parish rule; and here lies the rationale of the fact. Not long ago this system of employing badged paupers to labour in the public thoroughfares was carried to a much more offensive extent than it is even at present. At one time the pauper labourers of a certain parish had the attention of every passer-by attracted to them while at their work, for on the back of each man’s garb--a sort of smock-frock--was marked, with sufficient prominence, “CLERKENWELL. STOP IT!” This public intimation that the labourers were not only paupers, but regarded as thieves, and expected to purloin the parish dress they wore, attracted public attention, and was severely commented upon at a meeting. The “STOP IT!” therefore was cancelled, and the frocks are now merely lettered “CLERKENWELL.” Before the alteration the men very generally wore the garment inside out.

The present dress of the parish scavagers is usually a loose smock-frock, costing 1_s._ 6_d._ to 2_s._, and a glazed hat of about the same price. In some cases, however, the men may wear these things or not, at their option.

The pauper scavagers employed by the several metropolitan parishes may be divided into three classes:--

1. The in-door paupers, who receive no wages whatever (their lodging, food, and clothing being considered to be sufficient remuneration for their labour).

2. The out-door paupers, who are paid partly in money and partly in kind, and employed in some cases three days and in others six days in the week.

These may be subdivided into--(a) the single men, who receive, or rather used to receive, 9_d._ and a quartern loaf for each of the three or more days they were so employed; (b) the married men with families, who receive 7_s._ and 3 quartern loaves a week to 1_s._ 1-1/2_d._ and 1 quartern loaf for each day’s labour.

3. The unemployed labourers of the district, who are set to scavaging work by the parish, and paid a regular money wage--the employment being constant, and the rate of remuneration ranging from 1_s._ 3_d._ to 2_s._ 6_d._ a day for each of the six days, or from 7_s._ 6_d._ to 15_s._ a week.

In pp. 246, 247, I give a table of the wages paid by each of the metropolitan parishes. This has been collected at great trouble in order to arrive at the truth on this most important matter, and for which purpose the several parishes have been personally visited. It will be seen on reference to this document, that there is only one parish at present that employs its in-door paupers in the scavaging of the public streets; and 3 parishes employing 48 out-door paupers, who are paid partly in money and partly in bread; the money remuneration ranging from 1_s._ 1-1/2_d._ a day (paid by Clerkenwell) to 7_s._ a week (paid by Chelsea), and moreover 31 parishes employing 408 applicants for relief (paupers they cannot be called), and paying them wholly in money, the remuneration ranging from 15_s._ per week to 7_s._ 6_d._ (paid by the Liberty of the Rolls), and the employment from 6 to 3 days weekly. As a general rule it was found that the greatest complaints were made by the authorities as to the idleness of the poor, and by the poor as to the tyranny of the authorities, in those parishes where the remuneration was the least. In St. Luke’s, Chelsea, for instance, where the remuneration is but 7_s._ a week and three loaves, the criminations and recriminations by the parish functionaries and the paupers were almost equally harsh and bitter. I should, however, observe that the men employed in this parish spoke in terms of great commendation of Mr. Pattison the surveyor, saying he always gave them to understand that they were free labourers, and invariably treated them as such. The men at work for Bermondsey parish also spoke very highly of their superintendent, who, it seems, has interested himself to obtain for them a foul-weather coat. Some of the highway boards or trusts take all the pauper labourers sent them by the parish, while others give employment only to such as please them. These boards generally pay good wages, and are in favour with the men.

The mode of working, as regards the use of the implements and the manual labour, is generally the same among the pauper scavagers as I have described in connection with the scavagers generally.

The consideration of what is the rate of parish pay to the poor who are employed as scavagers, is complicated by the different modes in which the employment is carried out, for, as we see, there is--1st, the scavaging labour, by workhouse inmates, without any payment beyond the cost of maintenance and clothing; 2nd, the “short” or three-days-a-week labour, with or without “relief” in the bestowal of bread; and 3rd, the six days’ work weekly, with a money wage and no bread, nor anything in the form of payment in kind or of “relief.”

Let me begin with the first system of labour above mentioned, viz. the employment of the in-door paupers without wages of any kind, their food, lodging, and clothing being considered as equivalents for their work. The principal evil in connection with this form of parish work is its compulsory character, the men regarding it not as so much work given in exchange for such and such comforts, but as something exacted from them; and, to tell the truth, it is precisely the counterpart of slavery, being equally deficient in all inducement to toil, and consequently requiring almost the same system of compulsion and supervision in order to keep the men at their labour. All interest in the work is destroyed, there being no reward connected with it; and consequently the same organized system of setting to work is required as with cattle. There are but two inducements to voluntary action--pain to be avoided or pleasure to be derived--or, in other words, the attractiveness and repulsiveness of objects. Take away the pecuniary attraction of labour, and men become mere beasts of burden, capable of being set to work only by the dread of some punishment; hence the system of parish labour, which has no reward directly connected with it, must necessarily be tyrannical, and so tend to induce idleness and a hatred of work altogether.

Of the different forms of pauper work, street-sweeping is, I am inclined to believe, the most unpopular of all among the poor. The scavaging is generally done in the workhouse dress, and that to all, except the hardened paupers, and sometimes even to them, is highly distasteful. Neither have such labourers, as I have said, the incentive of that hope of the reward which, however diminutive, still tends to sweeten the most repulsive labour. I am informed by an experienced gangsman under a contractor, that it is notorious that the workhouse hands are the least industrious scavagers in the streets. “They don’t sweep as well,” he said, “and don’t go about it like regular men; they take it quite easy.” It is often asserted that this labour of the workhouse men is applied as a test; but this opinion seems rather to bear on the past than the present.

One man thus employed gave me the following account. He was garrulous but not communicative, as is frequently the case with men who love to hear themselves talk, and are not very often able to command listeners. He was healthy looking enough, but he told me he was, or had been “delicate.” He querulously objected to be questioned about his youth, or the reason of his being a pauper, but seemed to be abounding in workhouse stories and workhouse grievances.

“Street-sweeping,” he said, “degrades a man, and if a man’s poor he hasn’t no call to be degraded. Why can’t they set the thieves and pickpockets to sweep? they could be watched easy enough; there’s always idle fellers as reckons theirselves real gents, as can be got for watching and sitch easy jobs, for they gets as much for them, as three men’s paid for hard work in a week. I never was in a prison, but I’ve heerd that people there is better fed and better cared for than in workusses. What’s the meaning of that, sir, I’d like for to know? You can’t tell me, but I can tell you. The workus is made as ugly as it can be, that poor people may be got to leave it, and chance dying in the street rather.” [Here the man indulged in a gabbled detail of a series of pauper grievances which I had a difficulty in diverting or interrupting. On my asking if the other paupers had the same opinion as to street-sweeping as he had, he replied:--] “To be sure they has; all them that has sense to have a ’pinion at all has; there’s not two sides to it any how. No, I don’t want to be kept and do nothink. I want proper work. And by the rights of it I might as well be kept with nothink to do as ---- or ----” [parish officials]. “Have they nothing to do,” I asked? “Nothink, but to make mischief and get what ought to go to the poor. It’s salaries and such like as swallers the rates, and that’s what every poor family knows as knows anythink. Did I ever like my work better? Certainly not. Do I take any pains with it? Well, where would be the good? I can sweep well enough, when I please, but if I could do more than the best man as ever Mr. Darke paid a pound a week to, it wouldn’t be a bit better for me--not a bit, sir, I assure you. We all takes it easy whenever we can, but the work must be done. The only good about it is that you get outside the house. It’s a change that way certainly. But we work like horses and is treated like asses.” [On my reminding him that he had just told me that they all took it easy when they could, and that rather often, he replied:] “Well, don’t horses? But it ain’t much use talking, sir. It’s only them as has been in workusses and in parish work as can understand all the ins and outs of it.”

In giving the above and the following statements I have endeavoured to elicit the feelings of the several paupers whom I conversed with. Poor, ignorant, or prejudiced men may easily be mistaken in their opinions, or in what they may consider their “facts,” but if a clear exposition of their sentiments be obtained, it is a guide to the truth. I have, therefore, given the statement of the in-door pauper’s opinions, querulously as they were delivered, as I believe them to be the sentiments of those of his class who, as he said, had any opinion at all.

It seems indeed, from all I could learn on the subject, that pauper street-work, even at the best, is unwilling and slovenly work, pauper workmen being the worst of all workmen. If the streets be swept clean, it is because a dozen paupers are put to the labour of eight, nine, or ten regular scavagers who are independent labourers, and who may have some “pride of art,” or some desire to show their employers that they are to be depended upon. This feeling does not actuate the pauper workman, who thinks or knows that if he did evince a desire and a perseverance to please, it would avail him little beyond the sneers and ill-will of his mates; so that, even with a disposition to acquire the good opinion of the authorities, there is this obstacle in his way, and to most men who move in a circumscribed sphere it is a serious obstacle.

Of the second mode of pauper scavaging, viz., that performed by out-door paupers, and paid for partly in money and partly in kind, I heard from officials connected with pauper management very strong condemnations, as being full of mischievous and degrading tendencies. The payment to the out-door pauper scavager averages, as I have stated, 9_d._ a day to a single man, with, perhaps, a quartern loaf; and this, in some cases, is for only three days in the week; while to a married man with a family, it varies between 1_s._ 1-1/2_d._ and 1_s._ 2_d._ a day, with a quartern, and sometimes two quartern loaves; and this, likewise, is occasionally from three to six days in the week. On this the single or family men must subsist, if they have no other means of earning an addition. The men thus employed are certainly not independent labourers, nor are they, in the full sense of the word as popularly understood, paupers; for their means of subsistence are partly the fruits of their toil; and although they are wretchedly dependent, they seem to feel that they have a sort of right to be set to work, as the law ordains such modicum of relief, in or out of the workhouse, as will only ward off death through hunger. This “three-days-a-week work” is by the poor or pauper labourers looked upon as being, after the in-door pauper work, the worst sort of employment.

[24] TABLE SHOWING THE NUMBER OF MEN EMPLOYED BY THE METROPOLITAN PARISHES AND HIGHWAY BOARDS IN SCAVAGING, AS WELL AS THE NUMBER OF HOURS PER DAY AND NUMBER OF DAYS PER WEEK, TOGETHER WITH THE AMOUNT OF WAGES ACCRUING TO EACH, AND THE TOTAL ANNUAL WAGES OF THE WHOLE.

-----------------------------------------+------------+------------+---------------+------------+-------------------------- | No. of | Number of | | | | married men| single men | Number of | Number of | Daily or weekly | employed | employed |Superintendents| Foremen | wages of the PARISHES. | by parishes| by parishes| employed | or Gangers | married | daily in | daily in | by parishes. | employed | parish-men. | scavaging | scavaging | |by parishes.| |the streets.|the streets.| | | -----------------------------------------+------------+------------+---------------+------------+-------------------------- Paid in Money (by Parishes). | | | | | s. Greenwich | 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 15 | | | | | Walworth }| 12 | 8 | | 3 | 15 Newington }| | | | | Lambeth | 30 | | 1 | 5 | 15 Poplar | 20 | | | 4 | 15 St. Ann’s, Soho | 4 | 1 | | | 15 Rotherhithe | 4 | | | 1 | 14 Wandsworth | 6 | | | 1 | 12 Hackney | 12 | 4 | | 4 | 12 St. Mary’s, Paddington | 8 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 12 St. Giles’s, and St. George’s, Bloomsbury| 20 | 4 | | 4 | 12 St. Pancras (South-west Division) | 10 | | 2 | | 12 St. Clement Danes | 6 | 2 | | 1 | 11 St. Paul’s, Covent-garden | 2 | 5 | | 1 | 11 St. James’s, Westminster | 6 | | | 1 | 10 Ditto | 6 | | | 1 | 10 Ditto | 6 | | | 1 | 9 St. Andrew’s, Holborn | 10 | | 1 | 1 | 9 Marylebone | 80 | 15 | 1 | 10 | 9 St. George’s, Hanover-square | 30 | 6 | 1 | 4 | 9_s._ a week. Liberty of the Rolls | 1 | | | | 7s. 6d. Bermondsey | 13 | 1 | 1 | | 1_s._ 4_d._ per day. Paid in Money (by Highway Boards). | | | | | St. James’s, Clerkenwell (1st Division) | 5 | | | | 15 Islington | 7 | 1 | | 1 | 15 Commercial Road East | 4 | 1 | 1 | | 15 Hampstead | 4 | | | 1 | 15 Highgate | 3 | 2 | | 1 | 14 Kensington | 6 | 1 | | 1 | 12 Lewisham | 4 | | | 1 | 12 Camberwell | 10 | | | 1 | 12 Christchurch, Lambeth | 6 | | | 1 | 12 Woolwich | 5 | | | 1 | 12 Deptford | 4 | | | 1 | 9 Paid partly in kind. | | | | | St. Luke’s, Chelsea | 27 | 9 | | 3 | 7_s._, and on an average | | | | | 3 loaves each, | | | | | at 4d. a loaf. Hans-town „ | 6 | | | 1 | 7_s._, and average 3 | | | | | loaves per head. St. James’s, Clerkenwell | 6 | | | |1_s._ 1-1/2_d._ a day, and | | | | | 1 quartern loaf. Paid wholly in kind. | | | | | St. Pancras (Highways) | | 10 | 1 | | estimated expense | | | | | of food, 2_s._ 4_d._ | | | | | weekly. -----------------------------------------+------------+------------+---------------+------------+-------------------------- Total | 400 | 66 | 8 | 62 | -----------------------------------------+------------+------------+---------------+------------+--------------------------

--------------------+--------------------+-------------+------------+------------+----------------- | | | Number of | Number of | Total annual Daily or weekly | Weekly wages | Weekly wages| hours per | days in the| wages of wages of the | of the |of Foremen or| day each | week each | the whole, single | Superintendents | Gangers | parish-man | parish-man | including the parish-men. | employed by | employed by | is employed| is employed| estimated | parishes. | parishes. |to sweep the| in sweeping| value of food | | | streets. |the streets.| and clothes. --------------------+--------------------+-------------+------------|------------+----------------- s. | s. | s. | | | £. s. d. 15 | 30_s._ and a house | 18 | 10 | 6 | 456 16 0 | to live in. | | | | 14 | | 18 | 12 | 6 | 899 12 0 | | | | | | 20 | 18 | 10 | 6 | 1456 0 0 | | 18 | 10 | 6 | 967 4 0 15 | | | 12 | 6 | 195 0 0 | | 16 | 10 | 6 | 187 4 0 | | 18 | 10 | 6 | 234 0 0 10 | | 18 | 10 | 6 | 665 12 0 10 | 20 | 15 | 12 | 6 | 509 12 0 12 | | 18 | 12 | 6 | 936 0 0 | | 18 | 12 | 6 | 93 12 0 11 | | 15 | 10 | 6 | 267 16 0 11 | | 13 | 12 | 6 | 234 0 0 | | 12 | 10 | 6 | 187 4 0 | | 12 | 10 | 6 | 187 4 0 | | 12 | 10 | 6 | 166 12 0 | 15 | 12 | 10 | 6 | 304 4 0 9 | 18 | 16 | 10 | 6 | 2685 16 0 9_s._ a week. | 20 | 16 | 10 | 6 | 1060 16 0 | | | 10 | 6 | 19 10 0 1_s._ 4_d._ per day.|28_s._ and clothing.| | 10 | 5 | 321 3 4 | | | | | | | | 10 | 6 | 195 0 0 15 | | 18 | 10 | 6 | 405 0 0 15 | 100_l._ a year. | | 12 | 6 | 295 0 0 | | 18 | 10 | 6 | 202 10 0 14 | | 18 | 10 | 6 | 228 16 0 12 | | 18 | 12 | 6 | 265 4 0 | | 18 | 10 | 6 | 171 12 0 | | 18 | 12 | 6 | 358 16 0 | | 15 | 10 | 6 | 226 4 0 | | 18 | 10 | 6 | 202 16 0 | | 18 | 10 | 3 | 140 8 0 | | | | | 7 | | 14 | 10 | 6 | 834 12 0 | | | | | | | | | | | | 14 | 10 | 6 | 161 4 0 | | | | | | | | 10 | 3 | 70 4 0 | | | | | | | | | | | 21_s._ and food. | | 8 | 4 | 128 5 4 | | | | | | | | | | --------------------+--------------------+-------------+------------+------------+----------------- | | | | |15,919 8 8 --------------------+--------------------+-------------|------------+------------+-----------------

From a married man employed by the parish under this mode, I had the following account.

He was an intelligent-looking man, of about 35, but with nothing very particular in his appearance unless it were a head of very curly hair. He gave me the statement in his own room, which was larger than I have usually found such abodes, and would have been very bare, but that it was somewhat littered with the vessels of his trade as a street-seller of Nectar, Persian Sherbet, Raspberryade, and other decoctions of coloured ginger-beer, with high-sounding names and indifferent flavour: in the summer he said he could live better thereby, with a little costering, than by street-sweeping, but being often a sickly man he could not do so during the uncertainties of a winter street trade. His wife, a decent looking woman, was present occasionally, suckling one child, about two years old--for the poor often protract the weaning of their children, as the mother’s nutriment is the cheapest of all food for the infant, and as the means of postponing the further increase of their family--whilst another of five or six years of age sat on a bench by her side. There was nothing on the walls in the way of an ornament, as I have seen in some of the rooms of the poor, for the couple had once been in the workhouse, and might be driven there again, and with such apprehensions did not care, perhaps, to make a home otherwise than they found it, even if the consumption of only a little spare time were involved.

The husband said:--

“I was brought up as a type-founder; my father, who was one, learnt me his trade; but he died when I was quite a young man, or I might have been better perfected in it. I was comfortably off enough then, and got married. Very soon after that I was taken ill with an abscess in my neck, you can see the mark of it still.” [He showed me the mark.] “For six months I wasn’t able to do a thing, and I was a part of the time, I don’t recollect how long, in St. Bartholomew’s Hospital. I was weak and ill when I came out, and hardly fit for work; I couldn’t hear of any work I could get, for there was a great bother in the trade between master and men. Before I went into the hospital, there was money to pay to doctors; and when I came out I could earn nothing, so everything went, yes, sir, everything. My wife made a little matter with charing for families she’d lived in, but things are in a bad way if a poor woman has to keep her husband. She was taken ill at last, and then there was nothing but the parish for us. I suffered a great deal before it come to that. It was awful. No one can know what it is but them that suffers it. But I didn’t know what in the world to do. We lived then in St. Luke’s, and were passed to our own parish, and were three months in the workhouse. The living was good enough, better then than it is now, I’ve heard, but I was miserable.” [“And I was very miserable,” interposed the wife, “for I had been brought up comfortable; my father was a respectable tradesman in St. George’s-in-the-East, and I had been in good situations.”] “We made ourselves,” said the husband, “as useful as we could, but we were parted of course. At the three months’ end, I had 10_s._ given to me to come out with, and was told I might start costermongering on it. But to a man not up to the trade, 10_s._ won’t go very far to keep up costering. I didn’t feel master enough of my own trade by this time to try for work at it, and work wasn’t at all regular. There were good hands earning only 12_s._ a week. The 10_s._ soon went, and I had again to apply for relief, and got an order for the stone-yard to go and break stones. Ten bushels was to be broken for 15_d._ It was dreadful hard work at first. My hands got all blistered and bloody, and I’ve gone home and cried with pain and wretchedness. At first it was on to three days before I could break the ten bushels. I felt shivered to bits all over my arms and shoulders, and my head was splitting. I then got to do it in two days, and then in one, and it grew easier. But all this time I had only what was reckoned three days’ work in a week. That is, you see, sir, I had only three times ten bushels of stones given to break in the week, and earned only 3_s._ 9_d._ Yes, I lived on it, and paid 1_s._ 6_d._ a week rent, for the neighbours took care of a few sticks for us, and the parish or a broker wouldn’t have found them worth carriage. My wife was then in the country with a sister. I lived upon bread and dripping, went without fire or candle (or had one only very seldom) though it wasn’t warm weather. I can safely say that for eight weeks I never tasted one bite of meat, and hardly a bite of butter. When I couldn’t sleep of a night, but that wasn’t often, it was terrible, very. I washed what bits of things I had then myself, and had sometimes to get a ha’porth of soap as a favour, as the chandler said she ‘didn’t make less than a penn’orth.’ If I eat too much dripping, it made me feel sick. I hardly know how much bread and dripping I eat in a week. I spent what money I had in it and bread, and sometimes went without. I was very weak, you may be sure, sir; and if I’d had the influenza or anything that way, I should have gone off like a shot, for I seemed to have no constitution left. But my wife came back again and got work at charing, and made about 4_s._ a week at it; but we were still very badly off. Then I got to work on the roads every day, and had 1_s._ and a quartern loaf a day, which was a rise. I had only one child then, but men with larger families got two quartern loaves a day. Single men got 9_d._ a day. It was far easier work than stone-breaking too. The hours were from eight to five in winter, and from seven to six in summer. But there’s always changes going on, and we were put on 1_s._ 1-1/2_d._ a day and a quartern loaf, and only three days a week. All the same as to time of course. The bread wasn’t good; it was only cheap. I suppose there was 20 of us working most of the times as I was. The gangsman, as you call him, but that’s more for the regular hands, was a servant of the parish, and a great tyrant. Yes, indeed, when we had a talk among ourselves, there was nothing but grumbling heard of. Some of the tales I’ve heard were shocking; worse than what I’ve gone through. Everybody was grumbling, except perhaps two men that had been 20 years in the streets, and were like born paupers. They didn’t feel it, for there’s a great difference in men. They knew no better. But anybody might have been frightened to hear some of the men talk and curse. We’ve stopped work to abuse the parish officers as might be passing. We’ve mobbed the overseers, and a number of us, I was one, were taken before the magistrate for it; but we told him how badly we were off, and he discharged us, and gave us orders into the workhouse, and told ’em to see if nothing could be done for us. We were there till next morning, and then sent away without anything being said.

“It’s a sad life, sir, is a parish worker’s. I wish to God I could get out of it. But when a man has children he can’t stop and say ‘I can’t do this,’ and ‘I won’t do that.’ Last week, now, in costering, I lost 6_s._” [he meant that his expenses, of every kind, exceeded his receipts by 6_s._], “and though I can distil nectar, or anything that way” [this was said somewhat laughingly], “it’s only when the weather’s hot and fine that any good at all can be done with it. I think, too, that there’s not the money among working men that there once was. Anything regular in the way of pay must always be looked at by a man with a family.

“Of course the streets must be properly swept, and if I can sweep them as well as Mr. Dodd’s men, for I know one of them very well, why should I have only 3_s._ 4-1/2_d._ a week and three loaves, and he have 16_s._, I think it is? I don’t drink, my wife knows I don’t” [the wife assented], “and it seems as if in a parish a man must be kept down when he is down, and then blamed for it. I may not understand all about it, but it looks queer.”

From an unmarried man, looking like a mere boy in the face, although he assured me he was nearly 24, as far as he knew, I heard an account of his labour and its fruits as a parish scavager; also of his former career, which partakes greatly in its characteristics of the narratives I gave, toward the close of the first volume, of deserted, neglected, and runaway children.

He lived from his earliest recollection with an old woman whom he first called “grandmother,” and was then bid to call “aunt,” and she, some of the neighbours told him, had “kept him out of his rights,” for she had 4_s._ a week with him, so that there ought to have been money coming to him when he grew up. I have sometimes heard similar statements from the ignorant poor, for it is agreeable enough to them to fancy that they have been wronged out of fortunes to which they were justly entitled, and deprived of the position and consequence in life which they ought to have possessed “by rights.” In the course of my inquiries among the poor women who supply the slop milliners’ shops with widows’ caps, cap fronts, women’s collars, &c., &c., I was told by one middle-aged cap-maker, a very silly person, that she would be worth 100,000_l._, “if she had her rights.” What those “rights” were she could not explain, only that there was and had been a great deal of money in the family, and of course she had a right to her share, only she was kept out of it.

The youth in question never heard of a father, and had been informed that his mother had died when he was a baby. From what he told me, I think it most probable that he was an illegitimate child, for whose maintenance his father possibly paid the 4_s._ a week, perhaps to some near relative of the deceased mother. The old woman, as well as I could make the matter out from his narrative, died suddenly, and, as little was known about her, she was buried by the parish, and the lad, on the evening of the funeral, was to have been taken by the landlord of the house where they lodged into the workhouse; but the boy ran away before this could be accomplished; the parish of course not objecting to be relieved of an incumbrance. He thought he was then about twelve or thirteen years of age, and he had before run away from two schools, one a Ragged-school, to which he had been sent, “for it was so confining,” he said, “and one master, not he as had the raggeds, leathered him,” to use his own words, “tightly.” He knew his letters now, he thought, but that was all, “and very few,” he said, gravely, “would have put up with it so long as I did.” He subsisted as well as he could by selling matches, penny memorandum books, onions, &c., after he had run away, sleeping under hedges in the country, or in lodging-houses in town, and living on a few pence a day, or “starving on nothink.” He was taken ill, and believed it was of a fever, at or somewhere about Portsmouth, and when he was sufficiently recovered, and had given the best account he could of himself, was passed to his parish in London. The relieving officer, he said, would have given him a pair of shoes and half-a-crown, and let him “take his chance, but the doctor wouldn’t sartify any ways.” He meant, I think, that the medical officer found him too ill to be at large on his own account. He discharged himself, however, in a few weeks from this parish workhouse, as he was convalescent. “The grub there, you see, sir,” he said, “was stunning good when I first went, but it fell off.” As the probability is that there was no change in the diet, it may not be unfair to conclude that the regular meals of the establishment were very relishable at first, and that afterwards their very regularity and their little variation made the recipient critical.

“When I left, sir,” he stated, “they guv me 2_s._ 6_d._, and a tidy shirt, and a pair of blucherers, and mended up my togs for me decent. I tried all sorts of goes then. I went to Chalk-farm and some other fairs with sticks for throwing, and used to jump among them as throwing was going on, and to sing out, ‘break my legs and miss my pegs.’ I got many a knock, and when I did, oh! there was such larfing at the fun on it. I sold garden sticks too, and garden ropes, and posts sometimes; but it was all wery poor pay. Sometimes I made 10_d._, but not never I think but twice 1_s._ a day at it, and oftener 6_d._, and in bad weather there was nothink to be done. If I made 6_d._ clear, it was 1_d._ for cawfee--for I often went out fasting in a morning--and 1_d._ for bread and butter, and 1_d._ for pudden for dinner, and another 1_d._ perhaps for beer--half-pint and a farden out at the public bar--and 2_d._ for a night’s lodging. I’ve had sometimes to leave half my stock in flue with a deputy for a night’s rest. O, I didn’t much mind the bugs, so I could rest; and next day had to take my things out if I could, and pay a hexter ha’penny or penny, for hintrest, like. Yes, I’ve made 18_d._ a hevening at a fair; but there’s so many a going it there that one ruins another, and wet weather ruins the whole biling, the pawillion, theaytres and all. I never was a hactor, never; but I’ve thought sometimes I’d like to try my hand at it. I may some day, ’cause I’m tall. I was forced to go to the parish again, for I got ill and dreadful weak, and then they guv me work on the roads. I can’t just say how long it’s since, two or three year perhaps, but I had 9_d._ a day at first, and reglar work, and then three days and three loaves a week, and then three days and no loaves. I haven’t been at it werry lately. I’ve rayther taken the summer out of myself, but I must go back soon, for cold weather’s a coming. Vy, I lived a good deal on carrying trunks from the busses to Euston Railway; a good many busses stops in the New-road, in the middle of the square. Some was foreigners, and they was werry scaly. No, I never said nothink but once, ven I got two French ha’pennies for carrying a heavy old leather thing, like a coach box, as seemed to belong to a family; and then the railway bobbies made me hold my tongue. I jobbed about in other places too, but the time’s gone by now. O, I had a deal to put up with last winter. What is 9_d._ a day for three days? and if poor men had their rights, times ’ud be different. I’d like to know where all the money goes. I never counted how many parish sweepers there was; too many by arf. I’ve a rights to work, and it’s as little as a parish can do to find it. I pay 1_s._ a week for half a bed, and not half enough bed-clothes; but me and Jack Smith sometimes sleeps in our clothes, and sometimes spreads ’em o’ top. No, poor Jack, he hasn’t no hold on a parish; he’s a mud-lark and a gatherer [bone-grubber]. Do I like the overseers and the parish officers? In course not, nobody does. Why don’t they? Well, how can they? that’s just where it is. Ven I haven’t been at sweeping, I’ve staid in bed as long as I was let; but Mother B.--I don’t know no other name she has--wouldn’t stand it after ten. O no, it wern’t a common lodging-house, a sort of private lodging-house perhaps, where you took by the week. If I made nothink but my ninepences, I lived on bread and cawfee, or bread and coker, and sometimes a red herring, and I’ve bought ’em in the Brill at five and six a penny. Mother B. charged 1/2_d._ for leave to toast ’em on her gridiron. She is a scaly old ----. I’ve oft spent all my money in a tripe supper at night, and fasted all next day. I used to walk about and look in at the cook-shop windows, and try for a job next day. I’d have gone five miles for anybody for a penn’orth of pudden. No, I never thought of making away with myself; never. Nor I never thought of going for a soldier; it wouldn’t suit me to be tied so. What I want is this here--regular work and no jaw. O, I’m sometimes as miserable as hunger’ll make a parson, if ever he felt it. Yes, I go to church sometimes when I’m at work for the parish, if I’m at all togged. No doubt I shall die in the workus. You see there’s nobody in the world cares for me. I can’t tell just how I spend my money; just as it comes into my head. No, I don’t care about drinking; it don’t agree with me; but there’s some can live on it. I don’t think as I shall ever marry, though who knows?”

The third and last system of parish work is where the labourer is employed regularly, and paid a fixed wage, out of the parochial fund certainly, but not in the same manner as the paupers are paid, nor with any payment in kind (as in loaves), but all in money. The payment in this wise is usually 1_s._ 6_d._ a day, and, but for such employment, the poor so employed, would, in most instances, apply for relief.

In one parish, where the poor are regularly employed in street sweeping, and paid a regular wage in money, the whole scavaging work is done by the paupers, as they are usually termed, though they are not “on the rate.” By them the streets are swept and the houses dusted, the granite broken for macadamization, and the streets and roads repaved or repaired. This is done by about 50 men, the labour in the different departments I have specified being about equally apportioned as to the number employed in each. The work is executed without any direct intervention of the parish officers employed in administering relief to the poor, but through the agency of a board. All the men, however, are the poor of the parish, and but for this employment would or might claim relief, or demand admittance with their families into the workhouse. The system, therefore, is one of indirect pauper labour. Nearly all the men have been unskilled labourers, the exception being now and then a few operatives in such handicrafts as were suffering from the dearth of employment. Some of the artizans, I was informed, would be earning their 9_s._ in the stone-yard one week, and the next getting 30_s._ at their business. The men thus labouring for the parish are about three-fifths Irishmen, a fifth Welchmen, or rather more than a fifth, and the remainder Englishmen. There is not a single Scotchman among them.

There is no difference, in the parish I allude to, between the wages of married and single men, but men with families are usually preferred among the applicants for such work. They all reside in their own rooms, or sometimes in lodging-houses, but this rests with themselves.

I had the following account from a heavy and healthy-looking middle-aged man, dressed in a jacket and trousers of coarse corduroy. There is so little distinctive about it, however, that I will not consume space in presenting it in the narrative form in which I noted it down. It may suffice that the man seemed to have little recollection as to the past, and less care as to the future. His life, from all I could learn from him, had been spent in what may be called menial labour, as the servant, not of an individual, but of a parish; but there was nothing, he knew of, that he had to thank anybody for--parish or any one. They wanted him and he wanted them. On my asking him if he had never tried to “better himself,” he said that he had once as a navvy, but a blow on the head and eye, from a portion of rock shivered by his pick-axe, disabled him for awhile, and he left railway work. He went to church, as was expected of him, and he and his wife liked it. He had forgotten how to read, but never was “a dab at it,” and so “didn’t know nothing about the litany or the psalms.” He couldn’t say as he knew any difference between the Church of England and the Roman Catholic church-goers, “cause the one was a English and the t’ other a Irish religion,” and he “wasn’t to be expected to understand Irish religion.” He saw no necessity to put by money (this he said hesitatingly), supposing he could; what was his parish for? and he would take care he didn’t lose his settlement. If he’d ever had such a chance as some had he might have saved money, but he never had. He had no family, and his wife earned about 4_s._ a week, but not every week, in a wool warehouse, and they did middling.

The above, then, are the modes in which paupers, or imminent paupers, so to speak, are employed, and in one way or other are paid for their labour, or what is called paid, and who, although parish menials, still reside in their own abodes, with the opportunity, such as it is, of “looking out” for better employment.

As to the moral qualities of the street-sweeping paupers I do not know that they differ from those of paupers generally. All men who feel themselves sunk into compulsory labour and a degraded condition are dissatisfied, and eager to throw the blame of their degradation from their own shoulders. But it is evident that these men are unwilling workers, because their work is deprived of its just reward; and although I did not hear of any difficulty being experienced in getting them to work, I was assured by many who knew them well, that they do not go about it with any alertness. Did any one ever hear a pauper whistle or sing at his street-work? I believe that every experienced vestryman will agree to the truth of the statement that it is very rarely a confirmed pauper rises from his degradation. His thoughts and aspirations seem bounded by the workhouse and the parish. The reason appears to be because the workhouse authorities seek rather to degrade than to elevate the man, resorting to every means of shaming the pauper, until at last he becomes so utterly callous to the disgrace of pauperism that he does not care to alter his position. The system, too, adopted by the parish authorities of not paying for work, or paying less than the ordinary prices of the trade, causes the pauper labourers to be unwilling workers; and finding that industry brings no reward, or less than its fair reward, to them, they get to hate all work, and to grow up habitual burdens on the State. Crabbe, the poet, who in all questions of borough and parish life is an authority, makes his workhouse boy, Dick Monday, who when a boy got more kicks than halfpence, die Sir Richard Monday, of Monday-place; but this is a flight on the wings of poetical licence; certainly not impossible, and that is all which can be said for its likelihood.

The following remarks on the payment of the parish street-sweepers are from one of Mr. Cochrane’s publications:--

“The council considers it a duty to the poor to touch upon the niggardly manner in which parish scavengers are generally paid, and the deplorable and emaciated condition which they usually present, with regard to their clothing and personal appearance. One contractor pays 16_s._ 6_d._ per week; 2 pay 16_s._; 12 (including a Highway Board) pay 15_s._ each; 1 pays 14_s._ 6_d._; 2 pay 14_s._; and 1 pays so low as 12_s._ On the other hand, five parish boards of ‘guardians of the poor,’ pay only 9_s._ each, to their miserable mud-larks; one pays 8_s._; another 7_s._ 5_d._; a third 7_s._; a fourth compensates its labourers--in the British metropolis, where rent and living are necessarily higher than elsewhere--with 5_s._ 8_d._ per week! whilst a fifth pays 3 men 15_s._ each, 12 men 10_s._ each, and 6 men 7_s._ 6_d._ each, for exactly the same kind of work!!! But what renders this mean torture of men (because they happen to be poor) absurd as well as cruel, are the anomalous facts, that whilst the guardians of one parish pay 5 men 7_s._ each, the contractor for another part of the same parish, pays his 4 men 14_s._ each;--and whilst the guardians of a second parish pay only 5_s._ 8_d._, the Highway Board pays 15_s._ to each of its labourers, for performing exactly the same work in the same district!--Mr. Darke, scavenging contractor of Paddington, lately stated that he never had, and never would, employ any man at less than 16_s._ or 18_s._ per week;--and Mr. Sinnott, of Belvidere-road, Lambeth, about three months since, offered to certain West-End guardians, to take 40 paupers out of their own workhouse to cleanse their own parish, on the street-orderly system;--and to pay them 15_s._ per week each man[25]; but the economical guardians preferred filth and a full workhouse, to cleanliness, Christian charity, and common sense;--and so the proposal of this considerate contractor was rejected! It is certainly far from being creditable to boards of gentlemen and wealthy tradesmen who manage parish affairs, to pay little more than one-half the wages that an individual does, to poor labourers who cannot choose their employment or their masters....

“The broken-down tradesman, the journeyman deprived of his usual work by panic or by poverty of the times, the ingenious mechanic, or the unsuccessful artist, applies at the parish labour-market for leave to live by other labour than that which hitherto maintained him in comfort.... The usual language of such persons, even when applying for private alms or parochial relief, is, not that they want money, but ‘that they have long been out of work;’ ‘that their particular trade has been overstocked with apprentices, or superseded by machinery;’ or, ‘that their late employer has become bankrupt, or has discharged the majority of his hands from the badness of the times.’ To a man of this class, the guardian of the poor replies, ‘We will test your willingness to labour, by employing you in the stone-yard, or to sweep the streets; but the parish being heavily burthened with rates, we cannot afford more than 7_s._ or 8_s._ a week.’ The poor creature, conscious of his own helplessness, accepts the miserable pittance, in order to preserve himself and family from immediate starvation....

“The council has taken much pains to ascertain the wages, and mode of expenditure of them, by this uncared-for, and almost pariah, class of labourers throughout the metropolitan parishes; and it possesses undeniable proofs, that few possess any further garment than the rags upon their backs; some being even without a change of linen; that they never enter a place of worship, on account of their want of decent clothing; that their wives and children are starved and in rags, and the latter without the least education; that they never by any chance taste fresh animal food; that one-third of their hard earnings is paid for rent; and that their only sustenance (unless their wives happen to go out washing or charing), consists of bread, potatoes, coarse tea without milk or sugar, a salt herring two or three times a week, and a slice of rusty bacon on Sunday morning! The meal called dinner they never know; their only refection being breakfast and ‘tea:’ beer they do not taste from year’s end to year’s end; and any other luxury, or even necessary, is out of the question.

“Of the 21 scavengers employed by St. James’s parish in 1850, no less than 16,” says Mr. Cochrane’s report, “were married, with from one to four children each. How the poor creatures who receive but 7_s._ 6_d._ a week support their families, is best known to themselves.”

Let me now, in conclusion, endeavour to arrive at a rough estimate as to the sum of which the pauper labours annually are mulct by the before-mentioned rates of remuneration, estimating their labour at the market value or amount paid by the honourable contractors, viz. 16_s._ a week; for if private individuals can afford to pay that wage, and yet reap a profit out of the transaction, the guardians of the poor surely could and should pay the same prices, and not avail themselves of starving men’s necessities to reduce the wages of a trade to the very quick of subsistence. If it be a sound principle that the condition of the pauper should be rendered less desirable than that of the labourer, assuredly the principle is equally sound that the condition of the labourer should be made more desirable than that of the pauper; for if to pamper the pauper be to make indolence more agreeable than industry, certainly to grind down the wages of the labourer is to render industry as unprofitable as indolence. In either case the same premium is proffered to pauperism. As yet the Poor-Law Commissioners have seen but one way of reducing the poor-rates, viz., by rendering the state of the pauper as unenviable as possible, and they have wholly lost sight of the other mode of attaining the same end, viz., by making the state of the labourer as desirable as possible. To institute a terrible poor law without maintaining an attractive form of industry, is to hold out a boon to crime. If the wages of the working man are to be reduced to bare subsistence, and the condition of the pauper is to be rendered worse than that of the working man, what atrocities will not be committed upon the poor. Elevate the condition of the labourer, and there will be no necessity to depress the pauper. Make work more attractive by increasing the reward for it, and laziness will necessarily become more repulsive. As it is, however, the pauper is not only kept at the very lowest point of subsistence, but his half-starved labour is brought into competition with that of men living in a comparative state of comfort; and the result, of course, is, that instead of decreasing the number of paupers or poor-rates, we make paupers of our labourers, and fill our workhouses by such means. If a scavager’s labour be worth from 12_s._ to 15_s._ per week in the market, what moral right have the guardians of the poor to pay 5_s._ 8_d._ for the same commodity? If the paupers are set to do work which is fairly worth 15_s._, then to pay them little more than one-third of the regular value is not only to make unwilling workers of the paupers, but to drag down all the better workmen to the level of the worst.

It may be estimated that the outlay on pauper labour, as a whole, after deducting the sum paid to superintendents and gangers, does not exceed 10_s._ weekly per individual; consequently the lowering of the price of labour is in this ratio: There are now, in round numbers, 450 pauper scavagers in the metropolis, and the account stands thus:--

Yearly. 450 scavagers, at the regular weekly wages of 16_s._ each £18,710 450 pauper labourers, 10_s._ each weekly 11,700 ------- Lower price of pauper work £7,020

Hence we see, that the great scurf employers of the scavagers, after all, are the guardians of the poor, compared with whom the most grasping contractor is a model of liberality.

That the minimum of remuneration paid by the parishes has tended, and is tending more and more, to the general depreciation of wages in the scavaging trade, there is no doubt. It has done so directly and indirectly. One man, who had been a last-maker, told me that he left his employment as a London scavager, for he had “come down to the parish,” and set off at the close of the summer into Kent for the harvest and hopping, for, when in the country, he had been more used to agricultural labour than to last, clog, or patten making. He considered that he had not been successful; still he returned to London a richer man by 26_s._ 6_d._ Nearly 20_s._ of this soon went for shoes and necessary clothing, and to pay some arrears of rent, and a chandler’s bill he owed, after which he could be trusted again where he was known. He applied to the foreman of a contractor, whom he knew, for work. “What wage?” said the foreman. “Fifteen shillings a week,” was the reply. “Why, what did you get from the parish for sweeping?” “Nine shillings.” “Well,” said the foreman, “I know you’re a decent man, and you were recommended before, and so I can give you four or five days a week at 2_s._ 4_d._ a day, and no nonsense about hours; for you know yourself I can get 50 men as have been parish workers at 1s. 9d. a day, and jump at it, and so you mustn’t be cheeky.” The man closed with the offer, knowing that the foreman spoke the truth.

A contractor told me that he could obtain “plenty of hands,” used to parish scavaging work, at 10_s._ 6_d._ to 12_s._ a week, whereas he paid 16_s._

It is evident, then, that the system of pauper work in scavaging has created an increasing market for cheap and deteriorated labour, a market including hundreds of the unemployed at other unskilled labours; and it is hardly to be doubted that the many who have faith in the doctrine that it is the best policy to buy in the cheapest and sell in the dearest market, will avail themselves of the low-priced labour of this pauper-constituted mart.

It is but right to add, that those parishes which pay 15_s._ a week are as worthy of commendation as those which pay 9_s._, 7_s._ 6_d._ and 7_s._ per week, and 1_s._ 4_d._ and 1_s._ 1-1/2_d._ a day are reprehensible; and, unfortunately, the latter have a tendency to regulate all the others.

OF THE STREET-ORDERLIES.

This constitutes the last of the four varieties of labour employed in the cleansing of the public thoroughfares of London. I have already treated of the self-supporting manual labour, the self-supporting machine labour, and the pauper labour, and now proceed to the consideration of the philanthropic labour of the streets.

In the first place, let us understand clearly what is meant by philanthropic labour, and how it is distinguished from pauper labour on the one hand, and self-supporting labour on the other. Self-supporting labour I take to be that form of work which returns not less, and generally something more, than is expended upon it. Pauper labour, on the other hand, is work to which the applicants for parish relief are “set,” not with a view to the profit to be derived from it, but partly as a test of their willingness to work, and partly as a means of employing the unemployed; while philanthropic labour is employment provided for the unemployed with the same disregard of profit as distinguishes pauper labour, but with a greater regard for the poor, and as a means of affording them relief in a less degrading manner than is done under the present Poor Law. Pauper and philanthropic labour, then, differ essentially from self-supporting labour in being non-profitable modes of employment; that is to say, they yield so bare an equivalent for the sum expended upon the labourers, that none, in the ordinary way of trade, can be found to provide the means necessary for putting them into operation: while pauper labour differs from philanthropic labour, in the fact that the funds requisite for “setting the poor on work” are provided by law as a matter of social policy, whereas, in the case of philanthropic labour, the funds, or a part of them, are supplied by voluntary contributions, out of a desire to improve the labourers’ condition. There are, then, two distinguishing features in all philanthropic labour--the one is, that it yields no profit (if it did it would become a matter of trade), and the other, that it is instituted and maintained from a wish to benefit the labourer.

The Street-Orderly system forms part of the operations on behalf of the poor adopted by a society, of which Mr. Charles Cochrane is the president, entitled the “National Philanthropic Association,” which is said to have for its object “the promotion of social and salutiferous improvements, street cleanliness, and the employment of the poor, so that able-bodied men may be prevented from burthening the parish-rate, and preserved independent of workhouse, alms, and degradation.” Here a twofold object is expressed: the Philanthropic Association seeks not only to benefit the poor by giving them employment, and “preserving them independent of workhouse, alms, and degradation,” but to benefit the public likewise, by “promoting social and salutiferous improvements and street cleanliness.” I shall deal with each of these objects separately; but first let me declare, so as to remove all suspicion of private feelings tending in any way to bias my judgment in this most important matter, that I am an utter stranger to the President and Council of the Philanthropic Association; and that, whatever I may have to say on the subject of the street-orderlies, I do simply in conformity with my duty to the public--to state truthfully all that concerns the labourers and the poor of the metropolis.

Viewed economically, philanthropic and pauper work may be said to be the regulators of the minimum rate of wages--establishing the lowest point to which competition can possibly drive down the remuneration for labour; for it is evident, that if the self-supporting labourer cannot obtain greater comforts by the independent exercise of his industry than the parish rates or private charity will afford him, he will at once give over working for the trading employer, and declare on the funds raised by assessment or voluntary subscription for his support. Hence, those who wish well to the labourer, and who believe that cheapness of commodities is desirable “only,” as Mr. Stewart Mill says (p. 502, vol. ii.), “when the cause of it is, that their production costs little labour, and not when occasioned by that labour’s being ill-remunerated;” and who believe, moreover, that the labourer is to be benefited solely by the cultivation of a high standard of comfort among the people--to such, I say, it is evident, that a poor law which reduces the relief to able-bodied labourers to the smallest modicum of food consistent with the continuation of life must be about the greatest curse that can possibly come upon an over-populated country, admitting, as it does, of the reduction of wages to so low a point of mere brutal existence as to induce that recklessness and improvidence among the poor which is known to give so strong an impetus to the increase of the people. A minimized rate of parish relief is necessarily a minimized rate of wages, and admits of the labourers’ pay being reduced, by pauper competition, to little short of starvation; and such, doubtlessly, would have been the case long ago in the scavaging trade by the employment of parish labour, had not the Philanthropic Association instituted the system of street-orderlies, and by the payment of a higher rate of wages than the more grinding parishes afforded--by giving the men 12_s._ instead of 9_s._ or even 7_s._ a week--prevented the remuneration of the regular hands being dragged down to an approximation to the parish level. Hence, rightly viewed, philanthropic labour--and, indeed, pauper labour too--comes under the head of a remedy for low wages, as preventing, if properly regulated, the undue depreciation of industry from excessive competition, and it is in this light that I shall now proceed to consider it.

The several plans that have been propounded from time to time, as remedies for an insufficient rate of remuneration for work, are as multifarious as the circumstances influencing the three requisites for production--labour, capital, and land. I will here run over as briefly as possible--abstaining from the expression of all opinion on the subject--the various schemes which have been proposed with this object, so that the reader may come as prepared as possible to the consideration of the matter.

The remedies for low wages may be arranged into two distinct groups, viz., those which seek to increase the labourer’s rate of pay directly, and those which seek to do so indirectly.

The direct remedies for low wages that have been propounded are:--

A. The establishment of a standard rate of remuneration for labour. This has been proposed to be brought about by three different means, viz.:--

1. By law or government authority; either (a) fixing the minimum rate of wages, and leaving the variations above that point to be adjusted by competition (this, as we have seen, is the effect of the poor-law); or, (b) settling the rate of wages generally by means of local boards of trade for conseils de prud’hommes, consisting of delegates from the workmen and employers, to determine, by the principles of natural equity, a reasonable scale of remuneration in the several trades, their decision being binding in law on both the employers and the employed.

2. By public opinion; this has been generally proposed by those who are what Mr. Mill terms “shy of admitting the interference of authority in contracts for labour,” fearing that if the law intervened it would do so rashly and ignorantly, and desiring to compass by moral sanction what they consider useless or dangerous to attempt to bring about by legal means. “Every employer,” says Mr. Mill, “they think, ought to give sufficient wages,” and if he does not give such wages willingly, he should be compelled to do so by public opinion.

3. By trade societies or combination among the workmen; that is to say, by the payment of a small sum per week out of the wages of the workmen, towards the formation of a fund for the support of such of their fellow operatives as may be out of employment, or refuse to work for those employers who seek to give less than the standard rate of wages established by the trade.

B. The prohibition of stoppages or deductions of all kinds from the nominal wages of workmen. This is principally the object of the Anti-Truck Society, which seeks to obtain an Act of Parliament, enjoining the payment in full of all wages. The stoppages or extortions from workmen’s wages generally consist of:--

1. Fines for real or pretended misconduct.

2. Rents for tools, frames, gas, and sometimes lodgings.

3. Sale of trade appliances (as trimmings, thread, &c.) at undue prices.

4. Sale of food, drink, &c., at an exorbitant rate of profit.

5. Payment in public-houses; as the means of inducing the men to spend a portion of their earnings in drink.

6. Deposit of money as security before taking out work; so that the capital of the employer is increased without payment of interest to the workpeople.

C. The institution of certain aids or additions to wages; as--

1. Perquisites or gratuities obtained from the public; as with waiters, boxkeepers, coachmen, dustmen, vergers, and others.

2. Beer money, and other “allowances” to workmen.

3. Family work; or the co-operation of the wife and children as a means of increasing the workman’s income.

4. Allotments of land, to be cultivated after the regular day’s labour.

5. The parish “allowance system,” or relief in aid of wages, as practised under the old Poor Law.

D. The increase of the money value of wages; by--

1. Cheap food.

2. Cheap lodgings; through building improved dwellings for the poor, and doing away with the profit of sub-letting.

3. Co-operative stores; or the “club system” of obtaining provisions at wholesale prices.

4. The abolition of the payment of wages on Sunday morning, or at so late an hour on the Saturday night as to prevent the labourer availing himself of the Saturday’s market.

5. Teetotalism; as causing the men to spend nothing in fermented drinks, and so leaving them more to spend on food.

Such are the direct modes of remedying low wages, viz., either by preventing the price of labour itself falling below a certain standard; prohibiting all stoppages from the pay of the labourer; instituting certain aids or additions to such pay; or increasing the money value of the ordinary wages by reducing the price of provisions.

The indirect modes of remedying low wages are of a far more complex character. They consist of, first, the remedies propounded by political economists, which are--

A. The decrease of the number of labourers; for gaining this end several plans have been proposed, as--

1. Checks against the increase of the population, for which the following are the chief Malthusian proposals:--

a. Preventive checks for the hindrance of impregnation.

b. Prohibition of early marriages among the poor.

c. Increase of the standard of comfort, or requirements, among the people; as a means of inducing prudence and restraint of the passions.

d. Infanticide; as among the Chinese.

2. Emigration; as a means of draining off the surplus labourers.

3. Limitation of apprentices in skilled trades; as a means of preventing the undue increase of particular occupations. This, however, is advocated not by economists, but generally by operatives.

4. Prevention of family work; or the discouragement of the labour of the wives and children of operatives. This, again, cannot be said to be an “economist” remedy.

B. Increase of the circulating capital, or sum set aside for the payment of the labourers.

1. By government imposts. “Governments,” says Mr. Mill, “can create additional industry by creating capital. They may lay on taxes, and employ the amount productively.” This was the object of the original Poor Law (43 Eliz.), which empowered the overseers of the poor to “raise weekly, or otherwise, by taxation of every inhabitant, &c., such sums of money as they shall require for providing a sufficient stock of flax, hemp, wool, and other ware or stuff, to set the poor on work.”

2. By the issue of paper money. The proposition of Mr. Jonathan Duncan is, that the government should issue notes equivalent to the taxation of the country, with the view of affording increased employment to the poor; the people being set to work as it were upon credit, in the same manner as the labourers were employed to build the market-house at Guernsey.

C. The extension of the markets of the country; by the abolition of all restrictions on commerce, and the encouragement of the free interchange of commodities, so that, by increasing the demand for our products, we may be able to afford employment to an extra number of producers.

The above constitute what, with a few exceptions, may be termed, more particularly, the “economist” remedies for low wages.

D. The regulation of the quantity of work done by each workman, or the prevention of the undue economizing of labour. For this end, several means have been put forward.

1. The shortening the hours of labour, and abolition of Sunday-work.

2. Alteration of the mode of work; as the substitution of day-work for piece-work, as a means of decreasing the stimulus to overwork.

3. Extension of the term of hiring; by the substitution of annual engagements for daily or weekly hirings, with a view to the prevention of “casual labour.”

4. Limitation of the number of hands employed by one capitalist; so as to prevent the undue extension of “the large system of production.”

5. Taxation of machinery; with the object, not only of making it contribute its quota to the revenue of the country, but of impeding its undue increase.

6. The discountenance of every form of work that tends to the making up of a greater quantity of materials with a less quantity of labour; and consequently to the expenditure of a greater proportion of the capital of the country on machinery or materials, and a correspondingly less proportion on the labourers.

E. “Protective imposts,” or high import duties on such foreign commodities as can be produced in this country; with the view of preventing the labour of the comparatively untaxed and uncivilized foreigner being brought into competition with that of the taxed and civilized producer at home.

F. “Financial reform,” or reduction of the taxation of the country; as enabling the home labourer the better to compete with the foreigner.

The two latter proposals, and that of the extension of the markets, may be said to seek to remedy low wages by expanding or circumscribing the foreign trade of the country.

G. A different division of the proceeds of labour. For this object several schemes have been propounded:--

1. The “tribute system” of wages; or payment of labour according to the additional value which it confers on the materials on which it operates.

2. The abolition of the middleman; whether “sweater,” “piece-master,” “lumper,” or what not, coming between the employer and employed.

3. Co-operation; or joint-stock associations of labourers, with the view of abolishing the profit of the capitalist employer.

H. A different mode of distributing the products of labour; with the view of abolishing the profit of the dealer, between the producer and consumer--as co-operative stores, where the consumers club together for the purchase of their goods directly of the producers.

I. A more general and equal division of the wealth of the country: for attaining this end there are but two known means:--

1. Communism; or the abolition of all rights to individual property.

2. Agapism; or the voluntary sharing of individual possessions with the less fortunate or successful members of the community.

These remedies may, with a few exceptions (such as the tribute system of wages, and the abolition of middlemen), be said to constitute the socialist and communist schemes for the prevention of distress.

J. Creating additional employment for the poor; and so removing the surplus labour from the market. Two modes of effecting this have been proposed:--

1. Home colonization, or the cultivation of waste lands by the poor.

2. Orderlyism, or the employment of the poor in the promotion of public cleanliness, and the increased sanitary condition of the country.

K. The prevention of the enclosure of commons; as the means of enabling the poor to obtain gratuitous pasturage for their cattle.

L. The abolition of primogeniture; with the view of dividing the land among a greater number of individuals.

M. The holding of the land by the State, and equal apportionment of it among the poor.

N. Extension of the suffrage among the people; and so allowing the workman, as well as the capitalist and the landlord, to take part in the formation of the laws of the country. For this purpose there are two plans:--

1. “The freehold-land movement,” which seeks to enable the people to become proprietors of as much land as will, under the present law, give them “a voice” in the country.

2. Chartism, or that which seeks to alter the law concerning the election of members of Parliament, and to confer the right of voting on every male of mature age, sound mind, and non-criminal character.

O. Cultivation of a higher moral and Christian character among the people. This form of remedy, which is advocated by many, is based on the argument, that, without some mitigation of the “selfishness of the times,” all other schemes for improving the condition of the people will be either evaded by the cunning of the rich, or defeated by the servility of the poor.

The above I believe to be a full and fair statement of the several plans that have been proposed, from time to time, for alleviating the distress of the people. This enumeration is as comprehensive as my knowledge will enable me to make it; and I have abstained from all comment on the several schemes, so that the reader may have an opportunity of impartially weighing the merits of each, and adopting that, which in his own mind, seems best calculated to effect what, after all, we every one desire--whether protectionist, economist, free-trader, philanthropist, socialist, communist, or chartist--the good of the country in which we live, and the people by whom we are surrounded.

* * * * *

Now we have to deal here with that particular remedy for low wages or distress which consists in creating additional employment for the poor, and of which the street-orderly system is an example.

The increase of employment for the poor was the main object of the 43 Eliz., for which purpose, as we have seen, the overseers of the several parishes were empowered to raise a fund by assessments upon the property of the rich, for providing “a sufficient stock of flax, hemp, wool, and other ware or stuff, to set the poor on work.” But though economists, to this day, tell us that “while, on the one hand, industry is limited by capital, so, on the other, every increase of capital gives, or is capable of giving, additional employment to industry, and this without assignable limit,”[26] nevertheless the great difficulty of carrying out the provisions of the original poor-law has consisted in finding a market for the products of pauper labour, for the frequent gluts in our manufactures are sufficient to teach us that it is one thing to produce and another to dispose of the products; so that to create additional employment for the poor something besides capital is requisite: it is necessary either that they shall be engaged in producing that which they themselves immediately consume, or that for which the market admits of being extended.

The two plans proposed for the employment of the poor, it will be seen, consist (1) in the cultivation of waste lands; (2) in promoting public cleanliness, and so increasing the sanitary condition of the country. The first, it is evident, removes the objection of a market being needed for the products of the labour of the poor, since it proposes that their energies should be devoted to the production of the food which they themselves consume; while the second seeks to create additional employment in effecting that increased cleanliness which more enlightened physiological views have not only made more desirable, but taught us to be absolutely necessary to the health and enjoyment of the community.

The great impediment, however, to the profitable employment of the poor, has generally been the unproductive or unavailing character of pauper labour. This has been mainly owing to the fact that the able-bodied who are deprived of employment are necessarily the lowest grade of operatives; for, in the displacement of workmen, those are the first discarded whose labour is found to be the least efficient, either from a deficiency of skill, industry, or sobriety, so that pauper labour is necessarily of the least productive character.

Another great difficulty with the employment of the poor is, that the idle, or those to whom work is more than usually irksome, require a stronger inducement than ordinary to make them labour, and the remuneration for parish work being necessarily less than for any other, those who are pauperized through idleness (the most benevolent among us must allow there are such) are naturally less than ever disposed to labour when they become paupers. All pauper work, therefore, is generally unproductive or unavailing, because it is either inexpert or unwilling work. The labour of the in-door paupers, who receive only their food for their pains, is necessarily of the same compulsory character as slavery; while that of the out-door paupers, with the remuneration often cut down to the lowest subsisting point, is scarcely of a more willing or more availing kind.

Owing to this general unproductiveness, (as well as the difficulty of finding a field for the profitable employment of the unemployed poor,) the labour of paupers has been for a long time past directed mainly to the cleansing of the public thoroughfares. Still, from the degrading nature of the occupation, and the small remuneration for the toil, pauper labourers have been found to be such unwilling workers that many parishes have long since given over employing their poor even in this capacity, preferring to entrust the work to a contractor, with his paid self-supporting operatives, instead.

The founder of the Philanthropic Association appears to have been fully aware of the two great difficulties besetting the profitable employment of the poor, viz., (1) finding a field for the exercise of their labours where they might be “set on work” with benefit to the community, and without injury to the independent operatives already engaged in the same occupation; and (2) overcoming the unwillingness, and consequently the unavailingness, of pauper labour.

The first difficulty Mr. Cochrane has endeavoured to obviate by taking advantage of that growing desire for greater public cleanliness which has arisen from the increased knowledge of the principles governing the health of towns; and the second, by giving the men 12_s._ instead of 9_s._ or 7_s._ a week, or worse than all, 1_s._ 1-1/2_d._ and a quartern loaf a day for three days in the week, and so not only augmenting the stimulus to work (for it should be remembered that wages are to the human machine what the fire is to the steam-engine), but preventing the undue depreciation of the labour of the independent workman. He who discovers the means of increasing the rewards of labour, is as great a friend to his race as he who strives to depreciate them is the public enemy; and I do not hesitate to confess, that I look upon Mr. Charles Cochrane as one of the illustrious few who, in these days of unremunerated toil, and their necessary concomitants--beggars and thieves, has come forward to help the labourers of this country from their daily-increasing degradation. His benevolence is of that enlightened order which seeks to extend rather than destroy the self-trust of the poor, not only by creating additional employment for them, but by rendering that employment less repulsive.

The means by which Mr. Cochrane has endeavoured to gain these ends constitutes the system called Street-Orderlyism, which therefore admits of being viewed in two distinct aspects--first, as a new mode of improving “the health of towns,” and, secondly, as an improved method of employing the poor.

Concerning the first, I must confess that the system of scavaging or cleansing the public thoroughfares pursued by the street-orderlies assumes, when contemplated in a sanitary point of view, all the importance and simplicity of a great discovery. It has been before pointed out that this system consists not only in cleansing the streets, but in keeping them clean. By the street-orderly method of scavaging, the thoroughfares are continually being cleansed, and so never allowed to become dirty; whereas, by the ordinary method, they are not cleansed until they are dirty. Hence the two modes of scavaging are diametrically opposed; under the one the streets are cleansed as fast as dirtied, while under the other they are dirtied as fast as cleansed; so that by the new system of scavaging the public thoroughfares are maintained in a perpetual state of cleanliness, whereas by the old they may be said to be kept in a continual state of dirt.

The street-orderly system of scavaging, however, is not only worthy of high commendation as a more efficient means of gaining a particular end--a simplification of a certain process--but it calls for our highest praise as well for the end gained as for the means of gaining it. If it be really a sound physiological principle, that the Creator has made dirt offensive to every rightly-constituted mind, because it is injurious to us, and so established in us an instinct, before we could discover a reason, for removing all refuse from our presence, it becomes, now that we have detected the cause of the feeling in us, at once disgusting and irrational to allow the filth to accumulate in our streets in front of our houses. If typhus, cholera, and other pestilences are but divine punishments inflicted on us for the infraction of that most kindly law by which the health of a people has been made to depend on that which is naturally agreeable--cleanliness, then our instinct for self-preservation should force us, even if our sense of enjoyment would not lead us, to remove as fast as it is formed what is at once as dangerous as it should be repulsive to our natures. Sanitarily regarded, the cleansing of a town is one of the most important objects that can engage the attention of its governors; the removal of its refuse being quite as necessary for the continuance of the existence of a people as the supply of their food. In the economy of Nature there is no loss: this the great doctrine of waste and supply has taught us; the detritus of one rock is the conglomerate of another; the evaporation of the ocean is the source of the river; the poisonous exhalations of animals the vital air of plants; and the refuse of man and beasts the food of their food. The dust and cinders from our fires, the “slops” from the washing of our houses, the excretions of our bodies, the detritus and “surface-water” of our streets, have all their offices to perform in the great scheme of creation; and if left to rot and fust about us not only injure our health, but diminish the supplies of our food. The filth of the thoroughfares of the metropolis forms, it would appear, the staple manure of the market-gardens in the suburbs; out of the London mud come the London cabbages: so that an improvement in the scavaging of the metropolis tends not only to give the people improved health, but improved vegetables; for that which is nothing but a pestiferous muck-heap in the town becomes a vivifying garden translated to the country.

Dirt, however, is not only as prejudicial to our health and offensive to our senses, when allowed to accumulate in our streets, as it is beneficial to us when removed to our gardens,--but it is a most expensive commodity to keep in front of our houses. It has been shown, that the cost to the people of London, in the matter of extra washing induced by defective scavaging, is at the least 1,000,000_l._ sterling per annum (the Board of Health estimate it at 2,500,000_l._); and the loss from extra wear and tear of clothes from brushing and scrubbing, arising from the like cause, is about the same prodigious sum; while the injury done to the furniture of private houses, and the goods exposed for sale in shops, though impossible to be estimated--appears to be something enormous: so that the loss from the defective scavaging of the metropolis seems, at the lowest calculation, to amount to several millions per annum; and hence it becomes of the highest possible importance, economically as well as physiologically, that the streets should be cleansed in the most effective manner.

Now, that the street-orderly system is the only rational and efficacious mode of street cleansing both theory and practice assure us. To allow the filth to accumulate in the streets before any steps are taken to remove it, is the same as if we were never to wash our bodies until they were dirty--it is to be perpetually striving to cure the disease, when with scarcely any more trouble we might prevent it entirely. There is, indeed, the same difference between the new and the old system of scavaging, as there is between a bad and a good housewife: the one never cleaning her house until it is dirty, and the other continually cleaning it, so as to prevent it being ever dirty.

Hence it would appear, that the street-orderly system of scavaging would be a great public benefit, even were there no other object connected with it than the increased cleanliness of our streets; but in a country like Great Britain, afflicted as it is with a surplus population (no matter from what cause), that each day finds the difficulty of obtaining work growing greater, the opening up of new fields of employment for the poor is perhaps the greatest benefit that can be conferred upon the nation. Without the discovery of such new fields, “the setting the poor on work” is merely, as I have said, to throw out of employment those who are already employed; it is not to decrease, but really to increase, the evil of the times--to add to, rather than diminish, the number of our paupers or our thieves. The increase of employment in a nation, however, requires, not only a corresponding increase of capital, but a like increase in the demand or desire, as well as in the pecuniary means, of the people to avail themselves of the work on which the poor are set (that is to say, in the extension of the home market); it requires, also, some mode of stimulating the energies of the workers, so as to make them labour more willingly, and consequently more availingly, than usual. These conditions appear to have been fulfilled by Mr. Cochrane, in the establishment of the street-orderlies. He has introduced, in connection with this body, a system of scavaging which, while it employs a greater number of hands, produces such additional benefits as cannot but be considered an equivalent for the increased expenditure; though it is even doubtful whether, by the collection of the street manure unmixed with the mud, the extra value of that article alone will not go far to compensate for the additional expense; if, however, there be added to this the saving to the metropolitan parishes in the cost of watering the streets--for under the street-orderly system this is not required, the dust never being allowed to accumulate, and consequently never requiring to be “laid”--as well as the greater saving of converting the paupers into self-supporting labourers; together with the diminished expense of washing and doctors’ bills, consequent on the increased cleanliness of the streets--there cannot be the least doubt that the employment of the poor as street-orderlies is no longer a matter of philanthropy, but of mere commercial prudence.

Such appear to me to be the principal objects of Mr. Cochrane’s street-orderly system of scavaging; and it is a subject upon which I have spoken the more freely, because, being unacquainted with that gentleman, none can suspect me of being prejudiced in his favour, and because I have felt that the good which he has done and is likely to do to the poor, has been comparatively unacknowledged by the public, and that society and the people owe him a heavy debt of gratitude[27].

I shall now proceed to set forth the character of the labour, and the condition and remuneration of the labourers in connection with the street-orderly system of scavaging the metropolitan thoroughfares.

The first appearance of the street-orderlies in the metropolis was in 1843. Mr. Charles Cochrane, who had previously formed the National Philanthropic Association, with its eleemosynary soup-kitchens, &c., then introduced the system of street-orderlies, as one enabling many destitute men to support themselves by their labour; as well as, in his estimation, a better, and eventually a more economical, mode of street-cleansing, and partaking also somewhat of the character of a street police.

The first “demonstration,” or display of the street-orderly system, took place in Regent-street, between the Quadrant and the Regent-circus, and in Oxford-street, between Vere-street and Charles-street. The streets were thoroughly swept in the morning, and then each man or boy, provided with a hand-broom and dust-pan, removed any dirt as soon as it was deposited. The demonstration was pronounced highly successful and the system effective, in the opinion of eighteen influential inhabitants of the locality who acted as a committee, and who publicly, and with the authority of their names, testified their conviction that “the most efficient means of keeping streets clean, and more especially great thoroughfares, was to prevent the accumulation of dirt, by removing the manure within a few minutes after it has been deposited by the passing cattle; the same having, hitherto, remained during several days.”

The cost of this demonstration amounted to about 400_l._, of which, the Report states, “200_l._ still remains due from the shop-keepers to the Association; which,” it is delicately added, “from late commercial difficulties they have not yet repaid” (in 1850).

Whilst the street-orderlies were engaged in cleansing Regent-street, &c., the City Commissioners of the sewers of London were invited to depute some person to observe and report to them concerning the method pursued; but with that instinctive sort of repugnance which seems to animate the great bulk of city officials against improvement of any kind, the reply was, that they “did not consider the same worthy their attention.” The matter, however, was not allowed to drop, and by the persevering efforts of Mr. Cochrane, the president, and of the body of gentlemen who form the Council of the Association, Cheapside, Cornhill, and the most important parts of the very heart of the city were at length cleansed according to the new method. The ratepayers then showed that they, at least, did consider “the same worthy of attention,” for 8000 out of 12,000 within a few days signed memorials recommending the adoption of what they pronounced an improvement, and a public meeting was held in Guildhall (May 4, 1846), at which resolutions in favour of the street-orderly method were passed. The authorities did not adopt these recommendations, but they ventured so far to depart from their venerable routine as to order the streets to be “swept every day!” This employed upwards of 300 men, whereas at the period when the sages of the city sewers did not consider any proposed improvement in scavagery worthy their attention, the number of men employed by them in cleansing the streets did not exceed 30.

The street-orderly system was afterwards tried in the parishes of St. Paul, Covent-garden, St. James (Westminster), St. Martin-in-the-Fields, St. Anne, Soho, and others--sometimes calling forth opposition, of course from the authorities connected with the established modes of paving, scavaging, &c.

It is not my intention to write a complete history of the street-orderlies, but merely to sketch their progress, as well as describe their peculiar characteristics.

Within these few months public meetings have been held in almost every one of the 26 wards of the City, at which approving resolutions were either passed unanimously or carried by large majorities; and the street-orderly system is now about to be introduced into St. Martin’s parish instead of the street-sweeping machine.

As far as the street-orderly system has been tried, and judging only by the testimony of public examination and public record of opinion, the trial has certainly been a success. A memorial to the Court of Sewers, from the ward of Broad-street, supported by the leading merchants of that locality, in recommendation of the employment of street-orderlies, seems to bear more closely on the subject than any I have yet seen.

“Your memorialists,” they state, “have observed that those public thoroughfares within the city of London which are now cleansed by street-orderlies, are so remarkably clean as to be almost free from mud in wet, and dust in dry weather--that such extreme cleanliness is of great comfort to the public, and tends to improve the sanitary condition of the ward.”

But it is not only in the metropolis that the street-orderlies seem likely to become the established scavagers. The streets of Windsor, I am informed, are now in the course of being cleansed upon the orderly plan. In Amsterdam, there are at present 16 orderlies regularly employed upon scavaging a portion of the city, and in Paris and Belgium, I am assured, arrangements are being made for the introduction of the system into both those cities. Were the street-orderly mode of scavaging to become general throughout this country, it is estimated that employment would be given to 100,000 labourers, so that, with the families of these men, not less than half a million of people would be supported in a state of independence by it. The total number of adult able-bodied paupers relieved--in-door and out-door--throughout England and Wales, on January 1, 1850, was 154,525.

The following table shows the route of the street-orderly operations in the metropolis. A further column, in the Report from which the table has been extracted, contained the names of thirteen clergymen who have “weekly read prayers and delivered discourses to the street-orderlies at their respective stations, and recorded flattering testimonials of their conduct and demeanour.”

EMPLOYMENT OF STREET-ORDERLIES.

---------------------------------------------------+------------+-----------+----------------- | No. of | Wives and | LOCALITIES CLEANSED. | Street- | Children | Money | Orderlies. | dependent.| expended. ---------------------------------------------------+------------+-----------+----------------- | | | £ s. d. 1843-4. Oxford and Regent Streets | 50 | 256 | 560 0 0 1845. Strand | 8 | -- | 38 0 0 1845-6. Cheapside, Cornhill, &c., City of London | 100 | 363 | 1540 2 0 1846-7. St. Margaret’s and St. John’s, Westminster | 15 | 65 | 306 0 0 1847. Piccadilly, St. James’s, &c. | 8 | 32 | 115 0 0 1848. Strand | 8 | 31 | 35 0 0 1848. St. Martin’s Lane, &c. | 38 | 138 | 153 0 0 1848. Piccadilly, St. James’s, &c. | 48 | 108 | 341 3 0 1848-9. St. Paul’s, Covent Garden | 13 | 38 | 38 10 0 1849. Regent Street, Whitehall, &c. | 18 | 68 | 98 0 0 1849. St. Giles’s and St. George’s, Bloomsbury | 14 | 71 | 58 1 0 1849. St. Pancras, New Road, &c. | 16 | 46 | 177 6 0 1849. St. Andrew’s and St. George’s, Holborn | 23 | 83 | 63 4 9 1849. Lambeth Parish | 16 | 41 | 84 16 0 1851. St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields | 68 | 179 | 119 3 4 1851. City of London, Central Districts (per | | | week, during 6 weeks last past) | 103 | 378 | 55 0 0 ---------------------------------------------------+------------+-----------+----------------- Total | 546 | 1897 | 3782 6 1 ---------------------------------------------------+------------+-----------+-----------------

The period of nine years comprised in the above statement (1843 and 1851 being both included) gives a yearly average, as to the number of the poor employed, exceeding 60, with a similar average of 210 wives and children, and a yearly average outlay of 420_l._ The number of orderlies now employed by the Association is from 80 to 90.

* * * * *

Such, then, is a brief account of the rise and progress of this new mode of street-sweeping, and we now come to a description of the work itself.

“The orderlies,” says the Report of the Association, “keep the streets free from mud in winter, and dust in summer; and that with the least possible personal drudgery:--adhering to the principle of operation laid down, viz., that of ‘Cleansing and keeping Clean,’ they have merely, after each morning’s sweeping and removal of dirt, to keep a vigilant look-out over the surface of street allotted to them; and to remove with the hand-brush and dust-pan, from any particular spot, whatever dirt or rubbish may fall upon it, at the moment of its deposit. Thus are the streets under their care kept constantly clean.

“But sweeping and removing dirt,” continues the Report, “is not the only occupation of the street-orderly, whilst keeping up a careful inspection of the ground allotted to him. He is also the watchman of house-property and shop-goods; the guardian of reticules, pocket-books, purses, and watch-pockets;--the experienced observer and detector of pickpockets; the ever ready, though unpaid, auxiliary to the police constable. Nay, more;--he is always at hand, to render assistance to both equestrian and pedestrian: if a horse slip, stumble, or fall,--if a carriage break down, or vehicles come into collision,--the street-orderly darts forward to raise and rectify them: if foot-passengers be run over, or knocked down, or incautiously loiter on a crossing, the street-orderly rescues them from peril or death; or warns them of the approaching danger of carriages driving in opposite directions: if other accidents befall pedestrians,--if they fall on the pavement, from sudden illness, faintness, or apoplexy, the street-orderly is at hand to render assistance, or convey them to the nearest surgery or hospital. If strangers are at fault as to the localities of London, or the place of their destination, the orderly, in a civil and respectful manner, directs them on their way. If habitual or professional mendicants are importunate or troublesome, the street-orderly warns them off; or hands them to the care of the policeman. And if a really poor or starving fellow-creature wanders in search of food or alms, he leads him to a workhouse or soup-kitchen[28].

“Should the system become general (of which there is now every good prospect), it will be the means of rescuing no less than TEN THOUSAND PERSONS and their families from destitution and distress (in London alone);--from the forlorn and wretched condition which tempts to criminality and outrage, to that of comfort, independence, and happiness--produced by their own industry, aided by the kind consideration of those who are more the favourites of fortune than themselves.

“In conclusion it may be stated, that the street-orderly system will keep the streets and pavements of London and Westminster as clean as the court-yard and hall of any gentleman’s private dwelling: it will not only secure the general comfort and health of upwards of two millions of people, but save a vast annual amount to shopkeepers, housekeepers, and others, with regard to the spoiling of their goods by dust and dirt; in the wear and tear of clothes and furniture, by an eternal round of brushing, dusting, scouring, and scrubbing.”

The foregoing extract fully indicates the system pursued and results of street-orderlyism. I will now deal with what may be considered the labour or trade part of the question.

By the street-orderly plan a district is duly apportioned. To one man is assigned the care of a series of courts, a street, or 500, 1000, 1200, 1500, or 2000 yards of a public way, according to its traffic, after the whole surface has been swept “the first thing in the morning.” In Oxford-street, for instance, it has been estimated that 500 yards can be kept clear of the dirt continually being deposited by one man; in the squares, where there is no great traffic, 2000 yards; while in so busy a part as Cheapside, some nine men will be required to be hourly on the look-out. These street-orderlies are confined to their beats as strictly as are policeman, and as they soon become known to the inhabitants, it is a means of checking any disposition to loiter, or to shirk the work; to say nothing of the corps of inspectors and superintendents.

The division of labour among the street-orderlies is as follows:--

1. The foreman, whose duty is to “look over the men” (one such over-looker being employed to about every 20 men), and who receives 15_s._ per week.

2. The barrow-men, or sweepers, consisting of men and boys; the former receiving 12_s._ and the latter generally 7_s._ per week.

The tools and implements used, and their cost, are as follows:--wooden scoops, to throw up the slop, 1_s._ 2_d._ each (they used to be made of iron, weighing 8 lbs. each, but the men then complained that the weight “broke their arms”); shovel, 2_s._ 3_d._; hoe and scraper, 1_s._ 3_d._; hand-broom, 8_d._; scavager’s broom, 1_s._ 2_d._; barrow, 12_s._; covered barrow, 24_s._

In the amount of his receipts, the street-orderly appears to a disadvantage, as many of the “regular hands” of the contractors receive 16_s._ weekly, and he but 12_s._ The reason for this circumscribed payment I have already alluded to--the deficiency of funds to carry out the full purposes of the Association. Contrasted with the remuneration of the great majority of the pauper scavagers, the street-orderly is in a state of comparative comfort, for he receives nearly double as much as the Guardians of the Poor of Chelsea and the Liberty of the Rolls pay their labourers, and full 25 per cent. more than is paid by Bermondsey, Deptford, Marylebone, St. James’s, Westminster, St. George’s, Hanover-square, and St. Andrew’s, Holborn; and, I am assured, it is the intention of the Council to pay the full rate of wages given by the more respectable scavagers, viz., 16_s._ a week each man. If traders can do this, philanthropists, who require no profit, at least should be equally liberal. The labourer never can be benefited by depreciating the ordinary wages of his trade; and I must in justice confess, that there are scattered throughout the Report repeated regrets that the funds of the Association will not admit of a higher rate of wages being paid.

The street-orderly is not subjected to any fines or drawbacks, and is paid always in money, every Saturday evening at the office of the Association. In this respect, however, he does not differ from other bodies of scavagers.

The usual mode of obtaining employment among the street-orderlies is by personal application at the office of the Association in Leicester-square; but sometimes letters, well-penned and well-worded, are addressed to the president.

The daily number of applicants for employment is far from demonstrative of that unbroken prosperity of the country, of which we hear so much. On my inquiring into the number, I ascertained towards the end of August, that, for the previous fortnight, during fine summer weather, London being still full of the visitors to the Exhibition, on an average 30 men, of nearly all conditions of life, applied personally each day for work at street-sweeping, at 12_s._ a week. Certainly this labour is not connected with the feeling of pauper degradation, but it does not look well for the country that in twelve days 360 men should apply for such work. On the year’s average, I am assured, there are 30 applications daily, but only ten new applicants, as men call to solicit an engagement again and again. Thus in the year there are nine thousand, three hundred, and ninety applications, and 3130 individual applicants. In the course of one month last winter, there were applications from 300 boys in Spitalfields alone, to be set to work; and I am told, that had they been successful, 3000 lads would have applied the next month.

When an application is made by any one recommended by subscribers, &c., to the Association, or where the case seems worthy of attention, the names and addresses are entered in a book, with a slight sketch of the circumstances of the person wishing to become a street-orderly, so that inquiries may be made. I give a few of the more recent of these entries and descriptions, which are really “histories in little”:--

“Thomas M’G----, aged 50, W-- L-- street, Chelsea Hospital, single man. Taught a French and English school in Lyons, France. Driven out of France at the Revolution of 1848. Penniless.

“Rich. M----, 13, C---- street, H---- garden, 42 years. Married. Can read and write. Has been a seaman in the royal service ten years. Chairmaker by trade. Has jobbed as a porter in Rochester, Kent.

“Phil. S----, 1, R-- L-- street, High Holborn. From Killarney, co. Kerry. Bred a gardener. Fifteen years in constabulary force, for which he has a character from Col. Macgregor, and received the compensation of 50_l._, which he bestowed on his father and mother to keep them at home. Nine months in England, viz., in Bristol, Bath, and London. Aged 35. Can read and write.

“Edw. C----, 79, M---- street, Hackney. Aged 27. Married. Army-pensioner, 6_d._ a day. Can read and write. Recommended by Rev. T. Gibson, rector of Hackney.

“Chas. J----, 11, D---- street, Chelsea. Aged 38. Gentleman’s servant.”

In my account of the “regular hands” employed by the contracting scavagers, I have stated that the street-orderlies were a more miscellaneous body, as they had not been reared in the same proportion to street work. They are also, I may add, a better-conducted and better-informed class than the general run of unskilled labourers, as they know, before applying for street-orderly work, that inquiries are made concerning them, and that men of reprobate character will not be employed.

Many of those employed as orderlies have since returned to their original employments; others have procured, and been recommended to, superior situations in life to that of street-orderlies, by the Council of the Association, but no instance has occurred of any street-orderly having returned back to his parish workhouse or stoneyard. This certainly looks well.

One street-orderly, I may add, is now a reputable school-master, and has been so for some time; another is a clerk under similar circumstances. Another is a good theoretical and practical musician, having officiated as organist in churches and at concerts; he is also a neat music copyist. Another tells of his correspondence with a bishop on theological topics. Another, with a long and well-cultured beard, has been a model for artists. One had 150_l._ left to him not long ago, which was soon spent; his wife spent it, he said, and then he quietly applied to be permitted to be again a street-orderly. Several have got engagements as seamen, their original calling--indeed, I am assured, that a few months of street-orderly labour is looked upon as an excellent ordeal of character, after which the Association affirms good behaviour on the part of the employed.

The subscribers to the funds not unfrequently recommend destitute persons to the good offices of the Association, apart from their employment as street-orderlies. Thus, it is only a few weeks ago, that twelve Spanish refugees, none of them speaking English, were recommended to the Association; one of them it was ultimately enabled to establish as a waiter in an hotel resorted to by foreigners, another as an interpreter, another as a gentleman’s servant, and another (with a little boy, his son) in shoe-blacking in Leicester-square.

Thus among street-orderlies are to be found a great diversity of career in life, and what may be called adventures.

One great advantage, however, which the orderly possesses over his better paid brethren is in the greater probability of his “rising out of the street.” This is very rarely the case with an ordinary scavager.

I now give the following account from one of the street-orderlies, a tall, soldierly-looking man:--

“I’m 42 now,” he said, “and when I was a boy and a young man I was employed in the Times machine office, but got into a bit of a row--a bit of a street quarrel and frolic, and was called on to pay 3_l._, something about a street-lamp: that was out of the question; and as I was taking a walk in the park, not just knowing what I’d best do, I met a recruiting sergeant, and enlisted on a sudden--all on a sudden--in the 16th Lancers. When I came to the standard, though, I was found a little bit too short. Well, I was rather frolicsome in those days, I confess, and perhaps had rather a turn for a roving life, so when the sergeant said he’d take me to the East India Company’s recruiting sergeant, I consented, and was accepted at once. I was taken to Calcutta, and served under General Nott all through the Affghan war. I was in the East India Company’s artillery, 4th company and 2nd battalion. Why, yes, sir, I saw a little of what you may call ‘service.’ I was at the fighting at Candahar, Bowlinglen, Bowling-pass, Clatigillsy, Ghuznee, and Caboul. The first real warm work I was in was at Candahar. I’ve heard young soldiers say that they’ve gone into action the first time as merry as they would go to a play. Don’t believe them, sir. Old soldiers will tell you quite different. You must feel queer and serious the first time you’re in action: it’s not fear--it’s nervousness. The crack of the muskets at the first fire you hear in real hard earnest is uncommon startling; you see the flash of the fire from the enemy’s line, but very little else. Indeed, oft enough you see nothing but smoke, and hear nothing but balls whistling every side of you. And then you get excited, just as if you were at a hunt; but after a little service--I can speak for myself, at any rate--you go into action as you go to your dinner.

“I served during the time when there was the Affghanistan retreat; when the 44th was completely cut up, before any help could get up to them. We suffered a good deal from want of sufficient food; but it was nothing like so bad, at the very worst, as if you’re suffering in London. In India, in that war time, if you suffered, you were along with a number in just the same boat as yourself; and there’s always something to hope for when you’re an army. It’s different if you’re walking the streets of London by yourself--I felt it, sir, for a little bit after my return--and if you haven’t a penny, you feel as if there wasn’t a hope. If you have friends it may be different, but I had none. It’s no comfort if you know hundreds are suffering as you are, for you can’t help and cheer one another as soldiers can.

“Well, sir, as I’ve told you, I saw a good deal of service all through that war. Indeed I served thirteen years and four months, and was then discharged on account of ill health. If I’d served eight months longer that would have been fourteen years, and I should have been entitled to a pension. I believe my illness was caused by the hardships I went through in the campaigns, fighting and killing men that I never saw before, and until I was in India had never heard of, and that I had no ill-will to; certainly not, why should I? they never did me any wrong. But when it comes to war, if you can’t kill them they’ll kill you. When I got back to London I applied at the East India House for a pension, but was refused. I hadn’t served my time, though that wasn’t my fault.

“I then applied for work in the Times machine office, and they were kind enough to put me on. But I wasn’t master of the work, for there was new machinery, wonderful machinery, and a many changes. So I couldn’t be kept on, and was some time out of work, and very badly off, as I’ve said before, and then I got work as a scavenger. O, I knew nothing about sweeping before that. I’d never swept anything except the snow in the north of India, which is quite a different sort of thing to London dirt. But I very soon got into the way of it. I found no difficulty about it, though some may pretend there is an art in it. I had 15_s._ a week, and when I was no longer wanted I got employment as a street-orderly. I never was married, and have only myself to provide for. I’m satisfied that the street-orderly is far the best plan for street-cleaning. Nothing else can touch it, in my opinion, and I thought so before I was one of them, and I believe most working scavengers think so now, though they mayn’t like to say so, for fear it might go again their interest.

“Oh, yes, I’m sometimes questioned by gentlemen that may be passing in the streets while I’m at work, all about our system. They generally say, ‘and a very good system, too.’ One said once, ‘It shows that scavengers can be decent men; they weren’t when I was first in London, above 40 years ago.’ Well, I sometimes get the price of a pint of beer given to me by gentlemen making inquiries, but very seldom.”

Until about eighteen months ago none but unmarried men were employed by the Association, and these all resided in one locality, and under one general superintendence or system. The boarding and lodging of the men has, however, been discontinued about fifteen months; for I am told it was found difficult to encourage industrial and self-reliant pursuits in connection with public eleemosynary aid. Married men are now employed, and all the street-orderlies reside at their own homes; the adults, married or single, receiving 12_s._ a week each; the boys, 6_s._; while to each man is gratuitously supplied a blouse of blue serge, costing 2_s._ 6_d._, and a glazed hat, costing the same amount.

The system formerly adopted was as follows:--

The men were formed into a distinct body, and established in houses taken for them in Ham-yard, Great Windmill-street, Haymarket.

“The wages of the men,” states the Report, “were fixed at 12_s._ each per week; that is, 9_s._ were charged for board and lodging, and 3_s._ were paid in money to each man on Saturday afternoon, out of which he was expected to pay for his clothing and washing. The men had provided for them clean wholesome beds and bedding, a common sitting-room, with every means of ablution and personal cleanliness, including a warm bath once a week. Their food was abundant and of the best quality, viz., coffee and bread and butter for breakfast, at eight o’clock; round of beef, bread, and vegetables, four times a week for dinner, at one o’clock; nutritious soup and bread, or bread and cheese, forming the afternoon repast of the other three days. At six in the evening, when they returned from their labours, they were refreshed with tea or coffee, and bread and butter; or for supper, at nine, each had a large basin of soup, with bread. Thus, three-fourths of their wages being laid out for them to advantage, the men were well lodged and fed; and they have always declared themselves satisfied, comfortable, and happy, under the arrangements that were made for them. Under the charge of their intelligent and active superintendent, the street-orderlies soon fell into a state of the most exact discipline and order; and when old orderlies were drafted off, either to enter the service of parish boards who adopted the system, or were recommended into service, or some other superior position in life, and when new recruits came to supply their places, the latter found no difficulty in conforming to the rules laid down for the performance of their duties, as well as for their general conduct. ‘Military time’ regulated their hours of labour, refreshment, and rest; due attention was required from all; and each man (though a scavenger) was expected to be cleanly in his person, and respectful in his demeanour; indeed, nothing could be more gratifying than the conduct of these men, both at home and abroad.”

“In their domicile in Ham Yard,” continues the Report, “the street-orderlies have invariably been encouraged to follow pursuits which were useful and improving, after their daily labours were at an end; for this, a small library of history, voyages, travels, and instructive and entertaining periodical works, was placed at their disposal; and it is truly gratifying to the Council to be able to state, that the men evinced great satisfaction, and even avidity, in availing themselves of this source of intellectual pleasure and improvement. Writing materials also were provided for them, for the purpose of practice and improvement, as well as for mutual instruction in this most necessary and useful art; and it must be gratifying to the members of the Association to be informed, that, in April last, 34 out of 40 men appended their signatures, distinctly and well written, to a document which was submitted to them. Such a fact will at least prove, that when poor persons are employed, well fed, and lodged, and cared for in the way of instruction, they do not always mis-spend their time, nor, from mere preference, run riot in pot-houses and scenes of low debauchery. It is to be borne in mind, however, that one-half of these men were persons of almost every trade and occupation, from the artizan to the shopman and clerk, and therefore previously educated; the other half consisted of labourers and persons forsaken and indigent from their birth, and formerly dependent on workhouse charity or chance employment for their scanty subsistence; consequently in a state of utter ignorance as to reading and writing.

“Every night, after supper, prayers were read by the superintendent; and it has frequently been a most edifying as well as gratifying sight to members of your Council, as well as to other persons of rank and station in society, who have visited the Hospice in Ham Yard at that interesting hour, to observe the decorum with which these poor men demeaned themselves; and the heartfelt solemnity with which they joined in the invocations and thanks to their Creator and Preserver!

“Each Sunday morning, at 8 o’clock, a portion of the church service was read, followed by an extemporaneous discourse or exhortation by the secretary to the Hospice. They were marshalled to church twice on the Sabbath, headed by the superintendent and foremen; and generally divided into two or three bodies, each taking a direction to St. James’s, St. Anne’s, or St. Paul’s, Covent Garden; in all of which places of worship they had sitting accommodation provided by the kindness of the clergy and churchwardens. On Tuesday evenings they had the benefit of receiving pastoral visits and instruction from several of the worthy clergymen of the surrounding parishes.”

This is all very benevolent, but still very wrong. There is but one way of benefiting the poor, viz., by developing their powers of self-reliance, and certainly not in treating them like children. Philanthropists always seek to do too much, and in this is to be found the main cause of their repeated failures. The poor are expected to become angels in an instant, and the consequence is, they are merely made hypocrites. Moreover, no men of any independence of character will submit to be washed, and dressed, and fed like schoolboys; hence none but the worst classes come to be experimented upon. It would seem, too, that this overweening disposition to play the part of ped-agogues (I use the word in its literal sense) to the poor, proceeds rather from a love of power than from a sincere regard for the people. Let the rich become the advisers and assistants of the poor, giving them the benefit of their superior education and means--but leaving the people to act for themselves--and they will do a great good, developing in them a higher standard of comfort and moral excellence, and so, by improving their tastes, inducing a necessary change in their habits. But such as seek merely to lord it over those whom distress has placed in their power, and strive to bring about the villeinage of benevolence, making the people the philanthropic, instead of the feudal, serfs of our nobles, should be denounced as the arch-enemies of the country. Such persons may mean well, but assuredly they achieve the worst towards the poor. The curfew-bell, whether instituted by benevolence or tyranny, has the same degrading effect on the people--destroying their principle of self-action, without which we are all but as the beasts of the field.

Moreover, the laying out of the earnings of the poor is sure, after a time, to sink into “a job;” and I quote the above passage to show that, despite the kindest management, eleemosynary help is not a fitting adjunct to the industrial toil of independent labourers.

The residences of the street-orderlies are now in all quarters where unfurnished rooms are about 1_s._ 9_d._ or 2_s._ a week. The addresses I have cited show them residing in the outskirts and the heart of the metropolis. The following returns, however, will indicate the ages, the previous occupations, the education, church-going, the personal habits, diet, rent, &c., of the class constituting the street-orderlies, better than anything I can say on the matter.

Before any man is employed as a street-orderly, he is called upon to answer certain questions, and the replies from 67 men to these questions supply a fund of curious and important information--important to all but those who account the lot of the poor of no importance. In presenting these details, I beg to express my obligations to Mr. Colin Mackenzie, the enlightened and kindly secretary of the Association.

I shall first show what is the order of the questioning, then what were the answers, and I shall afterwards recapitulate, with a few comments, the salient characteristics of the whole.

The questions are after this fashion; the one I adduce having been asked of a scavager to whom a preference was given:--

The Parish of St. Mary, Paddington.--Questions asked of Parish Scavagers, applying for employment as Street-Orderlies, with the answers appended.

Name?--W---- C----.

Age?--35 years.

How long a scavenger?--Three months.

What occupation previously?--Gentleman’s footman.

Married or single?--Married.

Reading, writing, or other education?--Yes.

Any children?--One.

Their ages?--Three years.

Wages?--Nine shillings per week.

Any parish relief?--No.

What and how much food the applicants have usually purchased in a week.

Meat?--2_s._ 6_d._

Bacon?--None.

Fish?--None.

Bread?---2_s._

Potatoes?--4_d._

Butter?--6_d._

Tea and sugar?--1_s._

Cocoa?--None.

What rent they pay?--2_s._

Furnished or unfurnished lodgings?--Unfurnished.

Any change of dress?--No.

Sunday clothing?--No.

How many shirts?--Two shirts.

Boots and shoes?--One pair.

How much do they lay out for clothes in a year?--I have nothing but what I stand upright in.

Do they go to church or chapel?--Sometimes.

If not, why not?--It is from want of clothes.

Do they ever bathe?--No.

Does the wife go out to, or take in work?--Yes.

What are her earnings?--Uncertain.

Do they have anything from charitable institutions or families?--No.

When ill; where do they resort to?--Hospitals, dispensaries, and the parish doctor.

Do their children go to any school; and what?--Paddington.

Do they ever save any money; how much, and where?--

How much do they spend per week in drink?

Do not passers by, as charitable ladies, &c., give them money; and how much per week?--No.

Such, are the questions asked, and I now give the answers of 67 individuals.

Their ages were:--

10 were from 20 to 30 13 „ 30 „ 40 24 „ 40 „ 50 15 „ 50 to 60 4 „ 60 „ 70. 1 „ 70

The greatest number of any age was 7 persons of 45 years respectively.

Their previous occupations had been:--

22 labourers. 3 at the business “all their lives.” 3 dustmen. 3 ostlers. 2 stablemen. 2 carmen. 2 porters. 2 gentlemen’s servants. 2 greengrocers. 1 following dust-cart. 1 excavator. 1 gravel digging. 1 stone breaking in yards. 1 at work in the brick-fields. 1 at work in the lime-works. 1 coal porter. 1 sweep. 1 haybinder. 1 gaslighter. 1 dairyman. 1 ploughman. 1 gardener. 1 errand boy. 1 fur dresser. 1 fur dyer. 1 skinner. 1 leather-dresser. 1 letter-press printer. 1 paper stainer. 1 glass blower. 1 farrier. 1 plasterer. 1 clerk. 1 vendor of goods. 1 licensed victualler.

Therefore, of 67 scavagers

12 had been artizans. 55 „ unskilled workmen.

Hence about five-sixths belong to the unskilled class of operatives.

Time of having been at scavagering.

3 “all their lives” at the business. 1 about 27 years. 6 from 15 to 20 years. 6 „ 10 „ 15 „ 4 „ 5 „ 10 years. 34 „ 1 „ 5 „ 13 twelve months and less.

Hence it would appear, that few have been at the business a long time. The greater number have not been acting as scavagers more than five years.

State of education.--Could they read and write?

45 answered yes. 4 replied that they could read and write. 5 could read only. 12 could do neither. 1 was deaf and dumb.

Hence it would appear, that rather more than two-thirds of the scavagers have received some little education.

Did they go to church or chapel?

22 answered yes. 9 went to church. 4 „ chapel. 4 „ the Catholic chapel. 1 „ both church and chapel. 5 went sometimes. 1 not often. 17 never went at all. 1 was ashamed to go. 1 went out of town to enjoy himself. 2 made no return (1 being deaf and dumb).

Thus it would seem, that not quite two-thirds regularly attend some place of worship; that about one-eleventh go occasionally; and that about one-fourth never go at all.

Why did they not go to church?

12 had no clothes. 55 returned no answer (1 being deaf and dumb).

Hence of those who never go (19 out of 67), very nearly two-thirds (say 12 in 19) have no clothes to appear in.

Did they bathe?

59 answered no. 3 replied yes. 2 said they did in the Thames. 2 returned “sometimes.” 1 was deaf and dumb.

Hence it appeared, that about seven-eighths never bathe, although following the filthiest occupation.

Were they married or single?

56 were married. 5 „ widowers. 6 „ single.

Thus it would seem, that about ten-elevenths are or have been married men.

How many children had they?

1 had 15. 1 „ 6. 2 „ 5 each. 11 „ 4 „ 19 „ 3 „ 9 „ 2 „ 6 „ 1 each. 16 „ none (6 of these being single men). 2 returned their family as grown up without stating the number.

Consequently 51 out of 61, or five-sixths, are married, and have families numbering altogether 165 children; the majority had only 3 children, and this was about the average family.

What were the ages of their children?

11 were grown up. 2 between 30 and 40. 9 „ 20 and 30. 49 „ 10 and 20. 80 „ 1 and 10. 8 were 1 year and under. 5 were returned at home. 1 returned as dead.

One-half of the scavagers’ children, therefore, are between 1 and 10 years of age; the majority would appear to be 8 years old.

Some were said to be grown up, but no number was given.

Did their children go to school?

13 answered yes. 13 to the National School. 5 to the Ragged School. 2 to Catholic. 2 to Parish. 6 to local schools. 1 replied that he went sometimes. 2 returned no. 1 replied that his children were “not with him.” 22 (of whom 16 had no children, and 1 was deaf and dumb) made no reply.

From this it would seem, that a large majority--41 out of 51, or four-fifths--of the parents who have children send them to school.

Did their wives work?

15 returned no. 6 said their wives were “unable.” 1 had lost the use of her limbs. 2 did, but “not often.” 4 did “when they could.” 10 worked “sometimes.” 12 answered yes. 1 sold cresses. 15 made no return (11 having no wives and 1 being deaf and dumb).

Hence two-fifths of the wives (22 out of 56) do no work, 16 do so occasionally, and 13, or one-fourth, are in the habit of working.

What were wives’ earnings?

10 returned them as “uncertain.” 1 “didn’t know.” 1 estimated them at 1_s._ 6_d._ per week. 1 at 1_s._ to 2_s._ „ 2 at 2_s._ „ 3 at 2_s._ or 3_s._ „ 2 at about 3_s._ „ 1 at 2_s._ to 4_s._ „ 1 at 3_s._ or 4_s._ „ 1 at 3_d._ or 4_d._ per day. 43 gave no returns (having either no wives, or their wives not working). 1 was deaf and dumb.

So that, out of 29 wives who were said to work, 16 occasionally and 13 regularly, there were returns for 23. Nearly half of their earnings were given as uncertain from their seldom doing work, while the remainder were stated to gain from 1_s._ to 4_s._ per week; about 2_s._ 6_d._ perhaps would be a fair average.

What wages were they themselves in the habit of receiving?

3 had 16_s._ 6_d._ per week. 2 „ 16_s._ „ 28 „ 15_s._ „ 3 „ 14_s._ 6_d._ „ 1 „ 14_s._ „ 2 „ 12_s._ „ 15 „ 9_s._ „ 4 „ 8_s._ „ 5 „ 7_s._ „ 4 „ 1_s._ 1-1/2_d._ a day and 2 loaves.

Hence it is evident, that one-half receive 15_s._ or more a week, and about a fourth 9_s._

It was not the parishes, however, but the contractors with the parishes, who paid the higher rates of wages: Mr. Dodd, for St. Luke’s; Mr. Westley, for St. Botolph’s, Bishopsgate; Mr. Parsons, for Whitechapel; Mr. Newman, for Bethnal-green, &c.

These wages the scavagers laid out in the following manner:--

For rent, per week.

1 paid 4_s._ 1 „ 3_s._ 6_d._ 8 „ 3_s._ 14 „ 2_s._ 6_d._ 33 „ 2_s._ 4 „ 1_s._ 6_d._ 1 „ 1_s._ 3_d._ 2 „ 1_s._ 1 lived rent free. 1 paid for board and lodging. 1 lived with mother.

Hence it would appear, that near upon half the number paid 2_s._ rent. The usual rent paid seems to be between 2_s._ and 3_s._, five-sixths of the entire number paying one or other of those amounts. Only three lived in furnished lodgings, and the rents of these were, respectively, two at 2_s._ 6_d._ and the other at 2_s._

For bread, per week.

1 expended 5_s._ 3_d._ 1 „ 5_s._ 1 „ 4_s._ 7_d._ 1 „ 4_s._ 6_d._ 1 „ 4_s._ 3_d._ 7 „ 4_s._ 13 „ 3_s._ 6_d._ 8 „ 3_s._ 3 „ 2_s._ 6_d._ 4 „ 2_s._ 3_d._ 13 „ 2_s._ 4 „ 1_s._ 6_d._ 1 „ 1_s._ 9_d._ 4 two loaves a day from parish. 3 gave a certain sum per week to their wives or mothers to lay out for them, and 1 boarded and lodged. 1 was deaf and dumb.

Thus it would seem, that the general sum expended weekly on bread varies between 2_s._ and 4_s._ The average saving from free-trade, therefore, would be between 4_d._ and 8_d._, or say 6_d._, per week.

For meat, per week.

4 expended 4_s._ 5 „ 3_s._ 6_d._ 11 „ 3_s._ 12 „ 2_s._ 6_d._ 1 „ 2_s._ 4_d._ 5 „ 2_s._ 4 „ 1_s._ 6_d._ 1 „ 1_s._ 2_d._ 9 „ 1_s._ 2 „ 10_d._ 2 „ 6_d._ 1 „ 8_d._ 1 once a week. 4 had none. 5 no returns (3 of this number gave a weekly allowance to wives or mothers, 1 was deaf and dumb, and 1 paid for board and lodging).

By the above we see, that the sum usually expended on meat is between 2_s._ 6_d._ and 3_s._ per week, about one-third of the entire number expending that sum. All those who expended 1_s._ and less per week had 9_s._ and less for their week’s labour. The average saving from the cheapening of provisions would here appear to be between 5_d._ and 6_d._ per week at the outside.

For tea and sugar, per week.

2 paid 2_s._ 6_d._ 1 „ 2_s._ 4_d._ 1 „ 2_s._ 3_d._ 19 „ 2_s._ 2 „ 1_s._ 9_d._ 4 „ 1_s._ 8_d._ 12 „ 1_s._ 6_d._ 5 „ 1_s._ 4_d._ 5 „ 1_s._ 3_d._ 5 „ 1_s._ 2_d._ 13 „ 1_s._ 2 „ 8_d._ 5 no returns: 1 deaf and dumb, 1 board and lodging, and 3 making allowances.

The sum usually expended on tea and sugar seems to be between 1_s._ 6_d._ and 2_s._ per week.

For fish, per week.

3 expended 1_s._ 5 „ 8_d._ 23 „ 6_d._ 8 „ 4_d._ 23 „ nothing. 4 allowed so much per week to wives, or mother, or landlady. 1 deaf and dumb.

Hence one-third spent 6_d._ weekly in fish, and one-third nothing.

For bacon, per week.

1 expended 1_s._ 2 „ 10_d._ 1 „ 9_d._ 5 „ 8_d._ 9 „ 6_d._ 1 „ 4_d._ 43 „ nothing. 4 allowances to wives, &c. 1 deaf and dumb.

The majority (two-thirds), therefore, do not have bacon. Of those that do eat bacon, the usual sum spent weekly is 6_d._ or 8_d._

For butter, per week.

1 expended 1_s._ 8_d._ 24 „ 1_s._ 11 „ 10_d._ 12 „ 8_d._ 11 „ 6_d._ 1 „ 3_d._ 2 „ nothing. 4 made allowances. 1 deaf and dumb.

Thus one-third expended 1_s._, and about one-sixth spent 10_d._; another sixth, 8_d._; and another sixth, 6_d._ a week, for butter.

For potatoes, per week.

1 spent 1_s._ 2 „ 10_d._ 6 „ 8_d._ 1 „ 7_d._ 18 „ 6_d._ 6 „ 4_d._ 28 spent nothing. 4 made allowances. 1 deaf and dumb.

About one-fourth spent 6_d._; the greater proportion, however (nearly one-half), expended nothing upon potatoes weekly.

For clothes, yearly.

2 expended 2_l._ 2 „ 1_l._ 10_s._ 2 „ 1_l._ 5_s._ 3 „ 1_l._ 1 „ 18_s._ 1 „ 17_s._ 1 „ 15_s._ 4 „ 12_s._ 1 „ 10_s._ 34 couldn’t say. 1 had 2 pairs of boots a year, but no clothes. 2 expended “not much.” 2 got them as they could. 1 expended a few shillings. 1 said it “all depends.” 2 returned “nothing.” 1 was deaf and dumb. 6 made no return.

Hence 43 out of 67, or nearly two-thirds, spent little or nothing upon their clothes.

Had they a change of dress?

28 had a change of dress. 38 had not. 1 was deaf and dumb.

Above one-half, therefore, had no other clothes but those they worked in.

Had they any Sunday clothing?

20 had some. 45 had none. 21 made no return. 1 deaf and dumb.

More than two-thirds, then, had no Sunday clothes.

How many shirts had they?

10 had 3 shirts. 54 „ 2 „ 2 „ 1 shirt. 1 was deaf and dumb.

The greater number, therefore, had two shirts.

How many shoes had they?

27 had 2 pairs. 39 „ 1 „ 1 was deaf and dumb.

Thus the majority had only one pair of shoes.

How much did then spend in drink?

1 expended 2_s._ a week. 1 „ 1_s._ or 2_s._ „ 2 „ 1_s._ 6_d._ „ 4 „ 1_s._ „ 1 „ 6_d._ „ 1 „ 3_d._ or 5_d._ „ 7 said they “couldn’t say.” 1 said he “wouldn’t say.” 1 said “that all depends.” 2 said they “had none to spend.” 2 expended nothing. 44 gave no return (1 deaf and dumb).

Hence answers were given by one-third, of whom the greatest number “couldn’t say.” (?) Of the ten who acknowledged spending anything upon drink, the greater number, or 4, said they spent 1_s._ a week only. But?

Did they save any money?

36 answered no. 31 gave no reply (1 being deaf and dumb).

What did they in case of illness coming upon themselves or families?

28 went to the dispensary. 8 went to the hospital. 6 „ parish doctor. 3 wives went to the lying-in hospital. 1 went to the workhouse. 2 said “nothing.” 1 “never troubled any.” 8 made no reply (1 being deaf and dumb).

The greater number, then, go, when ill, to the dispensary.

Were they in receipt of alms?

56 answered no. 2 „ sometimes. 3 „ yes. 6 made no returns (1 being deaf and dumb).

Did the passers-by give them anything?

49 answered no. 2 „ sometimes beer. 1 „ never. 2 „ seldom. 1 „ very seldom. 12 no returns (1 being deaf and dumb).

Did they receive any relief from their parishes?

56 replied no. 4 had 2 loaves and 1_s._ a day as wages. 1 had 4 loaves a week. 1 „ a 4-lbs. loaf. 1 „ 15 lbs. of bread. 2 answered “not at present.” 2 made no returns.

Thus the greater proportion (five-sixths), it will be seen, had no relief; two of those who had relief received 9_s._ wages a week, and two others only 7_s._, while four received part of their wages from the parish in bread.

These analyses are not merely the characteristics of the applicant or existent street-orderlies; they are really the annals of the poor in all that relates to their domestic management in regard to meat and clothes, the care of their children, their church-going, education, previous callings, and parish relief. The inquiry is not discouraging as to the character of the poor, and I must call attention to the circumstance of how rarely it is that so large a collection of facts is placed at the command of a public writer. In many of the public offices the simplest information is as jealously withheld as if statistical knowledge were the first and last steps to high treason. I trust that Mr. Cochrane’s example in the skilful arrangement of the returns connected with the Association over which he presides, and his courteous readiness to supply the information, gained at no small care and cost, will be more freely followed, as such a course unquestionably tends to the public benefit.

It will be seen from these statements, how hard the struggle often is to obtain work in unskilled labour, and, when obtained, how bare the living. Every farthing earned by such workpeople is necessarily expended in the support of a family; and in the foregoing details we have another proof as to the diminution of the purchasing fund of the country, being in direct proportion to the diminution of the wages. If 100 men receive but 7_s._ a week each for their work, their yearly outlay, to “keep the bare life in them,” is 1820_l._ If they are paid 16_s._ a week, their outlay is 4160_l._; an expenditure of 2340_l._ more in the productions of our manufactures, in all textile, metal, or wooden fabrics; in bread, meat, fruit, or vegetables; and in the now necessaries, the grand staple of our foreign and colonial trade--tea, coffee, cocoa, sugar, rice, and tobacco. Increase your wages, therefore, and you increase your markets. For manufacturers to underpay their workmen is to cripple the demand for manufactures. To talk of the over-production of our cotton, linen, and woollen goods is idle, when thousands of men engaged in such productions are in rags. It is not that there are too many makers, but too few who, owing to the decrease of wages, are able to be buyers. Let it be remembered that, out of 67 labouring men, three-fourths could not afford to buy proper clothing, expending thereupon “little” or “nothing,” and, I may add, because earning little or nothing, and so having scarcely anything to expend.

I now come to the cost of cleansing the streets upon the street-orderly system, as compared with that of the ordinary modes of payment to contractors, &c. It will have been observed, from what has been previously stated, that the Council of the Association contend that far higher amounts may be realized for street manure when collected clean, according to the street-orderly plan. If, by a better mode of collecting the street dirt, it be kept unmixed, its increase in value and in price may be most positively affirmed.

Before presenting estimates and calculations of cost, I may remind the reader that, under the street-orderly system, no watering carts are required, and none are used where the system is carried out in its integrity. To be able to dispense with the watering of the streets is not merely to get rid of a great nuisance, but to effect a considerable saving in the rates.

I now give two estimates, both relating to the same district:--

COMPARATIVE EXPENSE OF CLEANING AND WATERING THE STREETS, &C., OF ST. JAMES’S PARISH; under the system now in operation by the Paving Board, and under the sanitary system of employing street-orderlies, as recommended by 779 ratepayers. It is assumed, from reasonable data, that the superficial contents of all the streets, lanes, courts, and alleys in the parish, do not amount to more than 80,000 square yards.

“Present Annual Expense of Cleansing St. James’s Parish:--

Paid to contractor for carrying away slop, including expense of brooms £800 0 0 Paid to 23 men, average wages, 10_s._ per week, 52 weeks 598 0 0 ----------- £1398 0 0

“Annual Expense of Street-Orderly System:--

30 men (including those with hand-barrows), at 10_s._ per week, 52 weeks £780 0 0 Expense of brooms 30 0 0 Cartage of slop 100 0 0 ----------- £910 0 0 ----------- £488 0 0 Saving by diminished expense of street-watering throughout the parish 450 0 0 ----------- Annual prospective saving £938 0 0

“Obs.--The sum of 800_l._ per annum was paid to the contractor on account of expenses incurred for the removal of slop. During the three years previous to 1849, the contractor paid money to the parish for permission to remove the house-ashes, the value of which was then 2_s._ per load; it is now 2_s._ 6_d._ In St. Giles’s and St. George’s parishes, whose surface is more than twice the extent of St. James’s, the expense of slop-cartage, in 1850, was 304_l._ 14_s._ 0_d._, whilst the sum received for cattle-manure collected by street-orderlies, was 73_l._ 14_s._ 0_d._; and the slop-expenses for the four months ending November 29, were 59_l._ 18_s._ 6_d._, whilst the manure sold for 21_l._ 6_s._ 0_d._ Thus has the slop-expense in these extensive united parishes been reduced to less than 120_l._ per annum. Since the preceding estimate was submitted to the Commissioners of Paving, the street-orderly system has been introduced into St. James’s parish; and it is confidently expected that the ‘Annual Prospective saving’ of 938_l._, will be fully realised.”

A similar estimate has just been sent into the authorities of the great parish of St. Marylebone, but its results do not differ from the one I have just cited.

I next present an estimate contrasting the expense of the street-orderly method with the cost of employing sweeping-machines:--

“COMPARATIVE EXPENSE OF CLEANSING AND WATERING THE STREETS, &C., OF ST. MARTIN’S PARISH, under the system now in operation by the Paving Board, and under the sanatory system of employing street-orderlies, as recommended by 703 ratepayers. It is assumed, from reasonable data, that the superficial contents of all the streets, lanes, courts, and alleys in the parish, amount to about 70,000 square yards.

“Expenses by Machinery in St. Martin’s Parish.

£ s. d. Annual payment to street-machine proprietor 980 0 0 Watering rate (1847) 644 16 8-1/2 Salaries to clerks 391 0 0 Support of 28 able-bodied men in workhouse, thrown out of work, at 4_s._ 6_d._ per man 327 12 0 ------------------- £2343 8 8-1/2

“Expenditure by the Employment of Street-Orderlies.

£ s. d. Maintenance of 28 street-orderlies to keep clean 70,000 yards (presumed contents), at 2500 yards each man, at 12_s._ per week 768 0 0 Two inspectors of orderlies, at 15_s._ per week 78 0 0 One superintendent of ditto, at 1_l._ per week 52 0 0 Wear and tear of brooms 36 8 0 Interest on outlay for barrows, brooms, and shovels 26 19 0 Watering rate (not required) .. .. .. Value of manure pays for cartage .. .. .. ----------------- 961 7 0 Annual saving by street-orderlies 1382 1 8-1/2 ------------------ 2343 8 8-1/2

I now give an estimate concerning a smaller district, one of the divisions of St. Pancras parish. It was embodied in a Report read at a meeting in Camden-town, on the desirableness of introducing the street-orderly system:--

The Report set forth that the Committee had “made a minute investigation into the present systems of street-cleansing, as adopted under the superintendence of Mr. Bird, the parish surveyor, and under that of the National Philanthropic Association.

“From the 26th of March, 1848, to the 26th of March, 1849, the Directors of the Poor expended in paving and cleansing, &c., the three and a quarter miles under their charge, 3545_l._ 19_s._ 7_d._; of this the following items were for cleansing, viz.--

£ s. d. Labour 249 13 0 Tools 10 12 0 Slop carting 496 0 0 Proportion of foreman’s salary 39 0 0 --------------- 795 5 0

“The street-orderly system of cleansing the said roads in the most efficient manner would give the following expenditure per annum:--

£ s. d. Thirty-four men to cleanse 3-1/4 miles, at the rate of 2000 superficial yards each man, 12_s._ per week each 1060 16 0 Two inspectors of orderlies, at 15_s._ per week each 78 0 0 Superintendent 104 0 0 Cost of brooms, shovels, &c. 83 0 0 No allowance for slop-carting, the National Philanthropic Association holding that the manure, properly collected, will more than pay for its removal .. .. .. ---------------- 1325 16 0 Deduct cost of cleansing by the old mode 795 5 0 ---------------- 530 11 0

“The apparent extra cost, therefore, would be 530_l._ 11_s._ The vestry, however, would see that the charge for supporting 34 able-bodied men in the workhouse is at least 5_s._ per week each, or 442_l._ per annum. This, therefore, must be deducted from the 530_l._ 11_s._, leaving the extra cost 88_l._ 11_s._ per annum. This sum, the committee were assured, will be not only repaid by the reduced outlay for repairs, which the new system will effect; but a very great saving will be the result of the thorough cleansed state in which the roads will be constantly maintained. Under the late system, to find the roads in a cleansed state was the exception, not the rule; and when all the advantages likely to result from the new system were taken into consideration, the committee did not hesitate to recommend it for adoption in its most efficient form.”

Concerning the expense of cleansing the City by the street-orderly system, Mr. Cochrane says:--

“The number required for the whole surface (including the footways, courts, &c.) would be about 250 men and boys.

“Upon the present system this number would be formed in three divisions:--

“First division.--170 to begin work at 6 a.m., and end 6 p.m. Second division, called relief and aids.--30 boys from 12 at noon to 10. Third division--50 men from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. Total, 250.

“The men and boys are now working at from 6_s._ to 12_s._ per week.

These 250 men and boys would cost for wages during the year about £5100 Twelve foremen, at 40_l._ per annum 480 Two superintendents at 50_l._ each 100 Brooms, &c. 325 Barrows 100 Two clerks, at 100_l._ each 200 Manager 100 ----- £6405

“No items are given for slopping or cartage, as, if the streets are properly attended to, there ought to be no slop, whilst the value of the manure may be more than equivalent for the expense of its removal.

“Some slop-carts will, however, be occasionally required for Smithfield-market and similar localities; making, therefore, ample allowance for contingencies, it is confidently considered that the expense for cleansing the whole of the city of London by street-orderlies would not exceed 8000_l._ per annum.”

“Expenses of Cleansing and Watering the Streets, &c., of the City of London, on the old system of Scavaging, from June, 1845, to June, 1846.

Annual Expense. To scavaging contractors £6040 Value of ashes and dust of the city of London, given gratis to the above contractors in the year ending 1846, and now purchased by them for the year ending 1847 5500 Estimated contributions levied for watering streets 4000 Salaries to surveyors, inspectors, beadles, clerks, &c., of Sewers’ Office, according to printed account, March 3, 1846 2485 Expense for cleaning out sewers and gully-holes (not known) ------- Annual expense under the imperfect system of street-cleansing £18,025

“Number of men employed, 58.

“State of the Streets:--Inhabitants always complaining of their being muddy in winter and dusty in summer.”

Two estimates, then, show an expectation of a yearly saving of no less than 2320_l._ to the rate-payers of two parishes alone; 938_l._ to St. James’s, and 1382_l._ to St. Martin’s. And this, too, if all that be augured of this system be realized, with a freedom from street dust and dirt unknown under other methods of scavagery. I think it right, however, to express my opinion that even in the reasonable prospect of these great savings being effected, it is a paltry, or rather a false, because miscalled, economy to speculate on the payment of 10_s._ and 12_s._ a week to street-labourers in the parishes of St. James and St. Martin respectively, when so many of the contractors pay their men 16_s._ weekly. If this low hire be justifiable in the way of an experiment, it can never be justifiable as a continuance of the reward of labour.

If the street-orderly system is to be the means of permanently reducing the wages of the regular scavagers from 16_s._ to 12_s._ a week, then we had better remain afflicted with the physical dirt of our streets, than the moral filth which is sure to proceed from the poverty of our people--but if it is to be a means of elevating the pauper to the dignity of the independent labour, rather than dragging the independent labourer down to the debasement of the pauper, then let all who wish well to their fellows encourage it as heartily and strenuously as they can--otherwise the sooner it is denounced as an insidious mode of defrauding the poor of one-fourth of their earnings the better; and it is merely in the belief that Mr. Cochrane and the Council of the Association mean to keep faith with the public and increase the men’s wages to those of the regular trade, that the street-orderly system is advocated here. If our philanthropists are to reduce wages 25 per cent., then, indeed, the poor man may cry, “save me from my friends.”

As to the positive and definite working of the street-orderly system as an economical system, no information can be given beyond the estimates I have cited, as it has never been duly tested on a sufficiently large scale. Its working has been, of necessity, desultory. It has, however, been introduced into St. George’s, Bloomsbury; St. James’s, Westminster; and is about to be established in St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields; and in the course of a year or two it seems that it will be sufficiently tested. That its working has hitherto been desultory is a necessity in London, where “vested interests” look grimly on any change or even any inquiry. That it deserves a full and liberal testing seems undeniable, from the concurrent assent of all parishioners who have turned their attention to it.

It remains to show the expenses of the Philanthropic Association, for I am unable to present an account of street-orderlyism separately. The two following tables fully indicate to what an extent the association is indebted to the private purse of Mr. Cochrane, who by this time has advanced between 6000_l._ and 7000_l._

“BALANCE SHEET.

Receipts and Expenditure of the National Philanthropic Association, for the Promotion of Social and Sanatory Improvements and the Employment of the Poor, from 29th September, 1846, to 29th September, 1849.

DR. £ s. d. To subscriptions and donations from the 29th September, 1846, to 29th September, 1849 1393 16 7 Balance due to president, 29th September, 1849 5739 19 9 ------------- 7133 16 4

CR. £ s. d. By balance due to president, as per Balance Sheet, Sept. 29, 1846 2935 17 9 Secretary’s salary 300 0 0 Rent of offices, &c. 248 10 0 Salaries to clerks, messengers, &c. 371 19 4 Do. to collectors 312 18 1 Commission to do. 130 5 6 Printing and stationery 556 17 0 Hire of rooms for public meetings 60 10 0 Advertisements and newspapers 244 5 3 Bill posting 8 12 6 Salaries to persons in charge of free lavatories in Ham-yard, Great Windmill-st., St. James’s 10 18 2 Brooms, barrows, and shovels, for the use of street-orderlies 86 8 0 Charges of contractors and others for removal of street slop, &c. 58 9 6 Food, lodging, and wages to street-orderlies, domiciled in Ham-yard, Great Windmill-street, St. James’s 980 11 4 Clothing for the street-orderlies 13 3 2 Baths provided for do. 5 15 10 Sundry expenses for offices, including postage-stamps, &c. 92 7 11 Law expenses 8 10 10 Builder’s charges for free lavatories in Ham-yard 95 13 10 Amount advanced to the late secretary for improving the dwellings of the poor 20 0 0 Farther advances made by president on various occasions for the general purposes of the Association 592 2 4 -------------- 7133 16 4

Audited by us, Oct. 19th, 1849, Charles Shepherd Lenton, 33, Leicester-square; and Joseph Child, 43, Leicester-square.”

STREET-ORDERLIES.--CITY SURVEYOR’S REPORT.

I have been favoured with a Report “upon street-cleansing and in reference to the Street-Orderly System,” by the author, Mr. W. Haywood, the Surveyor to the City Commission of Sewers, who has invited my attention to the matter, in consequence of the statements which have appeared on the subject in “London Labour and the London Poor.”

Mr. Haywood, whose tone of argument is courteous and moderate, and who does not scruple to do justice to what he accounts the good points of the street-orderly system, although he condemns it as a whole, gives an account of the earlier scavaging of the city, not differing in any material respect from that which I have already printed. He represents the public ways of the City, which I have stated to be about 50 miles, as “about 51 miles lineal, about 770,157 superficial yards in area.” This area, it appears, comprehends 1000 different places.

In 1845 the area of the carriage-way of the City was estimated at 418,000 square yards, and the footway at 316,000, making a total of 734,000; but since that period new streets have been made and others extensively widened. The precincts of Bridewell, St. Bartholomew, St. James’s, Duke’s-place, Aldgate, and others, have been added to the jurisdiction of the Sewers Commission by Act of Parliament, so that the Surveyor now estimates the area of the carriage-way of the City of London at 441,250 square yards, and the footway at 328,907, making a total of 770,157 square yards.

“I am fully impressed,” observes Mr. Haywood, “with the great importance to a densely-populated city of an efficient cleansing of the public ways. Probably after a perfect system of sewage and drainage (which implies an adequate water supply), and a well-paved surface (which I have always considered to be little inferior in its importance to the former, and which is indispensable to obtaining clean sweeping), good surface cleansing ranks next in its beneficial sanitary influence; and most certainly the comfort gained by all through having public thoroughfares in a high degree of cleanliness is exceedingly great.”

Mr. Haywood expresses his opinion that streets “ordure soddened”--smelling like “stable yards,”--dangerous to the health of the inhabitants--impassable from mud in winter and from dust in summer--and inflicting constant pecuniary loss, “can only exist in an appreciable degree in thoroughfares swept much less frequently” than the streets within the jurisdiction of the City Commissioners of Sewers. In this opinion, however, Mr. Haywood comes into direct collision with the statements put forth by the Board of Health, who have insisted upon the insanitary state of the metropolitan streets, more strongly, perhaps, in their several Reports, than has Mr. Cochrane.

But Mr. Haywood believes that not only are the assertions of the Board of Health as to the unwholesome state of the metropolitan thoroughfares unfounded as regards the city of London, but he asserts that from the daily street-sweeping, “the surface there is maintained in as high an average condition of cleanliness, as the means hitherto adopted will enable to be attained.”

“Nor does this apply,” says Mr. Haywood, “to the main thoroughfares only. In the poorer courts and alleys within the city, where a high degree of cleanliness is, at least, as needful, in a sanitary point of view, as in the larger and wider thoroughfares, the facilities for efficient sweeping are as great, if not greater, than in other portions of your jurisdiction. For many years past the whole of the courts and alleys which carts do not enter, have been paved with flagstone, laid at a good inclination, and presenting an uniform smooth non-absorbent surface: in many of these courts where the habits of the people are cleanly, the scavenger’s broom is almost unneeded for weeks together; in others, where the habit prevails of throwing the refuse of the houses upon the pavements, the daily sweeping is highly essential; but in all these courts the surface presents a condition which renders good clean sweeping a comparatively easy operation, that which is swept away being mostly dry, or nearly so.”

After alluding to the street-orderly principle of scavaging, “to clean and keep clean,” Mr. Haywood observes, “between the ‘street-orderly system’ and the periodical or intermittent sweeping there is this difference, that upon the former system there should be (if it fulfils what it professes) no deposit of any description allowed to remain much longer than a few minutes upon the surface, and that there should be neither mud in the wet weather, nor dust in the dry weather, upon the public ways; whilst, upon the latter system, the deposit necessarily accumulates between the periods of sweeping, commencing as soon as one sweeping has terminated, gradually increasing, and being at its point of extreme accumulation at the period when the next sweeping takes place; the former, then, is, or should be, a system of prevention; the latter, confessedly, but a system of palliation or cure.

“The more frequent the periodical sweeping, therefore, the nearer it approximates in its results to the ‘street-orderly system,’ inasmuch as the accumulations, being frequently removed, must be smaller, and the evils of mud, dust, effluvia, &c., less in proportion.

“Now to fulfil its promise: upon the ‘street-orderly system,’ there should be men both day and night within the streets, who should constantly remove the manure and refuse, and, failing this, if there be only cessation for six hours out of the twenty-four of the ‘continuous cleansing,’ it becomes at once a periodical cleansing but a degree in advance of the daily sweeping, which has been now for years in operation within the city of London.”

This appears to me to be an extreme conclusion:--because the labours of the street-orderly system cease when the great traffic ceases, and when, of course, there is comparatively little or no dirt deposited in the thoroughfares, therefore, says Mr. Haywood, “the City system of cleansing once per day is only a degree behind that system of which the principle is incessant cleansing at such time as the dirtying is incessant.” The two principles are surely as different as light and darkness:--in the one the cleansing is intermittent and the dirt constant; in the other the dirt is intermittent and the cleanliness constant--constant, at least, so long as the causes of impurity are so.

Mr. Haywood, however, states that the Commissioners were so pleased with the appearance of the streets, when cleansed on the street-orderly system, which “was certainly much to be admired,” that they introduced a somewhat similar system, calling their scavagers “daymen,” as they had the care of keeping the streets clean, after a daily morning sweeping by the contractor’s men. They commenced their work at 9 A.M. and ceased at 6 P.M. in the summer months, and at half-past 4 P.M. in the winter. In the summer months 36 daymen were employed on the average; in the winter months, 46. The highest number of scavaging daymen employed on any one day was 63; the lowest was 34. The area cleansed was about 47,000 yards (superficial measure), and with the following results, and the following cost, from June 24, 1846, to the same date, 1847:--

Yards Superficial. The average area cleansed during the summer months, per man per diem, was 1298 Ditto during winter, per man per diem, was 1016 The average of both summer and winter months was, per man per diem 1139 ------ The cost of the experiment was for daymen (including brooms, barrows, shovels, cartage, &c.)[29] £1450 18 One Foreman at 78 0 -------- And the total cost of the experiment £1528 18

“The daily sweeping,” Mr. Haywood says, “which for the previous two years had been established throughout the City, gave at that time very great satisfaction. It was quite true that the streets which the daymen attended to, looked superior to those cleansed only periodically, but the practical value of the difference was considered by many not to be worth the sum of money paid for it. It was also felt that, if it was continued, it should upon principle be extended at least to all streets of similar traffic to those upon which it had been tried; and as, after due consideration, the Commission thought that one daily sweeping was sufficient, both for health and comfort, the day or continuous sweeping was abandoned, and the whole City only received, from that time to the present, the usual daily sweeping.”

The “present” time is shown by the date of Mr. Haywood’s Report, October 13, 1851. The reason assigned for the abandonment of the system of the daymen is peculiar and characteristic. The system of continuous cleansing gave very great satisfaction, although it was but a degree in advance of the once-a-day cleansing. The streets which the daymen attended to “looked,” and of course were, “superior” in cleanliness to those scavaged periodically. It was also felt that the principle should “be extended at least to all streets of similar traffic;” and why was it not so extended? Because, in a word, “it was not worth the money;” though by what standard the value of public cleanliness was calculated, is not mentioned.

The main question, therefore, is, what is the difference in the cost of the two systems, and is the admitted “superior cleanliness” produced by the continuous mode of scavaging, in comparison with that obtained by the intermittent mode, of sufficient public value to warrant the increased expense (if any)--in a word, as the City people say--is it worth the money?

First, as to the comparative cost of the two systems: after a statement of the contracts for the dusting and cleansing of the City (matters I have before treated of) Mr. Haywood, for the purpose of making a comparison of the present City system of scavaging with the street-orderly system, gives the table in the opposite page to show the cost of street cleansing and dusting within the jurisdiction of the City Court of Sewers.

Mr. Haywood then invites attention to the subjoined statement of the National Philanthropic Association, on the occurrence of a demonstration as to the efficiency and economy of the street-orderly system.

“Association for the Promotion of Street Paving, Cleansing, Draining, &c., 20, Vere Street, Oxford Street, January 26th, 1846.

“Approximation to the total Expenses connected with cleansing, as an experiment, certain parts of the City of London, commencing December, 1845, for the period of two months.

“350 brooms, being an average of 5 brooms £. s. d. for each man 23 18 10 For carting 99 1 9 For advertising 65 0 0 For rent of store-room, 3_l._ 14_s._; Clerks’ salaries, 12_l._; Messengers, 5_l._ 5_s._; wooden clogs for men, 2_l._ 5_s._ 10_d._; expenses of washing wood pavement, 5_l._ 28 4 10 Expenses of barrows 24 14 0 Christmas dinner to men, foremen, and superintendents (97) 15 12 6 83 men (averaging at 2_s._ 6_d._ per day) for 9 weeks 573 15 0 4 superintendents at 25_s._ 4_d._, foreman at 18_s._, cart foreman 20_s._, storekeeper 18_s._, chief superintendents 2_l._, for 9 weeks 112 10 0 For various small articles, brushes, rakes, &c. 36 7 8 Petty expenses of the office, postages, &c., and stationery 6 0 0 --------------- Approximation to the total cost of the expense £987 4 7 ---------------

Signed, M. DAVIES, Secretary.”

“I will now,” says Mr. Haywood, “without further present reference to the Report of the Association, proceed to form an estimate of the expenses of the system as they would have been if it had been extended to the whole City, and which estimate will be based upon the information as to the expenses of the system, furnished by the experiment or demonstration made by the Association within your jurisdiction.

TABLE SHOWING THE COST OF STREET CLEANSING AND DUSTING WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY COURT OF SEWERS.

------------------+----------------------+------------------------------ | Mode of Contracting, | | | whether Contracts for| Leading or Principal feature| Date. |Dusting and Scavenging| in the Regulations for | | were let separately | the Dusting and Cleansing. | | or together. | | ------------------+----------------------+-----------------------------+ Year ending | | | Michaelmas, 1841| separately |Main streets of largest | | | traffic running east and | | | west cleansed daily, | | | other principal streets | | | every other day, the | „ 1842| separately | whole of the remainder | | | of the public ways twice | | | a week; dust to be | | | removed at least twice a | „ 1843| together | week. | | | | | | | | | | | | | „ 1844| separately |Main line of streets cleansed| | | daily, other principal | | | streets every other day, | | | and all other place twice| | | in every week; dust to | | | be removed at least twice| „ 1845| separately | a week. | | | | | | | | | | | | | „ 1846| separately | | | | | „ 1847| separately | | | |Daily cleansing throughout | „ 1848| separately | every public way of | | | every description; dust | „ 1849| together | to be removed twice a | | | week. | „ 1850| together | | | | | „ 1851| together | | | | | | | | ------------------+----------------------+-----------------------------+

------------------------+--------------------------+----------------------- | | | |Sum paid for Scavenging|Sum received by Commission| Total Disbursements | and Dusting, or | for the Sale of | by the Commission for | for Scavenging only | Dust when the Contracts |Scavenging and Dusting. | during the year. | were let separately. | +-----------------------+--------------------------+----------------------- | £ s. d. | £ s. d. | £ s. d. | 4590 6 0 | | 4590 6 0 | | | | | | | | Amounts paid | | | and received | | 3633 7 0 | are balanced | 3633 17 0 | | | | | | | | | | 2084 4 6 | | 2084 4 6 | | +----------------------- | Average per Annum for 3 Years.| 3436 2 6 | | +----------------------- | | +----------------------- | 3826 12 6 | | 3826 12 6 | | | | | Amounts paid | | | and received | | | are balanced | | | | | 2033 2 0 | | 2833 2 0 | | +----------------------- | Average per Annum of the 2 Years.| 3329 17 3 | | +----------------------- | | +----------------------- | 6034 6 0 | 1354 5 0 | 4680 1 0 | | | | 8014 2 0 | 4455 5 0 | 3558 17 0 | | | | 7226 1 6 | 1328 15 0 | 5897 6 6 | | | | 7486 11 6 | 7486 11 6 | | | | | 6779 16 0 | 6779 16 0 | | | | | 6328 17 0 | 6328 17 0 | | | | | Average per Annum of the last 6 Years.| 5788 11 6 +--------------------------------------------------+-----------------------

NOTE.--From 24th June, 1846, to 24th June, 1847, the Commission made their own experiment upon the Street-Orderly System--the expenses of such experiment are included in the above amounts. In 1849 the area of the jurisdiction of the Commission was increased by the addition of various precincts under the City of London Sewers’ Act.

“The total cost of the experiment was £987 4_s._ 7_d._, and, deducting the charges under the head of advertising, Christmas dinner, and petty cash expenses, and also that for office-rent, clerks, messengers, &c., and assigning £50 as the value of the implements at that time for future use, there is left a balance of £822 7_s._ 3_d._ as the clear cost of the experiment.

“The experiment was tried for a period of eight weeks exactly, according to the return made to the Commission by the Superintendent of the Association, but as in the statement of expenses the wages appear to be included for a period of nine weeks, I have assumed nine weeks as the correct figure, and the experiment must therefore have cost a sum of £822 7_s._ 3_d._ for that period, or at the rate of about £91 per week.

Squ. Yards “Now the total area of the carriage-way of the City of London was at that time 418,000 “And the area of the foot-way 316,000 ------- “Making a total of 734,000

“And the area of the carriage-way cleaned by the street-orderlies was 30,670 “And the area of the foot-way 18,590 ------- “Making a total of 49,260

“The total area of foot-way and carriage-way cleansed was therefore 1-15th of the whole of the carriage-way and foot-way of the City; or, taken separately, the carriage-way cleansed was somewhat more than 1-14th of the whole of the City carriage-way.

“It has been seen also that the total cost of cleansing this 1-14th portion of the carriage-way, after deducting all extraneous expenses, was at the rate per week of £91 Or at the rate, per annum, of £4732

“To assign an expenditure in the same proportion for the remaining 13-14ths of the whole carriage-way area of the City would not be just, for, in the first place, allowance must be made, owing to the dirt brought off from the adjacent streets, which, it is assumed, would not have been the case had they also been cleansed upon the street-orderly system; and moreover, as the majority of the streets cleansed were those of large traffic, a larger proportion of labour was needed to them than would have been the case had the experiment been upon any equal area of carriage-way, taken from a district comprehending streets of all sizes and degrees of traffic; but if I assume that the 1-14th portion of the City cleansed represents 1-11th of the whole in the labour needed for cleansing the whole of the City upon the same system, I believe I shall have made a very fair deduction, and shall, if anything, err in favour of the experiment.

“Estimating, therefore, the expense of cleansing the whole of the City carriage-way upon the street-orderly system according to the expenses of the experiment made in 1845-6, and from the data then furnished, it appears that cleansing upon such system would have come to an annual sum of 52,052_l._

“It will be seen that there is a remarkable difference between this estimate of 52,052_l._ per annum and that of 18,000_l._ per annum estimated by the Association, and given in their Report of the 26th January, 1846; and what is more remarkable is, that my estimate is framed not upon any assumption of my own, but is a dry calculation based upon the very figures of expense furnished by the Association itself, and herein-before recited.”

A second demonstration, carried on in the City by the street-orderlies, is detailed by Mr. Haywood, but as he draws the same conclusions from it, there is no necessity to do other than allude to it here.

According to the above estimate, it certainly must be admitted that the difference between the two accounts is, as Mr. Haywood says, “remarkable”--the one being nearly three times more than the other. But let us, for fairness’ sake, test the cost of cleansing the City thoroughfares upon the continuous plan of scavaging by the figures given in Mr. Haywood’s own report, and see whether the above conclusion is warranted by the facts there stated. From June, 1846, to June, 1847, we have seen that several of the main streets in the City were cleansed continuously throughout the day by what were called “daymen”--that is to say, 47,000 superficial yards of the principal thoroughfares were kept clean (after the daily cleansing of them by the contractor’s men) by a body of men similar in their mode of operation to the street-orderlies, and who removed all the dirt as soon as deposited between the hours of the principal traffic. The cost of this experiment (for such it seems to have been) was, for the twelve months, as we have seen, 1528_l._ 18_s._ Now if the expense of cleansing 47,000 superficial yards upon the continuous method was 1529_l._, then, according to Cocker, 770,157 yards (the total area of the public ways of the City) would cost 25,054_l._; and, adding to this 6328_l._ for the sum paid to the contractors for the daily scavaging, we have only 31,382_l._ for the gross expense of cleansing the whole of the City thoroughfares once a day by the “regular scavagers,” and keeping them clean afterwards by a body similar to the street-orderlies--a difference of upwards of 20,000_l._ between the facts and figures of the City Surveyor.

It would appear to me, therefore, that Mr. Haywood has erred, in estimating the probable expense of the street-orderly system of scavaging applied to the City at 52,000_l._ per annum, for, by his own showing, it actually cost the authorities for the one year when it was tried there, only 1529_l._ for 47,000 superficial yards, at which rate 770,000 yards could not cost more than 31,500_l._, and this, even allowing that the same amount of labour would be required for the continuous cleansing of the minor thoroughfares as was needed for the principal ones. That the error is an oversight on the part of the City Surveyor, the whole tone of his Report is sufficient to assure us, for it is at once moderate and candid.

It must, on the other hand, be admitted, that Mr. Haywood is perfectly correct as to the difference between the cost of the “demonstration” of the street-orderly system of cleansing in the City, and the estimated cost of that mode of scavaging when brought into regular operation there; this, however, the year’s experience of the City “daymen” shows, could not possibly exceed 32,000_l._, and might and probably would be much less, when we take into account the smaller quantity of labour required for the minor thoroughfares--the extra value of the street manure when collected free from mud--the saving in the expense of watering the streets (this not being required under the orderly system)--and the abolition of the daily scavaging, which is included in the sum above cited, but which would be no longer needed were the orderlies employed, such work being performed by them at the commencement of their day’s labours; so that I am disposed to believe, all things considered, that somewhere about 20,000_l._ per annum might be the gross expense of continuously cleansing the City. Mr. Cochrane estimates it at 18,000_l._ But whether the admitted superior cleanliness of the streets, and the employment of an extra number of people, will be held by the citizens to be worth the extra money, it is not for me to say. If, however, the increased cleanliness effected by the street-orderlies is to be brought about by a decrease of the wages of the regular scavagers from 16_s._ to 12_s._ a week, which is the amount upon which Mr. Cochrane forms his estimate, then I do not hesitate to say the City authorities will be gainers, in the matter of poor-rates at least, by an adherence to the present method of scavaging, paying as they do the best wages, and indeed affording an illustrious example to all the metropolitan parishes, in refusing to grant contracts to any master scavagers but such as consent to deal fairly with the men in their employ. And I do hope and trust, for the sake of the working-men, the City Commissioners of Sewers will, should they decide upon having the City cleansed continuously, make the same requirement of Mr. Cochrane, before they allow his street-orderlies to displace the regular scavagers at present employed there.

Benefits to the community, gained at the expense of “the people,” are really great evils. The street-orderly system is a good one when applied to parishes employing paupers and paying them 1_s._ 1-1/2_d._ and a loaf per day, or even nothing, except their food, for their labour. Here it elevates paupers into independent labourers; but, applied to those localities where the highest wages are paid, and there is the greatest regard shown for the welfare of the workmen, it is merely a scurf-system of degrading the independent labourers to the level of paupers, by reducing the wages of the regular scavagers from 16_s._ to 12_s._ per week. The avowed object of the street-orderly system is to provide employment for able-bodied men, and so to prevent them becoming a burthen to the parish. But is not a reduction of the scavager’s wages to the extent of 25 per cent. a week, more likely to encourage than to prevent such a result? This is the weak point of the orderly system, and one which gentlemen calling themselves philanthropists should really blush to be parties to.

After all, the opinion to which I am led is this--the street-orderly system is incomparably the best mode of scavaging, and the payment of the men by “honourable” masters the best mode of employing the scavagers. The evils of the scavaging trade appear to me to spring chiefly from the parsimony of the parish authorities--either employing their own paupers without adequate remuneration, or else paying such prices to the contractors as almost necessitates the under-payment of the men in their employ. Were I to fill a volume, this is all that could be said on the matter.

OF THE “JET AND HOSE” SYSTEM OF SCAVAGING.

There appears at the present time a bent in the public mind for an improved system of scavagery. Until the ravages of the cholera in 1832, and again in 1848, roused the attention of Government and of the country, men seemed satisfied to dwell in dirty streets, and to congratulate themselves that the public ways were dirtier in the days of their fathers; a feeling or a spirit which has no doubt existed in all cities, from the days of those original scavagers, the vultures and hyenas of Africa and the East, the adjutants of Calcutta, and the hawks--the common glades or kites of this country--and which, we are told, in the days of Henry VIII. used to fly down among the passengers to remove the offal of the butchers and poulterers’ stalls in the metropolitan markets, and in consideration of which services it was forbidden to kill them--down to the mechanical sweeping of the streets of London, and even to Mr. Cochrane’s excellent street-orderlies.

Besides the plan suggested by Mr. Cochrane, whose orderlies cleanse the streets without wetting, and consequently without dirtying, the surface by the use of the watering-cart, there is the opposite method proposed by Mr. Lee, of Sheffield, and other gentlemen, who recommend street-cleansing by the hose and jet, that is to say, by flushing the streets with water at a high pressure, as the sewers are now flushed; and so, by washing rather than sweeping the dirt of the streets into the sewers, through the momentum of the stream of water, dispensing altogether with the scavager’s broom, shovel, and cart.

In order to complete this account of the scavaging of the streets of London, I must, in conclusion, say a few words on this method, advocated as it is by the Board of Health, and sanctioned by scientific men. By the application of a hose, with a jet or water pipe attached to a fire-plug, the water being at high pressure, a stream of fluid is projected along the street’s surface with force enough to wash away all before it into the sewers, while by the same apparatus it can be thrown over the fronts of the houses. This mode of street-cleansing prevails in some American cities, especially in Philadelphia, where the principal thoroughfares are said to be kept admirably clean by it; while the fronts of the houses are as bright as those in the towns of Holland, where they are washed, not by mechanical appliances, but by water thrown over them out of scoops by hand labour--one of the instances of the minute and indefatigable industry of the Dutch.

It is stated in one of the Reports of the Board of Health, that “unless cleansing be general and simultaneous, much of the dirt of one district is carried by traffic into another. By the subdivision of the metropolis into small districts, the duty of cleansing the public carriage-way is thrown upon a number of obscure and irresponsible authorities; while the duty of cleansing the public footways, which are no less important, are charged upon multitudes of private individuals.” [The grammar is the Board of Health’s grammar.] “It is a false pecuniary economy, in the case of the poorest inhabitants of court or alley, who obtain their livelihood by any regular occupation, to charge upon each family the duty of cleansing the footway before their doors. The performance of this service daily, at a rate of 1_d._ per week per house or per family, would be an economy in soap and clothes to persons the average value of whose time is never less than 2_d._ per hour.” [This is at the rate of 2_s._ a day; did this most innocent Board never hear of work yielding 1_s._ 6_d._ a week? But the sanitary authorities seem to be as fond as teetotallers of “going to extremes.”]

In another part of the same Report the process and results are described. It is also stated that for the success of this method of street purification the pavement must be good; for “a powerful jet, applied by the hose, would scoop out hollows in unpaved places, and also loosen and remove the stones in those that are badly paved.” As every public place ought to be well-paved, this necessity of new and good pavement is no reasonable objection to the plan, though it certainly admits of a question as to the durability of the roads--the macadamized especially--under this continual soaking. Sir Henry Parnell, the great road authority, speaks of wet as the main destroyer of the highways.

It is stated in the Report, after the mention of experiments having been made by Mr. Lovick, Mr. Hale, and Mr. Lee (Mr. Lee being one of the engineering inspectors of the Board), that

“Mr. Lovick, at the instance of the Metropolitan Commissioners of Sewers, conducted his experiments with such jets as could be obtained from the water companies’ mains in eligible places; but the pressure was low and insufficient. Nevertheless, it appeared that, taking the extra quantity of water required at the actual expense of pumping, the paved surfaces might be washed clean at one-half the price of the scavagers’ manual labour in sweeping. Mr. Lee’s trials were made at Sheffield, with the aid of a more powerful and suitable pressure, and he found that with such pressure as he obtained the cleansing might be effected in one-third the time, and at one-third the usual expense, of the scavagers’ labour of sweeping the surface with the broom.” [This expense varies, and the Board nowhere states at what rate it is computed; the scavagers’ wages varying 100 per cent.]

“The effect of this mode of cleansing in close courts and streets,” it is further stated, “was found to be peculiarly grateful in hot weather. The water was first thrown up and diffused in a thin sheet, it was then applied rapidly to cleansing the surface and the side walls, as well as the pavements.” Mr. Lovick states that the immediate effect of this operation was to lower the temperature, and to produce a sense of freshness, similar to that experienced after a heavy thunder-shower in hot weather. But there is nothing said as to the probable effect of this state of things in winter--a hard frost for instance. The same expedient was resorted to for cooling the yards and outer courts of hospitals, and the shower thrown on the windows of the wards afforded great relief. Mr. Lovick, in his Report on the trial works for cleansing courts, states:--

“The importance of water as an agent in the improvement and preservation of health being in proportion to the unhealthiness or depressed condition of districts, its application to close courts and densely-populated localities, in which a low sanitary condition must obtain, is of primary importance. Having shown the practicability of applying this system (cleansing by jets of water) to the general cleansing of the streets, my further labours have been, and are now, directed to this end.

“For the purpose of ascertaining the effect produced by operations of this nature upon the atmosphere, two courts were selected: Church-passage, New Compton-street, open at both ends, with a carriage-way in the centre, and footway on each side; and Lloyd’s-court, Crown-street, St. Giles’s, a close court, with, at one entrance, a covered passage about 40 feet in length: both courts were in a very filthy condition; in Church-passage there were dead decaying cats and fish, with offal, straw, and refuse scattered over the surface; at one end an entrance to a private yard was used as a urinal; in every part there were most offensive smells.

“Lloyd’s-court was in a somewhat similar condition, the covered entrance being used as a general urinal, presenting a disgusting appearance; the whole atmosphere of the court was loaded with highly-offensive effluvia; in the covered entrance this was more particularly discernible.

“The property of water, as an absorbent, was rendered strikingly apparent in the immediate and marked effects of its application, a purity and freshness remarkably contrasted to the former close and foul condition prevailing throughout. A test of this, striking and unexpected, was the change at different periods in the relative condition of atmosphere of the courts and of the contiguous streets. In their ordinary condition, as might have been expected, the atmosphere was purer in the streets than in the courts; it was to be inferred that the cleansing would have more nearly assimilated these conditions. This was not only the case, but it was found to have effected a complete change; the atmosphere of the courts at the close of the operations being far fresher and purer than the atmosphere of the streets. The effect produced was in every respect satisfactory and complete; and was the theme of conversation with the lookers-on, and with the men who conducted the operations.

“The expense of these operations, including water, would be, for--

“Church-passage (time, five minutes), 1-1/2_d._

“Lloyd’s-court (time, ten minutes), 3-1/4_d._

“Mr. Hale, another officer, gave a similar statement.”

Other experiments are thus detailed:--

“Lascelles-court, Broad-street, St. Giles’s. This court was pointed out to me as one of the worst in London. Before cleansing it smelt intolerable,” [sic] “and looked disgusting. Besides an abundance of ordinary filth arising from the exposure of refuse, the surface of the court contained heaps of human excrement, there being only one privy to the whole court, and that not in a state to be publicly used.... The cleansing operations were commenced by sprinkling the court with deodorising fluid, mixed with 20 times its volume of water; a great change, from a very pungent odour to an imperceptible smell, was immediately effected; after which the refuse of the court was washed away, and the pavement thoroughly cleansed by the hose and jet; and now this place, which before was in a state almost indescribable, presented an appearance of comparative comfort and respectability.”

It is stated as the result of another experiment in “an ordinary wide street with plenty of traffic,” that “water-carts and ordinary rains only create the mud which the jet entirely removes, giving to the pavement the appearance of having been as thoroughly cleansed as the private stone steps in front of the houses.”

With respect to Mr. Lee’s experiments in Sheffield, I find that Messrs. Guest, of Rotherham, are patentees of a tap for the discharge of water at high pressures, and that they had adapted their invention to the purpose of a fire-plug and stand pipe suitable for street-cleansing by the hose and jet. Church-street, one of the principal thoroughfares, was experimentally cleansed by this process: “The carriage-way is from 20 to 24 feet wide, and about 150 yards long. It was washed almost as clean as a house-floor in five minutes.” Mr. Lee expresses his conviction that, by the agency of the hose and jet, every street in that populous borough might be cleansed at about 1_s._ per annum for each house. “The principal thoroughfares,” he states, “could be thus made perfectly clean, three times every week, before business hours, and the minor streets and lanes twice, or once per week, at later hours in the day, by the agency of an abundant supply of water, at less than half the sum necessary for the cartage alone of an equal quantity of refuse in a solid or semi-fluid condition.”

The highways most frequented in Sheffield constitute about one-half of the whole extent of the streets and roads in the borough, measuring 47 miles. This length, Mr. Lee computes, might be effectually cleansed with the hose and jet, ten miles of it three times a week, 21 miles twice a week, and 16 miles once a week, a total of 88 miles weekly, or 4576 miles yearly. The quantity of Water required would be 3000 gallons a mile, or a yearly total of 13,728,000 gallons. This water might be supplied, Mr. Lee opines, at 1_d._ per 1000 gallons (57_l._ 4_s._ per annum), although the price obtained by the Water-works Company was 6-1/2_d._ per 1000 gallons (371_l._ 16_s._ per annum). “I now proceed,” he says, “to the cost of labour: 4576 miles per annum is equal to 14-2/3 miles for each working day, or to six sets of two men cleansing 2-1/2 miles per day each set. To these must be added three horses and carts, and three carters, for the removal of such débris as cannot be washed away and for such parts of the town as cannot be cleansed by this system, making a total of fifteen men. Their wages I would fix at 50_l._ per annum each. The estimate is as follows:--

“Annual interest upon the first cost of hose and pipes, three horses and £ carts 30 Fifteen men’s wages 750 Three horses’ provender 150 Wear, tear, and depreciation of hose, &c. 250 Management and incidentals, say 120 ------ £1300.”

The estimate, it will be seen, is based on the supposition that the water supply should be at the public cost, and not a specific charge for the purposes of street-cleansing.

The 47 miles of highway of Sheffield is but three miles less than those of the city of London, the cost of cleansing which is, according to the estimate before given, no less than 18,000_l._

The Sheffield account is divested of all calculations as to house-dust and ashes, and the charge for watering-carts; but, taking merely the sum paid to scavaging contractors, and assigning 1000_l._ (out of the 2485_l._), as the proportion of salaries, &c., under the department of scavagery in the management of the City Commissioners, we find that while the expense of street-cleansing by the Sheffield hose and jet was little more than 34_l._, in London, by the ordinary mode, it was upwards of 140_l._ per mile, or more than four times as much. The hose and jet system is said to have washed the streets of Sheffield as clean as a house-floor, which could not be said of it in London. The streets of the City, it should also be borne in mind, are now swept daily; Mr. Lee proposes only a periodical cleaning for Sheffield, or once, twice, and thrice a week. Of the cost of the experiments made in London with the hose and jet, in Lascelles-court, &c., nothing is said.

Street-cleansing by the hose and jet is, then, as yet but an experiment. It has not, like the street-orderly mode, been tested continuously or systematically; but the experiments are so curious and sometimes so startling in their results that it was necessary to give a brief account of them here, in order to render this account of the cleansing of the streets of the metropolis as comprehensive as possible. For my own part, I must confess the street-orderly system appears to excel all other modes of scavagery, producing at once the greatest cleanliness with the greatest employment to the poor. Nor am I so convinced as the theoretic and crotchety Board of Health as to the healthfulness of dampness, or the daily evaporation of a sheet of even clean water equal in extent to the entire surface of the London streets. It is certainly doubtful, to say the least, whether so much additional moisture might improve the public health, which the Board are instituted to protect; rain certainly contributes to cleanliness, and yet no one would advocate continued wet weather as a source of general convalescence.

I shall conclude this account of the scavaging of London, with the following brief statement as to the mode in which these matters are conducted abroad.

In Paris, where our system of parochial legislation and management is unknown, the scavaging of the streets--so frequently matters of private speculation with us--is under the immediate direction of the municipality, and the Government publish the returns, as they do of the revenue of their capital from the abattoirs, the interments, and other sources.

In the Moniteur for December 10, 1848, it is stated that the refuse of the streets of Paris sells for 500,500 francs (20,020_l._), when sold by auction in the mass; and 3,800,000 francs (equal to 152,000_l._) when, after having lain in the proper receptacles, until fit for manure, it is sold by the cubic foot. In 1823, the streets of Paris were leased for 75,000 francs (3000_l._) per annum; in 1831 the value was 166,000 francs (6640_l._); and since 1845 the price has risen to the sum first named, viz., 500,500 francs (20,020_l._); from which, however, is to be deducted the expense of cleansing, &c. I may add, that the receptacles alluded to are large places provided by Government, where the manure is deposited and left to ferment for twelve or eighteen months.

OF THE COST AND TRAFFIC OF THE STREETS OF LONDON.

I have, at page 183 of the present volume, given a brief statement of the annual cost attending the keeping of the streets of the metropolis in working order.

The formation of the streets of a capital like London, the busiest in the world--streets traversed daily by what Cowper, even in his day, described as “the ten thousand wheels” of commerce--is an elaborate and costly work.

In my former account I gave an estimate which referred to the amount dispensed weekly in wages for the labour of the workmen engaged in laying down the paved roads of the metropolis. This was at the rate of 100,000_l._ per week; that is to say, calculating the operation of relaying the streets to occupy one year in every five, there is no less than 5,200,000_l._ expended in that time among the workpeople so engaged. The sum expended in labour for the continued repairs of the roads, after being so relaid, appears to be about 20,000_l._ per week[30], or, in round numbers, about 1,000,000_l._ a year; so that the gross sum annually disbursed to the labourers engaged in the construction of the roads of London would seem to be about 2,250,000_l._, that is to say, 1,000,000_l._ for repairing the old roads, and 1,250,000_l._ per annum for laying down new ones in their place.

It now remains for me to set forth the gross cost of the metropolitan highways, that is to say, the sum annually expended in both labour and materials, as well for relaying as for repairing the roads.

The granite-built streets cost, when relaid, about 11,000_l._ the mile, of ten yards’ width, which is at the rate of 12_s._ 6_d._ the square yard, materials and labour included, the granite (Aberdeen) being 1_l._ 5_s._ per ton, and one ton of “seven-inch” being sufficient to cover about three square yards.

The average cost of a macadamized road, materials and labour included, if constructed from the foundation, is about 4400_l._ per street mile (ten yards wide)--5_s._ the superficial yard being a fair price for materials and labour.

Wood pavement, on the other hand, costs about 9680_l._ a mile of ten yards’ width for materials and labour, which is at the rate of 11_s._ the superficial yard.

The cost of repairs, materials and labour included, is, for granite pavement about 1-1/2_d._ per square yard, or 100_l._ the street mile of ten yards wide; for “Macadam” it is from 6_d._ to 3_s._ 6_d._, or an average of 1_s._ 6_d._ per superficial yard, which is at the rate of 1320_l._ the street mile; while the wood pavement costs about the same for repairs as the granite.

The total cost of repairing the streets of London, then, may be taken as follows:--

Repairing granite-built streets, per £ mile of ten yards wide 100 Repairing macadamized roads, per street mile 1320 Repairing wood pavement, per street mile 100

Or, as a total for all London,--

Repairing 400 miles of granite-built streets, at 100l. per mile 40,000 Repairing 1350 miles of macadamized streets, at 1320l. per mile 1,782,000 Repairing five miles of wood, at 100_l._ per mile 500 ---------- £1,822,500

The following, on the other hand, may be taken as the total cost of reconstructing the London streets:--

£ Granite-built streets, per mile ten yards wide 11,000 Macadamized streets, per street mile 4,400 Wood „ „ 9,680

Or, as a total for the entire streets and roads of London,--

Relaying 400 miles of granite-built £ streets, at 11,000_l._ per mile 4,400,000 Relaying 1350 miles of macadamized streets, at 4400_l._ per mile 5,940,000 Relaying five miles of wood-built streets, at 9680_l._ 48,400 ----------- £10,388,400

But the above refers only to the road, and besides this, there is, as a gentleman to whom I am much indebted for valuable information on the subject, reminds me, the foot paving, granite curb, and granite channel not included. The usual price for paving is 8_d._ per foot superficial, when laid--granite curb 1_s._ 7_d._ per foot run, and granite channel 12_s._ per square yard.

“Now, presuming that three-fourths of the roads,” says my informant, “have paved footpaths on each side at an average width of six feet exclusive of curb, and that one-half of the macadamized roads have granite channels on each side, and that one-third of all the roads have granite curb on each side; these items for 400 miles of granite road, 1350 macadamized, and 5 miles of wood--together 1755 miles--will therefore amount to

£ s. d. Three-fourths of 1755 miles of streets paved on each side, six feet wide, at 8_d._ per foot superficial 2,779,392 0 0 One-half of 1350 miles of macadamized roads with one foot of granite channel on each side, at 12_s._ per yard square 458,537 4 5 One-third of 1755 miles of road with granite curb on each side, at 1_s._ 7_d._ per foot run 489,060 0 0 --------------------- 3,726,989 4 5 Cost of constructing 1755 miles of roadway 10,388,400 0 0 ---------------------- Total cost of constructing the streets of London £14,115,389 4 5

“Accordingly the original cost of the metropolitan pavements exceeds fourteen millions sterling, and, calculating that this requires renewal every five years, the gross annual expenditure will be at the rate of 2,500,000_l._ per annum, which, added to 1,822,500_l._, gives 4,322,500_l._, or upwards of four millions and a quarter sterling for the entire annual cost of the London roadways.

“From rather extensive experience,” adds my informant, “in building operations, and consequently in making and paying for roads, I am of opinion that the amount I have shown is under rather than above the actual cost.

“In a great many parts of the metropolis the roads are made by the servants of a body of Commissioners appointed for the purpose; and from dear-bought experience I can say they are a public nuisance, and would earnestly caution speculating builders against taking building ground or erecting houses in any place where the roads are under their control. The Commissioners are generally old retired tradesmen, and have very little to occupy their attention, and are often quite ignorant of their duties; I have reason to believe, too, that some of them even use their little authority to gratify their dislike to some poor builder in their district, by meddling and quibbling, and while that is going on the houses which have been erected can neither be let nor sold; so that as the bills given for the materials keep running, the builder, when they fall due, is ruined, for his creditors will not take his unlet houses for their debts, and no one else will purchase them until let, for none will rent them without proper accesses. I feel certain that in those parts where the roads are made by Commissioners three times more builders, in proportion to their number, get into difficulties than in the districts where they are permitted to make the roads themselves.”

The paved ways and roads of London, then, it appears, cost in round numbers 10,000,000_l._ sterling, and require nearly 2,000,000_l._ to be expended upon them annually for repairs.

But this is not the sole expense attendant upon the construction of the streets of the metropolis. Frequently, in the formation of new lines of thoroughfare, large masses of property have to be bought up, removed, and new buildings erected at considerable cost. In a return made pursuant to an order of the Court of Common Council, dated 23rd October, 1851, for “An account of all moneys which have been raised for public works executed, buildings erected, or street improvements effected, out of the Coal Duties receivable by the Corporation of London in the character of trustees for administration or otherwise, since the same were made chargeable by Parliament for such purposes in the year 1766,” the following items are given relating to the cost of the formation of new streets and improvements of old ones:--

Street Improvements forming New Thoroughfares.

Amount raised for Public Works, &c. Building the bridge across the river £. s. d. Thames, from Blackfriars, in the city of London, to Upper Ground-street, in the county of Surrey, now called Blackfriars Bridge, and forming the avenues thereto, and embanking the north abutment of the said bridge--(Entrusted to the Corporation of the city of London) 210,000 0 0

Making a new line of streets from Moorfields, opposite Chiswell-street, towards the east into Bishopsgate-street (now Crown-street and Sun-street), also from the east end of Chiswell-street westward into Barbican--(Corporation of the city of London) 16,500 0 0

Making a new street from Crispin-street, near Spitalfields Church, into Bishopsgate-street (now called Union-street), in the city of London and in the county of Middlesex--(Commissioners named in Act 18, George III., c. 78) 9,000 0 0

Opening communications between Wapping-street and Ratcliffe-highway, and between Old Gravel-lane and Virginia-street, all in the county of Middlesex--(Commissioners appointed under Act 17, Geo. III., c. 22) 1,000 0 0

Formation of Farringdon-street, removal of Fleet-market, and erection of Farringdon-market, in the city of London--(Corporation of the city of London) 250,000 0 0

Formation of a new street from the end of Coventry-street to the junction of Newport-street and Long-acre (Cranbourn-street), continuing the line of street from Waterloo Bridge, already completed to Bow-street (Upper Wellington-street), and thence northward into Broad-street, Holborn, and thence to Charlotte-street, Bloomsbury, extending Oxford-street in a direct line through St. Giles’s, so as to communicate with Holborn at or near Southampton-street (New Oxford-street); also widening the northern and southern extremities of Leman-street, Goodman’s-fields, and forming a new street from the northern side of Whitechapel to the front of Spitalfields Church (Commercial-street), and forming a new street from Rosemary-lane to East Smithfield, near to the entrance of the London-docks; also formation of a street from the neighbourhood of the Houses of Parliament towards Buckingham Palace, in the city of Westminster (Victoria-street), all in the county of Middlesex; also formation of a line of new street between Southwark and Westminster Bridges, in the county of Surrey--(Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues) 665,000 0 0 NOTE.--The Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Woods have been authorised to raise further moneys on the credit of the duty of 1_d._ per ton for further improvements in the neighbourhood of Spitalfields, but the Chamberlain is not officially cognizant of the amount. Forming a new street from the northern end of Victoria-street, Holborn (formed by the Corporation to Clerkenwell-green, all in the county of Middlesex)--(Clerkenwell Improvement Commissioners) 25,000 0 0 Formation of a new line of streets from King William-street, London Bridge, to the south side of St. Paul’s Cathedral, by widening and improving Cannon-street, making a new street from Cannon-street, near Bridge-row, to Queen-street, and another street from the west side of Queen-street, in a direct line to St. Paul’s-churchyard, and widening Queen-street, from the junction of the said new street to Southwark Bridge; also improving Holborn Bridge and Field-lane, and effecting an improvement in Gracechurch-street and Ship Tavern-passage, all in the city of London--(Corporation of the city of London) 500,000 0 0 Finishing the new street left incomplete by the Clerkenwell Improvement Commissioners, from the end of Victoria-street, Farringdon-street, to Coppice-row, Clerkenwell, all in the county of Middlesex--(Corporation of the City of London) 88,000 0 0 ------------------- Total cost of forming the above-mentioned new thoroughfares 1,764,500 0 0

Improving existing Thoroughfares.

Improving existing approaches, and forming new approaches to new London Bridge, viz., in High-street, Tooley-street, Montague-close, Pepper-alley, Whitehorse-court, Chequer-court, Chaingate, Churchyard-passage, St. Saviour’s churchyard, Carter-lane, Boar’s-head-place, Fryingpan-alley, Green Dragon-court, Joyner-street, Red Lion-street, Counter-street, Three Crown-court, and the east front of the Town Hall, all in the Borough of Southwark; also ground and premises at the north-west foot of London Bridge, Upper Thames-street, Red-cross-wharf, Mault’s-wharf, High Timber-street and Broken-wharf, Swan-passage, Churchyard-alley, site of Fishmonger’s Hall, Great Eastcheap, Little Eastcheap, Star-court, Fish-street-hill, Little Tower-street, Idol-lane, St. Mary-at-hill, Crooked-lane, Miles-lane, Three Tun-alley, Warren-court, Cannon-street, Gracechurch-street, Bell-yard, Martin’s-lane, Nicholas-lane, Clement’s-lane, Abchurch-lane, Sherborne-lane, Swithin’s-lane, Cornhill, Lombard-street, Dove-court, Fox Ordinary-court, Old Post Office Chambers, Mansion-house-street, Princes-street, Coleman-street, Coleman-street-buildings, Moorgate-street, London Wall, Lothbury, Tokenhouse-yard, King’s Arms-yard, Great Bell-alley, Packer’s-court, White’s-alley, Great Swan-alley, Crown-court, George-yard, Red Lion-court, Cateaton-street, Gresham-street, Milk-street, Wood-street, King-street, Basinghall-street, Houndsditch, Lad-lane, Threadneedle-street, Aldgate High-street, and Maiden-lane, all in the City of London--(Corporation of the City of London) 1,016,421 18 1 Widening and improving the entrance into London near Temple-bar, improving the Strand and Fleet-street, and formation of Pickett-street, and for making a new street from the east end of Snow-hill to the bottom of Holborn-hill, now called Skinner-street--(Corporation of the City of London) 246,300 0 0 Widening and improving Dirty-lane and part of Brick-lane, leading from Whitechapel to Spitalfields, and for paving Dirty-lane, Petticoat-lane, Wentworth-street, Old Montague-street, Chapel-street, Princes-row, &c., all in the county of Middlesex--(Commissioners appointed by the Act 18, Geo. III., c. 80) 1,500 0 0 Widening the avenues from the Minories, through Goodman’s-yard into Prescott-street, and through Swan-street and Swan-alley into Mansell-street, and from Whitechapel through Somerset-street into Great Mansell-street, all in the county of Middlesex--(Commissioners named in Act 18, George III., c. 50) 1,500 0 0 ------------------- Total cost of improving the above-mentioned thoroughfares 1,265,721 13 1

Paving.

Paving the road from Aldersgate Bars to turnpike in Goswell-street, in the county of Middlesex--(Commissioners Sewers, &c., of the City of London) 5,500 0 0 Completing the paving of the town borough of Southwark and certain parts adjacent--(Commissioners for executing Act 6, George III., for paving town and borough of Southwark) 4,000 0 0 --------------- Total cost of paving the above-mentioned thoroughfares 9,500 0 0

Hence the aggregate expense of the preceding improvements has been upwards of 3,000,000_l._ sterling.

I have now, in order to complete this account of the cost of paving and cleansing the thoroughfares of the metropolis, only to add the following statement as to the traffic of the principal thoroughfares in the city of London, for which I am indebted to Mr. Haywood, the City Surveyor.

By the subjoined Return it will be seen that there are two tides as it were in the daily current of locomotion in the City--the one being at its flood at 11 o’clock A.M., after which it falls gradually till 2 o’clock, when it is at its lowest ebb, and then begins to rise, gradually till 5 o’clock, when it reaches its second flood, and then begins to decline once more. The point of greatest traffic in the City is London-bridge, where the conveyances passing and repassing amount to 13,099 in the course of twelve hours[31]. Of these it would appear, that 9351 consist of one-horse vehicles and equestrians, 3389 of two-horse conveyances, and only 359 of vehicles drawn by more than two horses. The one-horse vehicles would seem to be between two and three times as many as the two-horse, which form about one-fourth of the whole, while those drawn by more than two horses constitute about one-sixtieth of the entire number.

The Return does not mention the state of the weather on the several days and hours at which the observations were made, nor does it tell us whether there was any public event occurring on those days which was likely to swell or diminish the traffic beyond its usual proportions. The table, moreover, it should be remembered, is confined to the observations of only one day in each locality, so that we must be guarded in receiving that which records a mere accidental set of circumstances as an example of the general course of events. It would have been curious to have extended the observations throughout the night, and so have ascertained the difference in the traffic; and also to have noted the decrease in the number of vehicles passing during a continuously wet as well as a showery day. The observations should be further carried out to different seasons, in order to be rendered of the highest value. Mr. Haywood and the City authorities would really be conferring a great boon on the public by so doing.

OF THE RUBBISH CARTERS.

The public cleansing trade, I have before said, consists of as many divisions as there are distinct species of refuse to be removed, and these appear to be four. There is the house-refuse, consisting of two different kinds, as (1) the wet house-refuse or “slops,” and “night-soil,” and (2) the dry house-refuse, or dust and soot; and there is the street-refuse, also consisting of two distinct kinds, as (3) the wet street-refuse, or mud and dirt; and (4) the dry street-refuse or “rubbish.”

I now purpose dealing with the labourers engaged in the collection and removal of the last-mentioned kind of refuse.

Technologically there are several varieties of “rubbish,” or rather “dirt,” for such appears to be the generic term, of which “rubbish” is strictly a species. Dirt, according to the understanding among the rubbish-carters, would seem to consist of any solid earthy matter, which is of an useless or refuse character. This dirt the trade divides into two distinct kinds, viz.:--

1. “Soft dirt,” or refuse clay (of which “dry dirt,” or refuse soil or mould, is a variety).

2. “Hard-dirt,” or “hard-core,” consisting of the refuse bricks, chimney-pots, slates, &c., when a house is pulled down, as well as the broken bottles, pans, pots, or crocks, and oyster-shells, &c., which form part of the contents of the dustman’s cart.

The phrase “hard-core”[32] seems strictly to mean all such refuse matter as will admit of being used as the foundation of roads, buildings, &c. “Rubbish,” on the other hand, appears to be limited, by the trade, to “dry dirt;” out of the trade, however, and etymologically speaking, it signifies all such dry and hard refuse matter as is rendered useless by wear and tear[33]. The term dirt, on the other hand, is generally applied to soft refuse matter, and dust to dry refuse matter in a state of minute division, while slops is the generic term for all wet or liquid refuse matter. I shall here restrict the term rubbish to all that dry and hard refuse matter which is the residuum of certain worn-out or “used-up” earthen commodities, as well as the surplus earth which is removed whenever excavations are made, either for the building of houses, the cutting of railways, the levelling of roads, the laying down of pipes or drains, and the sinking of wells.

STREET TRAFFIC.

TABLE SHOWING THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES AND HORSES PASSING THROUGH CERTAIN THOROUGHFARES WITHIN THE CITY OF LONDON, BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 8 A.M. AND 8 P.M., UPON CERTAIN DAYS DURING THE YEAR 1850.

+---------------+----------------------+-------------------+ | | Hour ending | | | 9 A.M. | | +-------------------+ | | Vehicles | | | drawn by | | +-------------------+ Date. | Situation. |1 Horse and | | | Equestrians. | | | |2 Horses. | | | | |3 Horses | | | | |or more. | +---------------+----------------------+----+----+---------+ 8th July, 1850.|Temple Bar Gate | 230| 61| 20 |A 9th „ „ |Holborn Hill, | | | | | by St. Andrew’s | | | | | Church | 250| 65| 12 |B 10th „ „ |Ludgate Hill, | | | | | by Pilgrim-street | 268| 76| 17 |C 11th „ „ |Newgate-street, | | | | | by Old Bailey | 250| 59| 11 |D 12th „ „ |Aldersgate-street, | | | | | by Fann-street | 140| 20| 8 |E 13th „ „ |Cheapside, | | | | | by Foster-lane | 345| 110| 18 |F 15th „ „ |Poultry, | | | | | by Mansion House | 287| 103| 24 |G 16th „ „ |Finsbury Pavement, | | | | | by South-place | 185| 63| 14 |H 17th „ „ |Cornhill, | | | | | by Royal Exchange | 98| 56| 7 |I | | | | | 18th „ „ |Threadneedle-street | 47| 47| 4 |J 19th „ „ |Gracechurch-street, | | | | | by St. Peter’s-alley| 202| 50| 6 |K 20th „ „ |Lombard-street, | | | | | by Birchin-lane | 121| 15| 1 |L 22nd „ „ |Bishopsgate Within, | | | | | by Great St. Helen’s| 194| 58| 7 |M | | | | | 23rd „ „ |London Bridge | 519| 139| 22 |N 24th „ „ |Bishopsgate-street | | | | | With^t, | | | | | by City bound^y | 148| 51| 4 |O 25th „ „ |Aldgate High-street, | | | | | by ditto | 335| 68| 22 |P 26th „ „ |Leadenhall-st., | | | | | rear of East India | | | | | House | 193| 45| 13 |Q 27th „ „ |Eastcheap, | | | | | by Philpot-lane | 274| 35| 26 |R 29th „ „ |Tower-street, | | | | | by Mark-lane | 132| 22| 15 |S 30th „ „ |Lower Thames-street, | | | | | by Botolph-lane | 79| 7| 2 |T | | | | | 31st „ „ |Blackfriars Bridge | 268| 42| 17 |U 1st Aug. „ |Upper Thames-street, | | | | | rear of Queen-street| 97| 28| 15 |V | | | | | 2nd „ „ |Smithfield Bars | 180| 16| 7 |W | | | | | 3rd „ „ |Fenchurch-street | 175| 20| 11 |X | +----+----+---------+ | |5017|1256|6421 | +---------------+----------------------+----+----+---------+ +---------------+----------------------+-------------------+ | | Hour ending | | | 10 A.M. | | +-------------------+ | | Vehicles | | | drawn by | | +-------------------+ Date. | Situation. |1 Horse and | | | Equestrians. | | | |2 Horses. | | | | |3 Horses | | | | |or more. | +---------------+----------------------+----+----+---------+ 8th July, 1850.|Temple Bar Gate | 292| 192| 42 |A 9th „ „ |Holborn Hill, | | | | | by St. Andrew’s | | | | | Church | 380| 166| 6 |B 10th „ „ |Ludgate Hill, | | | | | by Pilgrim-street | 290| 170| 16 |C 11th „ „ |Newgate-street, | | | | | by Old Bailey | 360| 155| 13 |D 12th „ „ |Aldersgate-street, | | | | | by Fann-street | 198| 52| 11 |E 13th „ „ |Cheapside, | | | | | by Foster-lane | 483| 301| 21 |F 15th „ „ |Poultry, | | | | | by Mansion House | 437| 315| 10 |G 16th „ „ |Finsbury Pavement, | | | | | by South-place | 252| 123| 10 |H 17th „ „ |Cornhill, | | | | | by Royal Exchange | 172| 177| 15 |I | | | | | 18th „ „ |Threadneedle-street | 67| 77| 1 |J 19th „ „ |Gracechurch-street, | | | | | by St. Peter’s-alley| 200| 99| 23 |K 20th „ „ |Lombard-street, | | | | | by Birchin-lane | 87| 28| 2 |L 22nd „ „ |Bishopsgate Within, | | | | | by Great St. Helen’s| 253| 144| 11 |M | | | | | 23rd „ „ |London Bridge | 744| 339| 45 |N 24th „ „ |Bishopsgate-street | | | | | With^t, | | | | | by City bound^y | 197| 121| 11 |O 25th „ „ |Aldgate High-street, | | | | | by ditto | 291| 111| 20 |P 26th „ „ |Leadenhall-st., | | | | | rear of East India | | | | House | 272| 141| 16 |Q 27th „ „ |Eastcheap, | | | | | by Philpot-lane | 293| 40| 13 |R 29th „ „ |Tower-street, | | | | | by Mark-lane | 180| 37| 5 |S 30th „ „ |Lower Thames-street, | | | | | by Botolph-lane | 117| 10| 3 |T | | | | | 31st „ „ |Blackfriars Bridge | 280| 78| 23 |U 1st Aug. „ |Upper Thames-street, | | | | | rear of Queen-street| 172| 43| 12 |V | | | | | 2nd „ „ |Smithfield Bars | 206| 18| 6 |W | | | | | 3rd „ „ |Fenchurch-street | 198| 60| 4 |X +---------------+----------------------+----+--------------+ | |6421|2997| 339 | +---------------+----------------------+----+----+---------+ +---------------+----------------------+-------------------+ | | Hour ending | | | 11 A.M. | | +-------------------+ | | Vehicles | | | drawn by | | +-------------------+ Date. | Situation. |1 Horse and | | | Equestrians. | | | |2 Horses. | | | | |3 Horses | | | | |or more. | +---------------+----------------------+----+----+---------+ 8th July, 1850.|Temple Bar Gate | 448| 235| 21 |A 9th „ „ |Holborn Hill, | | | | | by St. Andrew’s | | | | | Church | 480| 181| 9 |B 10th „ „ |Ludgate Hill, | | | | | by Pilgrim-street | 454| 261| 13 |C 11th „ „ |Newgate-street, | | | | | by Old Bailey | 433| 184| 11 |D 12th „ „ |Aldersgate-street, | | | | | by Fann-street | 150| 44| 14 |E 13th „ „ |Cheapside, | | | | | by Foster-lane | 703| 385| 36 |F 15th „ „ |Poultry, | | | | | by Mansion House | 654| 398| 19 |G 16th „ „ |Finsbury Pavement, | | | | | by South-place | 330| 138| 7 |H 17th „ „ |Cornhill, | | | | | by Royal Exchange | 252| 210| 17 |I | | | | | 18th „ „ |Threadneedle-street | 162| 97| 3 |J 19th „ „ |Gracechurch-street, | | | | | by St. Peter’s-alley| 308| 113| 18 |K 20th „ „ |Lombard-street, | | | | | by Birchin-lane | 140| 12| 4 |L 22nd „ „ |Bishopsgate Within, | | | | | by Great St. Helen’s| 323| 164| 13 |M | | | | | 23rd „ „ |London Bridge | 955| 334| 43 |N 24th „ „ |Bishopsgate-street | | | | | With^t, | | | | | by City bound^y | 310| 134| 3 |O 25th „ „ |Aldgate High-street, | | | | | by ditto | 292| 115| 10 |P 26th „ „ |Leadenhall-st., | | | | | rear of East India | | | | | House | 388| 196| 11 |Q 27th „ „ |Eastcheap, | | | | | by Philpot-lane | 340| 46| 12 |R 29th „ „ |Tower-street, | | | | | by Mark-lane | 220| 32| 10 |S 30th „ „ |Lower Thames-street, | | | | | by Botolph-lane | 153| 15| 7 |T | | | | | 31st „ „ |Blackfriars Bridge | 409| 99| 10 |U 1st Aug. „ |Upper Thames-street, | | | | | rear of Queen-street| 126| 28| 11 |V | | | | | 2nd „ „ |Smithfield Bars | 180| 16| 6 |W | | | | | 3rd „ „ |Fenchurch-street | 205| 41| 7 |X +---------------+----------------------+----+----+---------+ | |8415|3478| 315 | +---------------+----------------------+----+----+---------+ +---------------+----------------------+-------------------+ | | Hour ending | | | 12 A.M. | | +-------------------+ | | Vehicles | | | drawn by | | +-------------------+ Date. | Situation. |1 Horse and | | | Equestrians. | | | |2 Horses. | | | | |3 Horses | | | | |or more. | +---------------+----------------------+----+----+---------+ 8th July, 1850.|Temple Bar Gate | 505| 222| 30 |A 9th „ „ |Holborn Hill, | | | | | by St. Andrew’s | | | | | Church | 530| 154| 14 |B 10th „ „ |Ludgate Hill, | | | | | by Pilgrim-street | 420| 210| 6 |C 11th „ „ |Newgate-street, | | | | | by Old Bailey | 367| 137| 5 |D 12th „ „ |Aldersgate-street, | | | | | by Fann-street | 147| 36| 13 |E 13th „ „ |Cheapside, | | | | | by Foster-lane | 768| 390| 11 |F 15th „ „ |Poultry, | | | | | by Mansion House | 690| 373| 17 |G 16th „ „ |Finsbury Pavement, | | | | | by South-place | 250| 129| 8 |H 17th „ „ |Cornhill, | | | | | by Royal Exchange | 270| 184| 7 |I | | | | | 18th „ „ |Threadneedle-street | 160| 50 | 4 |J 19th „ „ |Gracechurch-street, | | | | | by St. Peter’s-alley| 320| 175| 12 |K 20th „ „ |Lombard-street, | | | | | by Birchin-lane | 174| 14| .. |L 22nd „ „ |Bishopsgate Within, | | | | | by Great St. Helen’s| 277| 143| 10 |M | | | | | 23rd „ „ |London Bridge | 820| 274| 30 |N 24th „ „ |Bishopsgate-street | | | | | With^t, | | | | | by City bound^y | 170| 109| 7 |O 25th „ „ |Aldgate High-street, | | | | | by ditto | 287| 145| 10 |P 26th „ „ |Leadenhall-st., | | | | | rear of East India | | | | | House | 340| 150| 5 |Q 27th „ „ |Eastcheap, | | | | | by Philpot-lane | 320| 34| 18 |R 29th „ „ |Tower-street, | | | | | by Mark-lane | 220| 39| 12 |S 30th „ „ |Lower Thames-street, | | | | | by Botolph-lane | 90| 7| 8 |T | | | | | 31st „ „ |Blackfriars Bridge | 393| 89| 34 |U 1st Aug. „ |Upper Thames-street, | | | | | rear of Queen-street| 160| 42| 21 |V | | | | | 2nd „ „ |Smithfield Bars | 254| 14| 9 |W | | | | | 3rd „ „ |Fenchurch-street | 298| 39| 6 |X +---------------+----------------------+----+----+---------+ | |8230|3159| 297 | +---------------+----------------------+----+----+---------+

+------------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+ | Hour | Hour | Hour | Hour | | ending | ending | ending | ending | | 1 P.M. | 2 P.M. | 3 P.M. | 4 P.M. | +------------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+ | Vehicles | Vehicles | Vehicles | Vehicles | | drawn by | drawn by | drawn by | drawn by | +------------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+ |Horses and |Horses and |Horses and |Horses and | | Equestrians. | Equestrians. | Equestrians. | Equestrians. | | |2 Horses. | |2 Horses. | |2 Horses. | |2 Horses. | | | |3 Horses| | |3 Horses| | |3 Horses| | |3 Horses| | | |or more.| | |or more.| | |or more.| | |or more.| +----+----+--------+----+----+--------+----+----+--------+----+----+--------+ A| 460| 218| 13 | 415| 230| 19 | 550| 231| 10 | 496| 237| 4 | B| 453| 160| 10 | 435| 158| 13 | 373| 50| 12 | 270| 100| 7 | C| 530| 256| 3 | 330| 180| 4 | 400| 221| 7 | 288| 242| 1 | D| 390| 156| 9 | 377| 155| 5 | 390| 167| 7 | 525| 201| 12 | E| 165| 40| 9 | 180| 49| 6 | 150| 32| 12 | 172| 40| 7 | F| 680| 334| 6 | 664| 336| 9 | 665| 338| 4 | 730| 339| 7 | G| 680| 358| 5 | 595| 337| 9 | 548| 321| 6 | 575| 330| 5 | H| 243| 115| 6 | 223| 118| 4 | 184| 107| 2 | 215| 128| 4 | I| 275| 208| 4 | 253| 180| 8 | 305| 185| 3 | 276| 172| 3 | J| 160| 50| 1 | 120| 32| 2 | 164| 46| 2 | 157| 37| 1 | K| 295| 87| 10 | 330| 81| 12 | 360| 93| 11 | 375| 123| 18 | L| 160| 9| .. | 215| 15| 2 | 227| 9| 1 | 283| 20| 1 | M| 260| 125| 11 | 164| 70| 4 | 320| 113| 6 | 287| 140| 5 | N| 775| 296| 23 | 765| 255| 28 | 793| 284| 24 | 845| 305| 30 | O| 191| 112| 4 | 243| 96| 3 | 285| 97| 8 | 231| 103| 1 | P| 300| 135| 10 | 249| 123| 7 | 260| 112| 17 | 274| 122| 13 | Q| 415| 168| 11 | 385| 171| 7 | 353| 158| 14 | 387| 172| 10 | R| 340| 27| 11 | 300| 28| 15 | 310| 38| 20 | 345| 40| 8 | S| 260| 26| 6 | 270| 39| 15 | 252| 34| 4 | 226| 26| 10 | T| 83| 21| 1 | 100| 8| .. | 100| 15| 3 | 130| 13| 4 | U |365| 78| 22 | 253| 65| 18 | 302| 73| 10 | 340| 66| 10 | V| 160| 35| 10 | 120| 31| 9 | 125| 33| 6 | 160| 44| 9 | W| 252| 18| 6 | 232| 19| 4 | 305| 20| 9 | 250| 11| 6 | X| 240| 45| 8 | 223| 39| 7 | 220| 46| 6 | 267| 54| 6 | +----+----+--------+-----+---+--------+----+---+---------+----+----+--------+ |8132|3077| 199 |7441|2815| 210 |7941|2923| 204 |8104|3065| 182 | +----+----+--------+----+----+--------+----+----+--------+----+----+--------+

+------------------+------------------+------------------+------------------ | Hour | Hour | Hour | Hour | ending | ending | ending | ending | 5 P.M. | 6 P.M. | 7 P.M. | 8 P.M. +------------------+------------------+------------------+------------------ | Vehicles | Vehicles | Vehicles | Vehicles | drawn by | drawn by | drawn by | drawn by +------------------+------------------+------------------+------------------ |Horses and |Horses and |Horses and |Horses and | Equestrians. | Equestrians. | Equestrians. | Equestrians. | |2 Horses. | |2 Horses. | |2 Horses. | |2 Horses. | | |3 Horses| | |3 Horses| | |3 Horse | | |3 Horse | | |or more.| | |or more.| | |or more.| | |or more. +----+----+--------+----+----+--------+----+----+--------+----+----+-------- A| 470| 255| 13 | 435| 219| 17 | 329| 200| 8 | 405| 198| 11 B| 639| 251| 25 | 330| 111| 4 | 615| 209| 17 | 219| 92| 6 C| 375| 235| 9 | 360| 220| 4 | 330| 210| 3 | 214| 202| 4 D| 390| 177| 5 | 415| 142| 6 | 337| 126| 4 | 250| 136| 8 E| 187| 36| 12 | 185| 40| 8 | 175| 44| 10 | 141| 46| 11 F| 671| 427| 8 | 645| 303| 16 | 482| 319| 7 | 271| 212| 9 G| 565| 381| 10 | 505| 310| 10 | 455| 344| 3 | 292| 299| 4 H| 340| 135| 8 | 300| 159| 16 | 242| 142| 16 | 140| 101| 3 I| 255| 206| 7 | 242| 180| 8 | 177| 176| 1 | 186| 140| 1 J| 150| 45| 3 | 157| 45| 3 | 115| 30| 3 | 77| 31| .. K| 302| 135| 24 | 310| 113| 13 | 253| 79| 6 | 250| 75| 6 L| 223| 20| .. | 180| 26| 3 | 115| 15| .. | 94| 12| .. M| 380| 150| 11 | 320| 123| 7 | 270| 127| 7 | 222| 120| 3 N| 975| 336| 33 | 970| 305| 33 | 680| 264| 18 | 510| 258| 30 O| 309| 113| 8 | 305| 126| 8 | 203| 112| 8 | 177| 99| 3 P| 248| 141| 16 | 276| 110| 15 | 220| 100| 11 | 190| 96| 3 Q| 295| 166| 5 | 390| 183| 15 | 292| 139| 6 | 260| 152| 6 R| 340| 43| 15 | 280| 58| 11 | 230| 59| 5 | 109| 16| 3 S| 230| 39| 13 | 195| 34| 9 | 137| 25| 2 | 94| 16| 4 T| 143| 23| 2 | 100| 15| 6 | 52| 14| 3 | 40| 4| 2 U| 450| 103| 17 | 446| 87| 15 | 361| 89| 13 | 265| 66| 6 V| 185| 52| 16 | 241| 54| 17 | 139| 25| 12 | 71| 13| 9 W| 305| 17| 6 | 265| 20| 4 | 269| 10| 9 | 145| 14| .. X| 300| 57| 7 |215| 36| 8 | 193| 53| 3 | 516| 28| 1 +----+----+--------+----+----+--------+----+----+--------+----+----+-------- |8727|3543| 273 |8067|3019| 256 |6671|2911| 175 |5138|2426| 133 +----+----+--------+----+----+--------+----+----+--------+----+----+--------

TABLE SHOWING TOTALS OF EVERY DESCRIPTION OF VEHICLE PASSING PER HOUR AND PER DAY OF 12 HOURS THROUGH CERTAIN STREETS WITHIN THE CITY OF LONDON.

-------+--------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+------+-------+ | | HOURS ENDING |Total |Average| | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ of 12| per | Date. | Situation. | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Hours| Hour. | | |A. M.|A. M.|A. M.| Noon|P. M.|P. M.|P. M.|P. M.|P. M.|P. M.|P. M.|P. M.| | | -------+--------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+-------+ 1850. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | July 8 |Temple Bar Gate | 311| 526| 704| 757| 691| 664| 791| 737| 738| 671| 537| 614| 7741| 645 | „ 9 | Holborn-hill, | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | by St. And. Ch. | 327| 552| 670| 698| 623| 606| 535| 377| 915| 445| 841| 317| 6906| 575 | „ 10 |Ludgate-hill, | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | by Pilgrim-st. | 361| 476| 728| 636| 789| 514| 628| 531| 619| 584| 543| 420| 6829| 569 | „ 11 |Newgate-st., | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | by Old Bailey | 320| 528| 628| 509| 555| 537| 564| 738| 572| 563| 467| 394| 6375| 531 | „ 12 |Aldersgate-st., | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | by Fann-st. | 168| 261| 208| 196| 214| 235| 194| 219| 235| 233| 229| 198| 2590| 215 | „ 13 |Cheapside, | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | by Foster-lane | 473| 805| 1124| 1169| 1020| 1009| 1007| 1076| 1106| 964| 808| 492| 11053| 921 | „ 15 |Poultry, | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | by Mansion House | 414| 762| 1071| 1080| 1043| 941| 875| 910| 956| 825| 802| 595| 10274| 856 | „ 16 |Finsbury-pave., | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | by South-pl | 262| 385| 475| 387| 364| 345| 293| 347| 483| 475| 400| 244| 4460| 371 | „ 17 |Cornhill, | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | by Roy. Exchange | 161| 364| 479| 461| 487| 441| 493| 451| 468| 430| 354| 327| 4916| 409 | „ 18 |Threadneedle-street | 98| 145| 262| 214| 211| 154| 212| 195| 198| 205| 148| 108| 2150| 179 | „ 19 |Gracech-st., | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | by St. Pet.-alley | 258| 322| 439| 507| 392| 423| 464| 516| 461| 436| 338| 331| 4887| 407 | „ 20 |Lombard-st., | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | by Birchin-la | 137| 117| 156| 188| 169| 232| 237| 304| 243| 209| 130| 106| 2228| 185 | „ 22 |Bishopsg.-st., | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | by Gt St. Hel. | 259| 408| 500| 430| 396| 238| 439| 432| 541| 450| 404| 345| 4842| 403 | „ 23 |London Bridge | 680| 1128| 1332| 1124| 1094| 1048| 1101| 1180| 1344| 1308| 962| 798| 13099| 1091 | „ 24 |Bishp.-st. out, | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | by Cy. Bound | 203| 329| 447| 286| 307| 342| 390| 335| 430| 439| 323| 279| 4110| 342 | „ 25 |Aldgate High-street,| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | by Cy. Bound | 425| 422| 417| 442| 445| 379| 389| 409| 405| 401| 331| 289| 4754| 396 | „ 26 |Leadenhall-st., | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | E. I. House | 251| 429| 595| 495| 594| 563| 525| 569| 466| 588| 437| 418| 5930| 494 | „ 27 |Eastcheap, | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | by Philpot-lane | 335| 346| 398| 372| 378| 343| 368| 393| 398| 349| 294| 128| 4102| 341 | „ 29 |Tower-street, | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | by Mark-lane | 169| 222| 262| 271| 292| 324| 290| 262| 282| 238| 164| 114| 2890| 240 | „ 30 |L. Thames-st, | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | by Botolph-la | 88| 130| 175| 105| 105| 108| 118| 147| 168| 121| 69| 46| 1380| 115 | „ 31 |Blackfriars Bridge | 327| 381| 518| 516| 465| 336| 385| 416| 570| 548| 463| 337| 5262| 438 | Aug. 1 |U. Thames-st., | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | rear of Qn.-st | 140| 227| 165| 223| 205| 160| 164| 213| 253| 312| 176| 93| 2331| 194 | „ 2 | Smithfield Bars | 203| 230| 202| 277| 276| 255| 334| 267| 328| 289| 288| 159| 3108| 259 | „ 3 | Fenchurch-street | 206| 262| 253| 343| 293| 269| 272| 327| 364| 259| 249| 545| 3642| 303 | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+-------+ | 6576| 9757|12208|11686|11408|10466|11068|11351|12543|11342| 9757| 7697|125859| 10488 |

TABLE SHOWING THE TOTAL NUMBER OF EACH DESCRIPTION OF VEHICLE PASSING THROUGH CERTAIN STREETS WITHIN THE CITY OF LONDON, BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 8 A.M. AND 8 P.M. (12 HOURS.)

---------+----------------------+--------------------+------+------------------+------- | | Total Number | | | | | of Vehicles | | Average Number | | | drawn by | | per Hour. | | +-----+-----+--------+ Total+------------------+ Date. | Situation. |1 Horse and | of |1 Horse and |Average | | Equestrians. | the | Equestrians. |of the | | |2 Horses. |whole.| |2 Horses. |whole. | | | |3 Horses| | | |3 Horses| | | | |or more.| | | |or more.| ---------+----------------------------+-----+--------+------+----+----+--------+------- 8th July,| | | | | | | | | 1850. |Temple Bar Gate | 5035| 2498| 208 | 7741| 419| 206| 17 | 645 9th „ |Holborn Hill, | | | | | | | | | by St. Andrew’s | | | | | | | | | Church | 4974| 1797| 135 | 6906| 414| 149| 11 | 575 10th „ |Ludgate Hill, | | | | | | | | | by Pilgrim-street | 4259| 2483| 87 | 6829| 354| 207| 7 | 569 11th „ |Newgate-street, | | | | | | | | | by Old Bailey | 4484| 1795| 96 | 6375| 373| 149| 8 | 531 12th „ |Aldersgate-street, | | | | | | | | | by Fann-street | 1990| 479| 121 | 2590| 165| 40| 10 | 215 13th „ |Cheapside, | | | | | | | | | by Foster-lane | 7107| 3794| 152 | 11053| 592| 316| 12 | 921 15th „ |Poultry, | | | | | | | | | by Mansion House | 6283| 3869| 122 | 10274| 523| 332| 10 | 856 16th „ |Finsbury Pavement, | | | | | | | | | by South-place | 2904| 1458| 98 | 4460| 242| 121| 8 | 371 17th „ |Cornhill, | | | | | | | | | by Royal Exchange | 2761| 2074| 81 | 4916| 230| 172| 7 | 409 18th „ |Threadneedle-street | 1536| 587| 27 | 2150| 128| 49| 2 | 179 19th „ |Gracechurch-st., | | | | | | | | | by St. Peter’s-alley| 3505| 1223| 159 | 4887| 292| 102| 13 | 407 20th „ |Lombard-street, | | | | | | | | | by Birchin-lane | 2019| 195| 14 | 2228| 168| 16| 1 | 185 22nd „ |Bishopsgate-st., | | | | | | | | | by Great St. Helen’s| 3270| 1477| 95 | 4842| 272| 123| 8 | 403 23rd „ |London Bridge | 9351| 3389| 359 | 13099| 779| 282| 30 | 1091 24th „ |Bishopsgate-st., out, | | | | | | | | | by City Boundy | 2769| 1273| 68 | 4110| 30| 106| 5 | 342 25th „ |Aldgate High-street, | | | | | | | | | by City Boundy | 3222| 1378| 154 | 4754| 268| 114| 12 | 396 26th „ |Leadenhall-street, | | | | | | | | | East India House | 3970| 1841| 119 | 5930| 330| 153| 10 | 494 27th „ |Eastcheap, | | | | | | | | | by Philpot-lane | 3481| 464| 157 | 4102| 290| 38| 13 | 341 29th „ |Tower-street, | | | | | | | | | by Mark-lane | 2416| 369| 105 | 2890| 201| 30| 8 | 240 30th „ |Lower Thames-st., | | | | | | | | | by Botolph-lane | 1187| 152| 41 | 1380| 98| 12| 3 | 115 31st „ |Blackfriars Bridge | 4132| 935| 195 | 5262| 344| 78| 16 | 438 1st Aug.|Upper Thames-st., | | | | | | | | | rear of Queen-st. | 1756| 428| 147 | 2331| 146| 35| 12 | 194 2nd „ |Smithfield Bars | 2843| 193| 72 | 3108| 237| 16| 6 | 259 3rd „ |Fenchurch-street | 3050| 518| 74 | 3642| 254| 43| 6 | 303 | +-----------+--------+------+----+-------------+------- | |88304|34669| 2886 |125859|7358|2889| 240 |10488

The commodities whose residuum goes to swell the annual supply of rubbish, are generally of an earthy nature. Such commodities as are made of fibrous or textile materials, go, when “used up,” chiefly to form manure if of an animal nature, and to be converted into paper if of a vegetable origin. The refuse materials of our woollen clothes, our old coats and trousers, are either torn to pieces and re-manufactured into shoddy, or become the invigorators of our hop and other plants; whereas those of our linen or cotton garments, our old shirts and petticoats, form the materials of our books and letters; while our old ropes, &c., are converted into either brown paper or oakum. Those commodities, on the other hand, which are made of leathern materials, become, when worn out, the ingredients of the prussiate of potash and other nitrogenised products manufactured by our chemists. Our old wooden commodities, again, are used principally to kindle our fires; while the refuse of our fires themselves, whether the soot which is deposited in the chimney above, or the ashes which fall below, are employed mainly to increase the fertility of our land. Our worn-out metal commodities, on the other hand, are newly melted, and go to form fresh commodities when the metals are of the scarcer kind, as gold, silver, copper, brass, lead, and even iron; and when of the more common kind, as is the case with old tin, and occasionally iron vessels, they either become the ingredients in some of our chemical manufactures, or else when formed of tin are cut up into smaller and inferior commodities. Even the detritus of our streets is used as the soil of our market gardens. All this we have already seen, and we have now to deal more particularly with the refuse of the sole remaining materials, viz., those of an earthy kind, and out of which are made our bricks, our earthenware and porcelain, as well as our glass, plaster, and stone commodities. What becomes of all these materials when the articles made of them are no longer fit for use? The old glass is, like the old metal, re-melted and made into new commodities; some broken bottles are used for the tops of walls as a protection against trespassers; and the old bricks, when sound, are employed again for inferior brick-work; but what becomes of the rest of the earthen materials--the unsound bricks or “bats,” the old plaster and mortar, the refuse slates and tiles and chimney-pots, the broken pans, and dishes, and other crocks--in a word, the potsherds and pansherds[34], as the rubbish-carters call them--what is done with these?

But rubbish, as we have seen, consists not only of refuse earthen commodities, but of refuse earth itself: such as the soil removed during excavations for the foundations of houses, for the cuttings of railways, the levelling of roads, the formation of parks, the laying down of pipes or drains, and the sinking of wells. For each and all of these operations there is necessarily a certain quantity of soil removed, and the question that naturally occurs to the mind is, what is done with it?

There is, moreover, a third kind of rubbish, which, though having an animal origin, consists chiefly of earthy matter, and that is the shells of oysters, and other shell-fish. Whence go they, since these shells are of a comparatively indestructible nature, and thousands of such fish are consumed annually in the metropolis? What, the inquirer asks, becomes of the refuse bony coverings of such fish?

Let us first, however, endeavour to estimate what quantity of each of these three kinds of rubbish is annually produced in London, beginning with the refuse earthen commodities.

There is no published account of the quantity of crockeryware annually manufactured in this country. Mr. McCulloch tells us, “It is estimated, that the value of the various sorts of earthenware produced at the potteries may amount to about 1,700,000_l._ or 1,800,000_l._ a year; and that the earthenware produced at Worcester, Derby, and other parts of the country, may amount to about 850,000_l._ or more, making the whole value of the manufacture 2,550,000_l._ or 2,650,000_l._ a year.” What proportion of this quantity may fall to the share of the metropolis, and what proportion of the whole may be annually destroyed, I know of no means of judging. We must therefore go some other way to work in order to arrive at the required information. Now, it has been before shown, that the quantity of “dust,” or dry refuse from houses, annually collected, amounts to 900,000 tons or chaldrons yearly; and I find, on inquiry at the principal “yards,” that the average quantity of Potsherds and broken crockery is at the rate of about half a bushel to every load of dust, or say 1 per cent. out of the entire quantity collected. At other yards, I find the proportion of sherds to be about the same, so that we may fairly assume that the gross quantity of broken earthenware produced in London is in round numbers 9000 loads or tons per annum. The sherds run about 250 pieces to the bushel, and assuming every five of such pieces to be the remains of an entire article, there would be in each bushel the fragments of fifty earthenware vessels; and thus the total quantity of crockeryware destroyed yearly in the metropolis will amount to 18,000,000 vessels.

As to the quantity of refuse bricks, the number annually produced, which is between 1,500,000,000 and 2,000,000,000, will give us no knowledge of the quantity yearly converted into rubbish. In order to arrive at this, we must ascertain the number of houses pulled down in the course of the twelvemonth; and I find, by the Returns of the Registrar-General, that the buildings removed between 1841 and 1851 have been as follows:--

DECREASE IN THE NUMBER OF HOUSES THROUGHOUT LONDON BETWEEN 1841 AND 1851.

----------------------------+-----------+--------- | Total | Annual |Decrease in| Average | 10 Years. |Decrease. ----------------------------+-----------+--------- St. Martin’s | 116 | 11·6 St. James’s, Westminster | 130 | 13·0 St. Giles’s | 181 | 18·1 Strand | 389 | 38·9 Holborn | 86 | 8·6 East London | 11 | 1·1 West London | 265 | 26·5 London, City of | 592 | 59·2 Whitechapel | 2 | ·2 St. Saviour’s, Southwark | 46 | 4·6 St. Olave’s | 158 | 15·8 ----------------------------+-----------+--------- Total | 1976 | 197·6 ----------------------------+-----------+---------

Thus, then, we perceive that there have been, upon an average, very nearly 200 houses annually pulled down in London within the last ten years, and I find, on inquiry among those who are likely to be the best-informed on such matters, that each house so pulled down will yield from 40 to 50 loads of rubbish; so that, altogether, the quantity of refuse bricks, slates, tiles, chimney-pots, &c., annually produced in London must be no less than 8000 loads.

But the above estimate refers only to those houses which have been pulled down and never rebuilt; so that, in order to arrive at the gross quantity of this kind of rubbish yearly produced in the metropolis, we must add to the preceding amount the quantity accruing from such houses as are pulled down and built up again, or newly fronted and repaired, which are by far the greater number. These, I find, may be estimated at between 5 and 10 per cent. of the gross number of houses in the metropolis. In some quarters (the older parts of London, for instance,) the proportion is much higher, while in the suburbs, or newer districts, it is scarcely half per cent. Each of the houses so new-fronted or repaired may be said to yield, on an average, 10 loads of rubbish, and, at this rate, the yearly quantity of refuse bricks, mortar, &c., proceeding from such a source, will be 150,000 loads per annum; so that the total amount of rubbish produced in London by the demolition and reparation of houses would appear to be about 160,000 loads yearly.

The quantity of refuse oyster shells may easily be found by the number of oysters annually sold in Billingsgate-market. These, from the returns which I obtained from the market salesmen, and printed at p. 63 of the first volume of this work, appear to be, in round numbers, 500,000,000; and, calculating that one-third of this quantity is sent into the country, the total number of shells remaining in the metropolis may be estimated at about 650,000,000. Reckoning, then, that 500 shells go to the bushel (the actual number was found experimentally to be between 525 and 550), and consequently that 20,000 are contained in every load, we may conclude that the gross quantity of refuse oyster shells annually produced in London average somewhere about 30,000 loads. That this is an approximation to the true quantity there can be little doubt, for, on inquiry at one of the largest dust-yards, I was informed by the hill-man that the quantity of oyster-shells collected with the refuse dust from houses in the vicinity of Shoreditch, Whitechapel, and other localities at the east-end of the metropolis, averages 6 bushels to the load of dust; about the west-end, however, half a bushel or a bushel to each load is the average ratio; while from the City there is none, the house “dust” there being free from oyster-shells. In taking one district, however, with another, I am assured that the average may be safely computed at 2 bushels of oyster-shells to every 3 loads of dust; hence, as the gross amount of house-dust is equal to 900,000 tons or loads per annum, the quantity of refuse oyster-shells collected yearly by the dustmen may be taken at 15,000 loads. But, besides these, there is the quantity got rid of by the costermongers, which seldom or never appear in the dust-bins. The costers sell about 124,000,000 oysters per annum, and thus the extra quantity of shells resulting from these means would be about 12,400 loads; so that the gross quantity of refuse oyster-shells actually produced in London may be said to average between 25,000 and 30,000 loads per annum.

There still remains the quantity of refuse earth to be calculated; this may be estimated as follows:--

1. Foundations of Houses.--Each house that is built requires the ground to be excavated from two to three yards deep, the average area of each being about nine yards square. This gives between 160 and 200 cubic yards of earth removed from the foundation of each house. A cubic yard of earth is a load, so that there are between 160 and 200 loads of earth displaced in the building of every new house.

The following statement shows--

THE NUMBER OF HOUSES BUILT THROUGHOUT LONDON BETWEEN 1841 AND 1851.

--------------------+---------------+----------- | Total No. | Average | of Houses | No. of | built in 10 | Houses | Years. | built per | | Year. --------------------+---------------+----------- West Districts | 9,624 | 962·4 North Districts | 13,778 | 1377·8 Central Districts | 349 | 34·9 East Districts | 8,343 | 834·3 South Districts | 14,807 | 1480·7 --------------------+---------------+----------- Total | 46,901 | 4690·1 --------------------+---------------+-----------

Hence, estimating the number of new houses built yearly in the metropolis at 4500, the total quantity of earth removed for the foundations of the buildings throughout London would be 800,000 loads per annum.

2. The Cuttings of Railways.--The railways formed within the area of the metropolis during the last ten years have been--the Great Northern; the Camden Town, and Bow; the West India Docks and Bow; and the North Kent Lines. The extension of the Southampton Railway from Vauxhall to Waterloo-bridge, as well as the Richmond Line, has also been formed within the same period, but for these no cuttings have been made.

The Railway Cuttings made within the area of the Metropolis Proper during the last ten years have been to the following extent:--

------------------------+--------+-----------------+--------+--------- | Length |Width of Cutting.| Depth |Quantity RAILWAYS. | of +---------+-------+ of |of earth |Cutting.| At | At |Cutting.|Removed. | | top. | bottom.| | ------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------- | Miles. | Yards. | Yards. | Yards. | Loads. Great Northern | 1-1/2 | 12 | 10 | 10 | 290,400 Camden Town and Bow | 1-1/2 | 12 | 10 | 10 | 290,400 West India Docks and Bow| 2 | 15 | 10 | 12 | 528,000 North Kent | 2 | 15 | 10 | 12 | 528,000 ------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+---------

Hence, the gross quantity of earth removed from railway cuttings within the last ten years has been 1,636,800 loads, or say, in round numbers, 160,000 loads per annum.

3. The Cutting of Roads and Streets.--According to a Return presented to Parliament, there were 200 miles of new streets formed within the metropolitan police district between the years 1839-49; but in the formation of these no earth has been taken away; on the contrary a considerable quantity has been required for their construction. In the case of the lowering of Holborn-hill, that which was removed from the top was used to fill up the hollow.

4. The Formation of Parks.--The only park that has been constructed during the last ten years in the metropolis is Victoria Park, at the east end of the town; but I am informed that, in the course of the works there, no earth was carted away, the soil which was removed from one part being used for the levelling of another.

5. Pipe and Sewer Works.--The earth displaced in the course of these operations is usually put back into the ground whence it was taken, excepting in the formation of some new sewer, and then a certain proportion has to be carted away. Upon inquiry among those who are likely to be best informed, I am assured that 1000 loads may be taken as the quantity carted away in the course of the last year.

6. Well-sinking.--In this there has been but little done. Those who are best informed assure me that within the last ten years no such works of any magnitude have been executed.

The account as to the quantity of rubbish removed in London, then, stands thus:--

Loads Refuse Earthen Materials. per Annum. Potsherds and Pansherds 9,000 Old bricks, tiles, slates, mortar, &c. 160,000 Oyster-shells 25,000

Refuse Earth. Foundations of houses 800,000 Railway cuttings 160,000 Pipe and sewer laying 1,000 --------- 1,155,000

Thus, then, we perceive that the gross quantity of rubbish that has to be annually removed throughout the metropolis is upwards of 1,000,000 loads per annum.

Now what is done with the vast amount of refuse matter? Whither is it carried? How is it disposed of?

The rubbish from the house building or removing is of no value to the master carter, and is shot gratuitously wherever there is the privilege of shooting it; this privilege, however, is very often usurped. Great quantities used to be shot in what were, until these last eight years, Bishop Bonner’s Fields, but now Victoria Park. At the present time this sort of rubbish is often slily deposited in localities generally known as “the ruins,” being places from which houses, and indeed streets, have been removed, and the sites left bare and vacant.

But the main localities for the deposition of this kind of refuse are in the fields round about the metropolis. Each particular district appears to have its own special “shoot,” as it is called, for rubbish, of which the following are the principal.

Rubbish shoots.

The rubbish of Kensington and Chelsea is shot in the Pottery Grounds and Kensington-fields.

The rubbish of St. George’s Hanover-square, Marylebone, and Paddington, is shot in the fields about Notting-hill and Kilburn.

The rubbish of Westminster, Strand, Holborn, St. Martin’s, St. Giles’s, St. James’s, Westminster, West London, and Southwark, is shot in Cubitt’s fields at Millbank and Westminster improvements.

The rubbish of Hampstead is shot in the fields at back of Haverstock-hill.

The rubbish of Saint Pancras is shot in the Copenhagen-fields.

The rubbish of Islington, Clerkenwell, and St. Luke’s, is shot in the Eagle Wharf-road and Shepherdess-fields.

The rubbish of East London and City is shot in the Haggerstone-fields.

The rubbish of Whitechapel, St. George’s in the East, and Stepney, is shot in Stepney fields.

The rubbish of Hackney, Bethnal-green, and Shoreditch, is shot in the Bonkers-pond, Hackney-road.

The rubbish of Poplar is shot in the fields at back of New Town, Poplar.

The rubbish of Bermondsey is shot in the Bermondsey fields.

The rubbish of Newington, Camberwell, and Lambeth, is shot in Walworth-common and Kennington-fields.

The rubbish of Wandsworth is shot in Potters-hole, Wandsworth-common.

The rubbish of Greenwich and Lewisham is shot in Russia-common, near Lewisham.

The rubbish of Rotherhithe is used for ballast.

The quantity of rubbish annually shot in each of the above-mentioned localities appears to range from 5000 up to as high as 30,000 and 40,000 loads.

Of the earth removed in forming the foundation of new houses, between one-fourth and one-sixth of the whole is used to make the gardens at the back, and the bed of the roads in front of them, while the entire quantity of the soil displaced in the execution of the “cuttings” of railways is carted away in the trucks of the company to form embankments in other places. Hence there would appear to be about from 160,000 to 200,000 loads of refuse bricks, potsherds, pansherds, and oyster-shells, and about 600,000 loads of refuse earth deposited every year in the fields or “shoots” in the vicinity of the metropolis.

The refuse earth displaced in forming the foundations of houses is generally carted away by the builders’ men, so that it is principally the refuse bricks, &c., that the rubbish-carters are engaged in removing; these they usually carry to the shoots already indicated, or to such other localities where the hard core may be needed for forming the foundation of roads, or the rubbish be required for certain other purposes.

The principal use to which the “rubbish” is put is for levelling, when the hollow part of any newly-made road has to be filled up, or garden or lawn ground has to be levelled for a new mansion. Rubbish, at one time, was in demand for the ballasting of small coasting vessels. For such ballasting 2_d._ a ton has to be paid to the corporation of the Trinity House. This rubbish has been used, but sometimes surreptitiously, for ballast, unmixed with other things. It is, however, light and inferior ballast, and occupies more space than the gravel ballast from the bed of the Thames.

Suppose that a collier requires ballast to the extent of 60 tons; if house rubbish be used it will occupy the hold to a greater height by about 10 inches than would the ballast derived from the bed of the Thames. The Thames ballast is supplied at 1_s._ a ton; the rubbish-ballast, however, was only 3_d._ to 6_d._ a ton, but now it is seldom used unless to mix with manure, which might be considered too wet and soft, and likely to ferment on the voyage to a degree unpleasant even to the mariners used to such freights. The rubbish, I am told, checks the fermentation, and gives consistency to the manure.

I am assured by a tradesman, who ships a considerable quantity of stable manure collected from the different mews of the metropolis, that comparatively little rubbish is now used for ballast (unless in the way I have stated); even for mixing, but a few tons a week are required up and down the river, and perhaps a small quantity from the wharfs on the several canals. Nothing was ever paid for the use of this rubbish as ballast, the carters being well satisfied to have the privilege of shooting it. Two of the principal shoots by the river side were at Bell-wharf, Shadwell, and off Wapping-street. The rubbish of Rotherhithe, it will be seen, is mainly “shot” as ballast.

The “hard-core” is readily got rid of; sometimes it is shot gratuitously (or merely with a small gratuity for beer to the men); but if it have to be carted three or four miles, it is from 2_s._ 6_d._ to 3_s._ a load. This is used for the foundations of houses, the groundwork of roads, and other purposes where a hard substratum is required. The hard-core on a new road is usually about nine inches deep. There are on an average 20 miles of streets, 15 yards wide, formed annually in London. Hence there would be upwards of 100,000 loads of hard-core required for this purpose alone. Where the soil is of a gravelly nature, but little hard rubbish is needed. Oyster-shells did form a much greater portion than they do now of the hard substratum of roads. Eight or nine years ago the costermongers could sell their oyster-shells for 6_d._ a bushel. Now they cannot, or do not, sell them at all; and the law not only forbids their deposit in any place whatever, but forbids their being scattered in the streets, under a penalty of 5_l._ But as the same law provides no place where these shells may be deposited, the costermongers are in what one of them described to me as “a quandary.” One man, who with his wife kept two stalls in Tottenham Court-road, one for fish (fresh and dried) and for shell-fish, and the other for fruit and vegetables, told me that he gave “one of those poor long-legged fellows who were neither men nor boys, and who were always starving and hanging about for a two-penny job, two-pence to carry away a hamper-full of shells and get rid of them as he best could. O, where he put them, sir,” said the man, “I don’t know, I wouldn’t know; and I shouldn’t have mentioned it to you, only I saw you last winter and know you’re inquiring for an honest purpose.”

Another costermonger who has a large barrow of oysters and mussels, and sometimes of “wet fish” near King’s-cross, and at the junction of Leather-lane with Back-hill, Hatton-garden, was more communicative: “If you’ll walk on with me, sir,” he said, “I’ll show you where they’re shot. You may mention my name if you like, sir; I don’t care a d---- for the crushers; not a blessed d----.” He accordingly conducted me to a place which seemed adapted for the special purpose. At the foot of Saffron-hill and the adjacent streets runs the Fleet-ditch, now a branch of the common sewers; not covered over as in other parts, but open, noisome, and, as the dark water flows on, throwing up a sickening stench. The ditch is indifferently fenced, so that any one with a little precaution may throw what he pleases into it. “There, sir,” said my companion, “there’s the place where more oyster-shells is thrown than anywhere in London. They’re thrown in in the dark.” Assuredly the great share of blame is not to those who avail themselves of such places for illegal purposes, but to those who leave such filthy receptacles available. The scattered oyster-shells along all the approaches, on both sides, to this part of the open Fleet-ditch, evince the use that is made of it in violation of the law. Many of the costers, however, keep the shells by them till they amount to several bushels, and then give the rubbish-carters a few pence to dispose of them for them.

Some of the costermongers, again, obtain leave to deposit their oyster-shells in the dustmen’s yards, where quantities may be seen whitening the dingy dust-heaps, and a large quantity are collected with the house-dust and ashes, together with the broken crockery from the dust-bins of the several houses. The oyster-shells are carted away with the pansherds, &c., for the purposes I have mentioned.

* * * * *

I now come to deal with the rubbish-carters, that is to say, with the labourers engaged in the removal of the “hard” species of refuse; of which we have seen there are between 160,000 and 200,000 loads annually carted away; the refuse earth, or “soft dirt,” being generally removed by the builders’ men, and the refuse, crockeryware, &c., by the dustmen, when collecting the dust from the “bins” of the several houses.

The master Rubbish-Carters are those who keep carts and horses to be hired for carting away the old materials when houses or walls are pulled down. They are also occasionally engaged in carrying away the soil or rubbish thrown up from the foundations of buildings; the excavations of docks, canals, and sewers; the digging of artesian wells, &c. This seems to comprise what in this carrying or removing trade is accounted “rubbish.”

Perhaps not one of these tradesmen is solely a rubbish-carter, for they are likewise the carters of new materials for the use of builders, such as lime, bricks, stone, gravel, slates, timber, iron-work, chimney-pieces, &c. Some of them are public carmen; licensed carmen if they work, or ply, in the City; but beyond the City boundaries no licence is necessary. This complication perplexes the inquiry, but I purpose to confine it, as much as possible, to the rubbish-carters proper, having defined what may be understood by “rubbish.” These carters are also employed in digging, pick-axing, &c., at the buildings, the rubbish of which they are engaged to remove.

Among the conveyors of rubbish are no distinctions as to the kind. Any of them will one week cart old bricks from a house which has been pulled down, and the next week be busy in removing the soil excavated where the foundations and cellars of a new mansion have been dug.

From inquiries made in each of the different districts of the metropolis, there appear to be from 140 to 150 tradesmen who, with the carting of bricks, lime, and other building commodities, add also that of rubbish-carting. These “masters” among them find employment for 840 labouring men, some of whom I find to have been in the service of the same employer upwards of 20 years.

The Post-Office Directory, under the head of rubbish-carters, gives the names of only 35 of the principal masters, of whom several are marked as scavagers, dust-contractors, nightmen, and road-contractors. The occupation abstract of the census, on the other hand, totally ignores the existence of any such class of workmen, masters as well as operatives. I find, however, by actual visitation and inquiry in each of the metropolitan districts, and thus learning the names of the several masters as well as the number of men in their employment, that there may be said to be, in round numbers, 150 master rubbish-carters, employing among them 840 operatives throughout London.

A large proportion of this number of labouring men, however, are casual hands, who have been taken on when the trade was busy during the summer (which is the “brisk season” of rubbish-cartage), and who are discharged in the slack time; during which period they obtain jobs at dust-carting or scavaging, or some such out-door employment. Among the employers there are scarcely any who are purely rubbish-carters, the large majority consisting of dust and road-contractors, carmen, dairymen, and persons who have two or three horses and carts at their disposal. When a master builder or bricklayer obtains a contract, he hires horses and carts to take away any rubbish which may previously have been deposited. The contract of the King’s Cross Terminus of the Great Northern Railway, for instance, has been undertaken by Mr. W. Jay, the builder; and, not having sufficient conveyances to cart the rubbish away, he has hired horses and carts of others to assist in the removal of it. The same mode is adopted in other parts of the metropolis, where any improvements are going on. The owners of horses and carts let them out to hire at from 7_s._ for one horse, to 14_s._ for two per day. If, however, the job be unusually large, the master rubbish-carters often take it by contract themselves.

Although the operative rubbish-carters may be classed among unskilled labourers, they are, perhaps, less miscellaneous, as a body, than other classes of open-air workers. Before they can obtain work of the best description it is necessary that they should have some knowledge of the management of a horse in the drawing of a loaded carriage, or of the way in which the animal should be groomed and tended in the stable. I was told by an experienced carman, that he, or any one with far less than his experience, could in a moment detect, merely by the mode in which a man would put the harness on a horse and yoke him to the cart, whether he was likely to prove a master of his craft in that line or not. My informant had noticed, more especially many years ago, when labour was not so abundantly obtainable as it was last year, that men out of work would offer him their services as carmen even if they had never handled a whip in their lives, as if little more were wanted than to walk by the horse’s side. An experienced carter knows how to ease and direct the animal when heavily burdened, or when the road is rugged; and I am assured by the same informant, that he had known one of his horses more fatigued after traversing a dozen miles with a “yokel” (as he called him), or an incompetent man, than the animal had been after a fifteen miles’ journey with the same load under the care of a careful and judicious driver. This knowledge of the management of a horse is most essential when men are employed to work “single-handed,” or have confided to them singly a horse and cart; when they work in gangs it is not insisted upon, except as regards the “carman,” or the man having charge of the horse or the team.

The master rubbish-carters generally are more particular than they used to be as to the men to whom they commit the care of their horses. It may be easy enough to learn to drive a horse and cart, but a casual labourer will now hardly get employment in rubbish-carting of a “good sort” unless he has attained that preliminary knowledge. The foreman of one of the principal contractors said to me, “It would never do to let a man learn his business by practising on our horses.” I mention this to show, that although rubbish-carting is to be classed among unskilled labours, some training is necessary.

I am informed that one-third of the working rubbish-carters have been rubbish-carters from their youth, or cart, car, or waggon-drivers, for they all seem to have known changes; or they have been used to the care of horses in the capacity of ostlers, stable-men, helpers, coaching-inn porters, coachmen, grooms, and horse-breakers. Of the remainder, one-half, I am informed, have “had a turn” at such avocations as scavagery, bricklayers’ labouring, dock work, railway excavating, night work, and the many toils to which such men resort in their struggles to obtain bread, whatever may have been their original occupation, which is rarely that of an artizan. The other, and what may be called the greater half of the remaining number, is composed of agricultural labourers who were rubbish-carters in the country, and of the many men who have had the care of horses and vehicles in the provinces, and who have sought the metropolis, depending upon their thews and sinews for a livelihood, as porters, or carmen, or labourers in almost any capacity. The most of these men at the plough, the harrow, the manure-cart, the hay and corn harvests, have been practised carters and horse drivers before they sought the expected gold in the streets of London. Full a third of the whole body of rubbish-carters are Irishmen, who in Ireland were small farmers, or cottiers, or agricultural labourers, or belonged to some of the classes I have described.

The mechanics among rubbish-carters I heard estimated, by men with equal means of information, as one in twenty and one in fifteen. Among these quondam mechanics were more farriers, cart and wheel wrights, than of other classes.

It seems to be regarded as an indispensable thing that working rubbish-carters should have one quality--bodily strength. I am told that one employer, who died a few weeks ago, used to say to any applicant for work, “It’s no use asking for it, if you wish to keep it, unless you can lift a horse up when he’s down.”

As I have shown of the scavagers, &c., the employers in rubbish-carting may be classed as “honourable” and “scurfs.” The men do not use the word “honourable,” nor any equivalent term, but speak of their masters, though with no great distinctiveness, as being either “good,” or “scurfs.” As in other branches of unskilled labour where there are no trade societies or general trade regulations among the operatives, there are few distinctive appellations.

From the facts I have collected in connection with this trade, it would appear that there are 180 master rubbish-carters in the metropolis, about 140 of whom pay 18_s._ or more per week as wages, while the remaining 40 pay less than that amount. The latter constitute what the men term the scurf portion of the trade; so that the honourable masters among the rubbish-carters may be said to comprise seven-ninths of the whole.

I will first treat of the circumstances, characteristics, and wages of the men employed in the honourable trade.

And first, as regards the division of labour among the operative rubbish-carters, the work is as simple as possible.

There are--

1. The Rubbish-Carters proper, or “carmen,” who are engaged principally in conveying the refuse brick or earth to the several shoots.

2. The Rubbish-Shovellers, or “gangers,” who are engaged principally in filling the cart with the rubbish to be removed. Generally speaking, the two offices are performed by the same individual, who is both carter and shoveller, and it is only in large works that the gangers are employed.

Master builders and others who require the aid of rubbish-carters for the removal of earth or any other kind of rubbish from ground about to be built upon, or from old buildings about to be repaired or pulled down, either hire horses, carts, and carmen, by the day, of the master rubbish-carters, or pay a certain price per load for the removal of the rubbish. If the job be likely to last some length of time, the builders pay the masters so much per load for carting away the rubbish; but if the job be only for a short period, the horses, carts, and carmen are hired of the masters for the time. The price paid to the master rubbish-carter ranges from 2_s._ 6_d._ to 3_s._ 6_d._ per load for the removal of rubbish and bringing back such bricks, lime, or sand as may be required for the building. The master rubbish-carter, in all cases, pays the men engaged in the removal of the rubbish.

The operative rubbish-carters (except in a very few instances) never work in gangs, either in the construction of new buildings or in old buildings about to be pulled down or repaired. In digging the foundations of new houses, the master builders, or speculators, building upon their own ground employ their own excavators, and engage rubbish-carters to remove the refuse earth, the latter being merely occupied in carting it away.

The principle of simple co-operation or gang-work occasionally prevails; and, when this is the case, the gang is employed in shovelling and picking, while the carman, as the shovellers throw out the rubbish, fills or shovels the rubbish into the cart.

Each rubbish-carter will, on an average, convey away from two to five loads a day, according to the distance he has to take it. Calculating 850 men to remove four loads per diem for five months in a year, the gross quantity of rubbish annually removed would be very nearly 326,000 loads.

In the regular trade the hours of daily labour are twelve, or from six to six; but the men are allowed half an hour for breakfast, an hour for dinner, and half an hour for tea, and almost invariably leave at half-past five, so postponing the “tea” half-hour until after the termination of their work. In winter the hours are generally “between the lights,” but on very short, dark, or foggy days, lanterns are used. The men employed by one firm “often made up,” I was told by one of them, “for lost time, by shovelling by moonlight.” The carman, however, has to get to his stable in the summer at four o’clock in the morning, and to tend his horse after he has done work at night; so that the usual hours of labour with him are fifteen and sixteen per day, as well as Sunday-work.

TABLE SHOWING THE NUMBER OF OPERATIVE RUBBISH-CARTERS EMPLOYED THROUGHOUT LONDON, THE WAGES RECEIVED BY THEM, THE NUMBER OF WEEKS THEY ARE EMPLOYED, AS WELL AS THE QUANTITY OF RUBBISH REMOVED BY THEM IN THE COURSE OF THE YEAR.

---------------------------------+------------------------------------------------- |No. of Operative |Rubbish-Carting. | | |No. of Shovellers | |working in Gangs. | | | | |Quantity of Rubbish | | |carted Daily. | | | | | | |Quantity of Rubbish | | | |carted Annually. | | | | | | | | |No. of days in the | | | | |week each Operative Master Rubbish | | | | |is employed at Carters. | | | | |Rubbish-Carting. | | | | | | | | | | |No. of weeks during | | | | | |the year each Operative | | | | | |is engaged in | | | | | |Removing Rubbish. | | | | | | | | | | | | |Weekly Wages of | | | | | | |Rubbish-Carters. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Weekly Wages of | | | | | | | |the Operatives | | | | | | | |working in Gangs | | | | | | | |at Rubbish-Carting. ---------------------------------+---+--+----+------+--+---+----+------------------- | | |lds.|loads.| | |s.|s. { Mr. J. Bird | 5 |..| 15 | 2340 | 6| 26| 18 | .. { -- Hough | 3 |..| 9 | 1404 | 6| 26| 18 | .. Kensington. { -- Dubbins | 3 |..| 9 | 1404 | 6| 26| 18 | .. { -- Taylor | 3 |..| 12 | 1872 | 6| 26| 18 | .. { -- Gale | 3 |..| 12 | 1872 | 6| 26| 18 | .. { -- G. Bird |10 |..| 20 | 3120 | 6| 26| 18 | .. | | | | | | | | { -- Nicholls |10 |..| 20 | 3120 | 6| 26| 18 | .. { -- Emmerson | 5 |..| 15 | 2340 | 6| 26| 18 | .. Chelsea. { -- Freeman | 5 |..| 15 | 2340 | 6| 26| 18 | .. { -- Pattison | 2 |..| 6 | 936 | 6| 26| 18 | .. { -- Porter | 6 |..| 18 | 2808 | 6| 26| 18 | .. | | | | | | | | { -- Rawlins | 4 |..| 16 | 1248 | 6| 13| 18 | .. _St. George’s, { -- Wells | 2 |..| 8 | 624 | 6| 13| 18 | .. Hanover-sq._ { -- Watkins | 5 |..| 15 | 1170 | 6| 13| 18 | .. { -- Liddiard | 5 |..| 15 | 1170 | 6| 13| 18 | .. | | | | | | | | { -- Farmer | 4 |..| 16 | 1920 | 6| 20| 18 | .. Westminster. { -- Bugbee | 6 | 4| 30 | 2340 | 6| 13| 18 | 18 { -- Reddin | 6 | 4| 30 | 2340 | 6| 13| 18 | 18 { -- Francis | 5 |..| 20 | 3120 | 6| 26| 18 | .. | | | | | | | | { -- Chadwick | 3 |..| 15 | 2340 | 6| 26| 18 | .. _Westminster { -- Francis | 5 |..| 20 | 3120 | 6| 26| 18 | .. Improvements._ { -- Farmer | 5 |..| 20 | 3120 | 6| 26| 18 | .. { -- Duggan | 8 |..| 40 | 6240 | 6| 26| 18 | .. | | | | | | | | { -- T. Cooper | 3 | 3| 24 | 1872 | 6| 13| 18 | 20 St. Martin’s. { -- Wall | 2 | 2| 16 | 1248 | 6| 13| 18 | 20 { -- Duggan | 4 |..| 16 | 1248 | 6| 13| 18 | .. | | | | | | | | _St. James’s, { -- Nicolls | 5 |..| 20 | 1560 | 6| 13| 18 | .. Westminster._ { -- Wells | 2 |..| 8 | 624 | 6| 13| 18 | .. { -- Watkins | 5 |..| 15 | 810 | 6| 9| 18 | .. | | | | | | | | { -- Freeman | 3 |..| 12 | 2808 | 6| 39| 18 | .. { -- Curmock | 4 |..| 16 | 2496 | 6| 26| 18 | .. Mary-le-bone.{ -- Nicolls | 8 |..| 24 | 1872 | 3| 26| 18 | .. { -- Watkins |10 |..| 40 | 4160 | 4| 26| 18 | .. { -- Perkins | 5 |..| 20 | 3120 | 6| 26| 18 | .. { -- Culverwell | 5 |..| 20 | 3120 | 6| 26| 18 | .. | | | | | | | | { -- Rutty | 3 |..| 12 | 360 | 5| 6| 18 | .. West London. { -- Kitchener | 3 |..| 15 | 360 | 6| 4| 18 | .. { -- Wickham | 3 |..| 12 | 240 | 5| 4| 18 | .. { -- Porter | 4 |..| 16 | 864 | 6| 9| 18 | .. | | | | | | | | { -- Crook | 3 |..| 6 | 468 | 6| 13| 18 | .. { -- M’Carthy | 6 |..| 30 | 4680 | 6| 26| 20 | .. _West London { -- Reddin | 5 |..| 25 | 3900 | 6| 26| 18 | .. Improvements._ { -- Rooke | 6 |..| 30 | 4680 | 6| 26| 18 | .. { -- Bugbee | 5 |..| 25 | 3900 | 6| 26| 18 | .. { -- Chadwick | 5 |..| 25 | 3900 | 6| 26| 18 | .. | | | | | | | | { -- Bateman | 3 |..| 12 | 288 | 6| 4| 18 | .. _London { -- Tame | 4 |..| 12 | 216 | 6| 3| 18 | .. City._ { -- Walker | 2 |..| 8 | 144 | 6| 3| 18 | .. { -- Harmadu | 3 |..| 9 | 216 | 6| 4| 18 | .. { -- Bindy | 2 |..| 6 | 72 | 3| 4| 18 | .. | | | | | | | | _London City { -- Duggan |10 |..| 50 | 7800 | 6| 26| 16 | .. Improvements._ { -- Bugbee |20 |..|100 |15600 | 6| 26| 18 | .. { -- Gould |10 |..| 50 | 7800 | 6| 26| 18 | .. | | | | | | | | { -- Booth | 5 |..| 20 | 360 | 3| 6| 18 | .. Shoreditch. { -- Styles | 2 |..| 8 | 96 | 3| 4| 18 | .. { -- Wood | 5 |..| 20 | 780 | 3| 13| 18 | .. { -- Gould | 5 |..| 20 | 1560 | 6| 13| 18 | .. | | | | | | | | { -- Calvert | 2 |..| 8 | 240 | 3| 10| 15 | .. _Bethnal { -- Newman | 2 |..| 6 | 234 | 3| 13| 16 | .. Green._ { -- Rooke | 4 |..| 16 | 624 | 3| 13| 18 | .. { -- Tilley | 3 |..| 12 | 936 | 6| 13| 18 | .. | | | | | | | | { -- Newman | 3 |..| 9 | 216 | 3| 8| 16 | .. Whitechapel. { -- Tomkins | 2 |..| 6 | 234 | 3| 13| 18 | .. { -- Abbott | 2 |..| 6 | 90 | 3| 5| 18 | .. | | | | | | | | { -- Clarke | 6 |..| 18 | 360 | 4| 5| 16 | .. _St. George’s { -- Calvert | 4 |..| 16 | 192 | 3| 4| 15 | .. in the East._ { -- Newman | 3 |..| 12 | 216 | 3| 6| 16 | .. { -- Tomkins | 2 |..| 6 | 108 | 3| 6| 18 | .. | | | | | | | | { -- Abbott | 6 |..| 18 | 432 | 3| 8| 18 | .. Stepney. { -- Newman | 4 |..| 16 | 288 | 3| 6| 16 | .. { -- Potter | 3 |..| 12 | 180 | 3| 5| 16 | .. { -- Church | 3 |..| 12 | 216 | 3| 6| 15 | ..

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us