In a great number of towns in this country the town surveyor has charge of the unostentatious, though very necessary sanitary work of the scavenging of the district over which he has charge, and the following are the clauses of the Public Health Act 1875, under which he carries out his duties:

“Every local authority may, and when required by order of the Local Government Board shall, themselves undertake or contract for—

“The removal of house refuse from premises;

“The cleansing of earthclosets, privies, ashpits, and cesspools;

either for the whole or any part of their district: Moreover every urban authority and any rural authority invested by the Local Government Board with the requisite powers may, and when required by the said board shall, themselves undertake or contract for the proper cleansing of streets, and may also themselves undertake or contract for the proper watering of streets for the whole or any part of their district.

“All matters collected by the local authority or contractor in pursuance of this section may be sold or otherwise disposed of, and any profits thus made by an urban authority shall be carried to the account of the fund or rate applicable by them for the general purposes of this Act; and any profits thus made by a rural authority in respect of any contributory place shall be carried to the account of the fund or rate out of which expenses incurred under this section by that authority in such contributory place are defrayed.

“If any person removes or obstructs the local authority or contractor in removing any matters by this section authorised to be removed by the local authority, he shall for each offence be liable to a penalty not exceeding five pounds: Provided that the occupier of the house within the district shall not be liable to such penalty in respect of any such matters which are produced on his own premises and are intended to be removed for sale or for his own use, and are in the meantime kept so as not to be a nuisance” (38 & 39 Vic. c. 55, s. 42).

The next clause imposes a penalty on the local authority if they fail “without reasonable excuse after notice in writing from the occupier of any house” to cleanse the ashpit, &c., within seven days if they have “themselves undertaken or contracted for the removal of house refuse” &c., and the next clause is as follows:

“Where the local authority do not themselves undertake or contract for,

“The cleansing of footways and pavements adjoining any premises;

“The removal of house refuse from any premises;

“The cleansing of earthclosets, privies, ashpits, and cesspools belonging to any premises;

“They may make byelaws imposing the duty of such cleansing or removal, at such intervals as they think fit, on the occupier of any such premises.

“An urban authority[157] may also make byelaws for the prevention of nuisances arising from snow, filth, dust, ashes, and rubbish, and for the prevention of the keeping of animals on any premises so as to be injurious to health”[158] (38 & 39 Vic. c. 55, s. 44).

There is also another clause in the Public Health Act 1875, which is as follows:

“Any urban authority may, if they see fit, provide in proper and convenient situations receptacles for the temporary deposit and collection of dust, ashes, and rubbish; they may also provide fit buildings and places for the deposit of any matters collected by them in pursuance of this part of this Act” (38 & 39 Vic. c. 55, s. 45).

The result of the above comprehensive clauses upon the subject of scavenging is that the following duties fall upon the town surveyor where that officer is responsible for such work:

(1.) “The removal of house refuse from premises.”

This work, like all the rest which follows, can be done either by the local authority themselves or by contract, the former method, as I hope presently to show, being much the best system.

In connection with this first duty of the removal of house refuse, the following points will have to be considered:

(a.) What is house refuse?

(b.) What is the best manner of storing it on the premises pending the visit of the scavenger?

(c.) Which are the best methods for its collection?

(d.) Which are the best methods for its disposal?

(2.) “The cleansing of earthclosets, privies, ashpits, and cesspools.”

This work where necessary (owing to the want of a system of sewerage) can be carried out simultaneously with the collection of house refuse and in almost the same manner.

(3.) “The proper cleansing of streets.”

In connection with this duty the following points must be considered:

(a.) The best methods for sweeping and cleansing streets.

(b.) If machinery effects such work better and more economically than hand labour.

(c.) The extra work involved by the bad construction of streets, or the ill chosen materials of which they are formed.

(d.) Whether private streets, courts and alleys, “not repairable by the inhabitants at large,” should be swept and cleansed by the local authority?

(e.) The ultimate disposal of excessive accumulations of mud.

(f.) The removal and disposal of snow.

(4.) “The proper watering of streets for the whole or any part of their district.”

In considering this question it is necessary to note:

(a.) The best form of vehicle for carrying and spreading the water.

(b.) The number, position, and description of standpipes.

(c.) Whether vehicles, or fixed standpipes and hose are best.

(5.) If the local authority do not impose a byelaw they must themselves cleanse the “footways and pavements adjoining any premises;” and this in excessively muddy weather, or after a heavy fall of snow, is no inconsiderable work.

(6.) An urban authority may make provision for the “temporary deposit and collection of dust, ashes and rubbish.”

This involves public dust-bins being placed in suitable positions in the town, the points in connection with this work being,

(a.) The most suitable sites for such accommodation.

(b.) The materials and form of which they shall be constructed.

Having thus stated all the heads under which the work of scavenging may be grouped, it is necessary to decide what is “house refuse;” for unless this is satisfactorily settled, considerable onus and expense will be put upon the local authority if they are to include in the removal trade, garden, and other similar refuse.[159]

It may be assumed that all house refuse which it is the duty of the scavenger to remove, is really so removed by the direction of the local authority without dispute, but that the following articles, which frequently find their way into a domestic dust-bin, are not in the strict terms of the Act expected to be removed by him. (1) Plaster from walls and brick bats, (2) Large quantities of broken bottles and flower pots, (3) Clinkers and ashes from foundries and green-houses, (4) Wall paper torn from the rooms of a house, (5) Scrap tin (but not old tins which have contained meats, &c., and which, although very useless and bulky, may be fairly assumed to be house refuse), (6) All garden refuse such as grass cuttings, dead leaves, and the loppings from trees and shrubs.[160]

As a matter of fact, out of ninety towns with which I communicated on this subject only thirteen of them directed the removal of both trade and garden refuse without any special extra payment being made by the householder, and this is only done when these materials are placed in the ordinary dustbin or ashpit attached to a house. Several towns, however, it appears remove such materials on special payments being made of sums varying from 1s. 6d. to 3s. per load.

Disputes frequently arise between the men employed in scavenging and the householder on these vexed questions as to the difference between house, trade or garden refuse: a dispute often raised by the scavengers themselves, in the hope of obtaining a gratuity or reward for the clearance of a dustbin, which no doubt, legally, they are perfectly justified in refusing to empty; and in order to lessen the chance of such disputes and to attempt to settle this question, the following suggestions may be of value.

It would no doubt be vexatious if any sanitary authority were to absolutely refuse to remove the “garden” refuse from those houses to which a small flower garden was attached, whilst it would on the contrary be an unfair tax upon the general community if the refuse of large gardens was removed without payment. A good rule would therefore be to remove only such garden refuse as was contained in the ordinary dustbin or ashpit attached to a house, and that as the removal of any kind of trade refuse would no doubt lead to abuses if done gratuitously by the sanitary authority, that this material should only be removed on payment of some sum, which should be previously fixed by the local authority, and each case should be reported to the officer superintending the work before it was removed.

The next question is the important one of the manner and place in which house refuse shall be temporarily stored pending the visit of the scavenger.

The Public Health Act of 1875 enacts that: “Every local authority shall provide that all drains, waterclosets, earthclosets, privies, ashpits, and cesspools within their district be constructed and kept so as not to be a nuisance or injurious to health” (38 & 39 Vic. c. 55, s. 40).

And section 35 of the above Act states, “It shall not be lawful newly to erect any house or to rebuild any house pulled down to or below the ground floor without a sufficient watercloset, earth closet, privy, and an ashpit furnished with proper doors and coverings. Any person who causes any house to be erected or rebuilt in contravention of this enactment shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds” (38 & 39 Vic. c. 55, s. 35).

The same Act also gives power to local authorities to enforce provision of ashpit accommodation for houses where such accommodation does not already exist, and to frame byelaws with respect to ashpits.

There can be no doubt that the position of the dustbin or ashpit, as regards its site with reference to the main dwelling-house, is of primary sanitary importance, for if the garbage and domestic accumulations therein are allowed to remain for a few days, especially when the weather is close, damp, and warm, they become very offensive, and the emanations therefrom may even be highly deleterious and dangerous to health; this effect is aggravated by persons emptying vegetable refuse and other matters which are wet into the dustbin, as decomposition of these matters is greatly assisted by this addition, and it would be well that all such matters should be burnt on the kitchen or scullery fire along with a large percentage of the ashes which could be sifted and saved from those which too readily find their way into the dustbin, and are thus wasted. Care would of course have to be taken in this process that no smell or nuisance was caused by the process of burning.

It is open to considerable doubt if the fixed dustbin or ashpit is the best or most sanitary receptacle for the house refuse; they may be necessary and suitable for Public Institutions, or for large isolated private dwellings, or for schools or any places where excessive quantities of refuse may accumulate, but where this refuse is systematically and properly removed by the order of the local authority, at such times and in such manner as will be hereafter pointed out, moveable or portable dustbins, boxes or baskets are far preferable to the large immoveable, inconvenient fixed ashpit, recommended and enforced under the Act.

The next point to consider is that of the collection of the house refuse, which should be effected satisfactorily, economically and expeditiously.

The following are the three methods by which this is attempted:

(1.) By a house to house call at intermittent periods.

(2.) By the scavengers giving notice of their approach by ringing a bell or by other signal, and requiring the householder to bring out the refuse to the cart.

(3.) By placing public dustbins in different localities, and expecting householders in their vicinity to place the house refuse in these dustbins, which are then cleared from time to time by the local authority.

Experience alone can teach which of these is the best method to adopt in any district, and it is usually found that some modification of all three is necessary.

It is, however, difficult sometimes to adopt public dustbins not only on account of their first cost, but from the objections raised by the occupiers of adjacent houses to their being fixed in their neighbourhood.

If these dustbins were constructed with properly balanced self-closing lids, these objections might be overcome, and their first cost would be but trifling when compared with the benefit to be derived by placing them in some of the thickly populated courts and alleys which are unfortunately to be found in nearly every town. Where there are no public dustbins the inhabitants of these courts throw their waste products upon the surface of the streets or courts, from time to time throughout the day, as it cannot be expected nor desired that such materials should remain, even for twenty-four hours, in their one living room, which is frequently over crowded, and has but little spare space even for the common necessities of life; but that these waste products should be thus strewn over the surface of the street or court is almost equally objectionable, and points to the advantage to be gained by placing in convenient situations covered dustbins which could be easily emptied once a day.

Undoubtedly the best method for the removal of refuse is the house to house call, but except in suburban districts and for the collection of refuse from the better class of dwelling-houses and public institutions, the expense, delay and difficulty which would be incurred in calling at every house throughout a town, would make it almost impracticable, and consequently this system is universally combined with that which is known as the bell or signal system, which simply means that the scavenging cart in going its rounds has a bell attached to it, or the horse, which bell rings automatically as the cart proceeds on its way; or the man in charge blows a trumpet, or calls in stentorian tones, “Dust oh!” On hearing this signal, but not before, the householder is expected to bring out the refuse in some convenient receptacle, which is then emptied into the cart by the scavenger.

As a matter of fact, the receptacles containing all the waste products of these householders are brought out and are placed in the gutter of the street close to the kerb, long before the cart makes its appearance or can be reasonably expected to do so.

The result of these (generally inappropriate) receptacles filled with heterogenous collections of house refuse being left unprotected in the public streets, is that their contents are quickly strewn about the surface of the street, by their being upset accidentally, or purposely, and the appearance of the street, which has probably been carefully swept and garnished during the night or early in the morning, quickly assumes, especially in a high wind, a very offensive character, and probably has to be entirely re-swept and cleansed before the ordinary traffic of the day commences.

To obviate this evil I must refer my readers to a small book on the subject of scavenging, entitled ‘Dirty Dustbins and Sloppy Streets,’ published by Messrs. Spon & Co., written by myself, in which I have suggested moveable iron cylinders being placed in the streets for the reception of the house refuse.

The “house to house” call system in the suburbs of a town may be greatly assisted by a very simple remedy, which has already been tried in some towns with considerable success. It consists in the householder placing a card bearing the letter D, or some other distinguishing mark, in a conspicuous place in a window, when the services of the scavengers are required; these cards should be printed and circulated by the Sanitary Authority of the district, who should state on the back of the card the days on which the scavengers would visit each neighbourhood, with the approximate hour of the day in which they would appear, in order that the householder may not be unnecessarily inconvenienced by being obliged to keep the card for any length of time in his window.

The scavengers in passing observe the signal, and call at the house; otherwise they pass on, unless specially called in by the occupants, thus avoiding any unnecessary delay in their rounds.

A visit from the scavengers either before seven or after ten in the morning is generally very inconvenient for households of a superior class, and should be, if possible, carefully avoided by the sanitary authority.

The cart usually employed for scavenging is that known as the ordinary “tip cart,” strongly, if not clumsily, constructed of an oak frame, with elm or deal sides of considerable height; it holds about a couple of cubic yards of material, and costs from sixteen to twenty pounds.

These carts are not only clumsy and heavy, but they give an overweighted diminutive appearance to the horse between the shafts, especially as the quality of horses employed for work of this character is frequently none of the best. The height, too, of the cart is often so great as to necessitate the use of a short ladder, up which the scavenger has to climb, the result being a shower of dust when it is being loaded with house refuse, and spatterings of mud, when it is being used as a slop cart.

It is difficult also to effectually cover a cart of this description. The imperfect mode at present adopted is to cover it with a tarpaulin, which is tied down as tightly as the circumstances of the case will admit, but which as a rule does not effectually answer the purpose for which it is intended. In towns where the house refuse is not collected separately from the road scrapings, a judicious mixture of the two in the cart considerably assists in preventing any mud from splashing over or the dust from blowing about.

The employment of wooden carts for this work is bad economy, their rough usage, and the mode adopted for emptying them by “tipping,” renders their life a short one; a cart in constant work frequently costs from 4l. to 5l. per annum in repairs, and having but little of the original material of which it was constructed left in it at the end of six years. They are also difficult to cleanse or disinfect.

With a view to obviate these and other objections, several improved carts and waggons have been introduced by different makers, who have styled them by a variety of names. Amongst others they are called dust carts, general purpose carts, sanitary carts, slush carts, tumbler carts, mud waggons, tip waggons, slop waggons, &c. These are constructed with iron bodies fixed upon wooden frames and wheels; they are of various forms and designs, the principal objects aimed at being lightness of construction combined with strength, so balanced as to bear with a minimum of weight upon the horse; economy in their cost has not been lost sight of, and they are usually provided with some special means for emptying, either by being tipped by a chain and windlass, or by some mechanical arrangement of the tailboard; they are built very low upon their axles, so as to be easily filled, are either completely covered over with a moveable lid, or are fitted with hinged side boards, so as to prevent any splashing over of their contents, and as they are nearly all constructed with iron; they are easily cleansed and disinfected whenever it is thought necessary to do so.

With reference to the important question of the ultimate disposal of house refuse, street sweepings &c., no rules can be laid down, as so much depends upon the position of every town and the character of the district in which it is situated, as the following replies to some questions which I addressed to several English towns will show.

In many towns it is stated that the whole of the refuse is used by brick makers, in others it is simply “tipped to waste.” In one case the answer is, “Sold by auction twice a year,” but to whom it is sold, and for what purpose, does not transpire. In some towns it appears to be mixed with lime and used as manure upon the fields, and in others it is mixed with the sludge of the sewage farms, and is then ploughed or dug into the soil of the farm. This seems a better plan than that of another town, where it is “given or thrown away,” although the difficulty of disposing of the old iron, tins, &c., is not touched upon in any of the foregoing answers. The next reply states that “it is riddled, and the cinders and vegetable refuse are burnt to generate steam, the fine dust is used with the manure manufactory (tub system), the old iron is sold, and the pots, &c., used for the foundations of roads.” In one case the whole of the refuse is taken out to sea in hopper barges, and sunk in deep water.[161] In a great number of towns it is sold by tender for the year, but what eventually becomes of it does not transpire. But the most favoured methods, where it cannot be sold as manure to farmers, seem to be either that of carting it away to some spot outside the town, and there using it for the purpose of filling up hollows and depressions, or that of giving or selling it to brick-makers.

The practice of filling up hollow places with such materials cannot be too strongly deprecated if there is any chance of dwelling houses being erected on them, as the unsanitary condition of sites thus formed has been frequently demonstrated.

Where towns are unable to dispose of their refuse by sale to farmers or market gardeners, the best method, and one which is gaining in popularity every day, is that of its destruction by fire.

With this object in view a Mr Fryer has invented an apparatus which he styles a “Patent Carboniser, for the conversion of garbage, street, and market sweepings, also other vegetable refuse, into charcoal.” This apparatus consists of a structure somewhat resembling, externally, a brick kiln. It is divided into hopper-shaped compartments, which at the bottom are furnished with a furnace, fitted with a reverberatory arch. A fire is lighted in this furnace, the necessary combustion being obtained, and the heat maintained, by burning the cinders, which are sifted out of the house refuse for this purpose. All the street sweepings, refuse, garbage, &c., is then thrown in at the top of the kiln, and it is there and then completely destroyed by the action of the fire, and converted into charcoal, which is withdrawn through a sliding door fixed at the bottom of the kiln.[162]

The next point which has to be considered, and which is the second in order of the list of duties I have given at the commencement of this chapter, is “the cleansing of earth closets, privies, ash-pits, and cesspools.”

This is generally effected in conjunction with the collection of the house refuse and the work is carried out at night. Under the Goux-tub system the ashes of the house refuse are largely used as a deodorant or absorbent as a lining for the tub,[163] but in the pail systems this mixture is not effected until the tubs and refuse arrive together at the depÔt.

For descriptions of the manner in which the pail system for the collection of excreta is carried out in Birmingham, I must refer my readers to an article written by myself in a number of The Sanitary Engineer of New York published on the 1st Sept. 1881, in which I have entered fully into the method there adopted and its advantages and disadvantages, but which are too long to recapitulate in this chapter.

The next duty which has to be considered is that of “the proper cleansing of streets.”

There is no doubt that for the sake of the appearance as well as the health of any town its streets cannot be too well cleansed. Muddy and wet streets cause dampness in the subsoil of neighbouring dwellings, and dust is not only injurious to tradesmen’s goods but also to the lungs of those who have to breathe an atmosphere loaded with silicate and organic impurities.[164]

Street cleansing is effected either by hand-sweeping and hand-scraping, or by machinery. As to which is the most economical much depends upon the value of labour, and also upon the condition of the roads to be dealt with, but in point of time and as a general rule the value of a horse rotary brush-sweeping machine is undoubted, the only time at which such a machine fails to do effective work is on the occasions when the mud to be removed (owing to a peculiar condition of the atmosphere), has attained a semisolidity, and is of a stiff and sticky consistency, when it either adheres to and clogs the brushes of the machine, or is flattened by them on to the road instead of being removed.[165]

The brushes of a machine last about 180 hours constant work, and then the old stocks can be easily refilled with bass at no great cost. The comparative work which can be done by a sweeping machine is about 11 to 1 of that effected by manual labour, so that the economy involved by the former method is evident.

The strength and durability of the brooms used for the work of sweeping the streets is of some importance, as affecting the ultimate cost of the work, and some care and skill is required in their selection. Bass brooms are better than birch brooms for this purpose, and the bass of which the brooms are made should be sufficiently stout and of regular thickness; it should be tough and elastic, not old, dry, and brittle, each knot should be of uniform size and be firmly set, and the number of knots in each broom head is also a matter of choice. A convenient and fair test of the soundness of a broom is to soak it for a few days in water before issuing it to the sweeper, and then note the time it will last. The handles of the brooms should be made of alder wood.

On the question of the extra work involved in street cleansing by its bad construction or by the materials of which it is constructed, climate must be considered, as well as the amount of traffic it has to bear, and also its gradient and the habits of the people residing in it.[166]

The Superintendent of the Scavenging Department at Liverpool has made some observations and obtained some valuable information on these points, which he has detailed in a report he presented to the Health Committee of that borough in the year 1877, an abstract of which is as follows:

Gross Cost for Each Time of Cleansing 10,000 Yards Superficial of
Different Descriptions of Roadway in the Borough of Liverpool.

He adds that the full benefit of the impervious pavements as regards the cost of scavenging has not yet been felt, for almost all the lines of streets so paved are intersected at short distances by streets of ordinary jointed granite setts or macadam, whence a quantity of mud and refuse is dragged by the traffic on to the asphalted jointed roadways, which are consequently debited with the cost of removal of some effete material not intrinsically belonging to them.

Mr. Till, the Borough Surveyor of Birmingham, from investigations he has made on this subject, says that for granite pavement 2 cart loads of mud have to be removed from every 1000 square yards of surface, one third of a load for wood pavement[167] and 4 loads three times a day (a total of 12 loads) for macadamised roadways.

The ultimate disposal of the material removed from the surfaces of roadways especially when they are macadamised is a difficult matter, as, being chiefly composed of silicate, it is valueless as a manure.

In small towns, except during abnormally muddy weather, it may be mixed with the house refuse and sold to farmers, or the road scrapings themselves may be used as an excellent sand, if thoroughly washed, to mix with lime or cement to form mortar for public works; excessive accumulations of mud, however, must be got rid of in the most economical and speedy manner possible, and this is effected either by filling up old disused quarries with it, or depositing it upon waste lands, or forming embankments for new roads, but in no case should it be used, as I have before stated, upon building sites; it is difficult and expensive to destroy it or partially convert it into other matters by fire, so that if these methods which I have enumerated are impracticable, the only other method left for the disposal of the sweepings or scrapings from the streets is to take them out to sea in hopper barges and sink them in deep water.

The last question that arises on the subject of scavenging before we consider the disposal of snow, is whether the onus of cleansing private courts and alleys which are not repairable by the urban authority should be borne by them or not.

The great difficulty attached to this duty arises from the fact that these private courts and alleys are generally very badly paved, if paved at all, full of pits, where pools of stagnant mud and water collect, and even in the best cases, the interstices between the pebbles, or other paving, are filled with filth arising in great measure from the dirty habits of the people, and this filth it is found exceedingly difficult to dislodge. The remedy for this is to compel the owners of the abutting properties to have the courts and alleys properly paved with asphalte, or other equally impervious material, after which it would be easy for the urban authority to cause them to be swept at least once a day, and flushed with water in the hot weather once a week, but in order to compel the owners to execute this very desirable work it would be necessary to put the complicated machinery of section 150 of the Public Health Act 1875 in force, and the expense to the landlords would be in many cases very disproportionate to the value of their property.

Out of the ninety towns to which reference has before been made, the authorities of only nineteen of them cleanse the private courts and alleys in their jurisdiction, although for the sake of sanitation it is very desirable that such work should be so undertaken by them.

In most towns it is necessary to cleanse its principal streets at least once a day, and this appears to be the practice of nearly all the ninety towns I have referred to; only seven of them, however, appear to have this operation repeated more frequently; in several towns, the horse droppings, &c., are removed at once, under what is called the “orderly” system, and this is especially necessary in streets that are paved with such materials as wood paving, asphalte, or granite setts. The suburban streets of a town need only be cleansed once or twice a week, except in special cases of extremes of mud or snow, and I will now proceed to discuss the questions involved by a heavy fall of the latter.

Experiments have shown that a cubic yard of fresh fallen snow may weigh as much as 814 pounds or as little as 71 pounds. Assuming that a cubic foot will weigh 16·38 pounds, I estimate that for a fall of 3 inches of snow upon a street 36 feet in width, 20 tons, representing a bulk of about 100 cubic yards, would have to be removed for every 100 yards of length of street if it was thought necessary to clear it away.

Assuming that there are 30 miles of street in a town from which the snow must be removed; 21,144 loads must be carted somewhere, at a cost of at least 1,500l., assuming that each cart could make ten trips a day, and even then it would take 352 carts a whole week to effect it.

It may be contended that I have taken an extreme case, and that, of course, the snow does not lie for very long upon the ground in the condition in which it fell, and that hourly it is reducing in bulk and weight by being ground up by the traffic, and finding its way in the form of water into the sewers. This may be so, but at the same time it must not be forgotten that the bulk is also being constantly increased by that which is shovelled off the house tops[168] and brought out from private premises adjoining the streets.

Upon this point Mr. Hayward, the Engineer to the Commissioners of Sewers of the City of London, says[169]:—

“Snow readily compresses under the traffic, and when removed in carts and shot down elsewhere it may be assumed that on an average four cubic yards of snow measured as it has fallen is equal to one cubic yard when placed on the apparatus.” This computation, however, does not make any allowance for the snow thrown from off the roofs, &c., and it of course greatly consolidates whilst travelling in the cart.

Fortunately for a town surveyor in this country, exceptionally heavy falls of snow are not very frequent, but when they do happen great pressure is put upon his department to cope with it, and one of the greatest difficulties he has to contend against is the disposal of the snow after it has been placed in the cart.

If there is a river close by, it can be taken there and tipped, but this is objectionable if it is a navigable river where dredging has to be done, as it is surprising what a quantity of road scrapings and other matters are always removed with the snow, and these materials naturally sink to the bottom, and add considerably to the cost of dredging.

If there are public parks the snow may be heaped in them, provided no damage is done to the grass or paths, but the snow thus heaped takes a considerable time to melt, the first effect of a thaw being to consolidate it: a better plan is to deposit it upon waste spots, if these are not too far from the streets which have to be cleared.

Tipping the snow down the manholes into the sewers has been tried in London and other cities, but has failed through the snow consolidating, and although lighted gas jets have been turned on to the snow, it has still melted too slowly to be of any practical utility.

Speaking of Clarke’s apparatus for melting snow, Mr. Haywood, in the same report from which I have already quoted, says:

“It is seldom that a fall of snow occurs sufficiently large to cause serious interruption to the traffic; heavy snowstorms in fact occur only once in six or seven years; for some years therefore these apparatuses if fixed might not be required. They would either have to be taken out, stored and refixed yearly or maintained in their places and kept in order there, in either case at an annual expense.”

In perusing Mr. Hayward’s report it also appears that the cost of this apparatus fixed is about 120l., and the cost of melting the snow 9d. per cubic yard.

In order to grapple with this question of the removal of snow, I am of opinion that it is useless to attempt to cart it away while falling, but try to make clear crossings for the foot passengers and to keep the traffic open. If there should be a high wind at the time, and the snow drifts in consequence, cut through the drifts so as to allow the vehicular traffic to continue. Directly the snow ceases to fall put on all available hands to clear the channel gutters and street gratings, in preparation for a sudden thaw, when, if these precautions were not taken, serious flooding and great damage to property might ensue; for the same reason cart away all the snow you can at the bottom of gradients and in the valleys, and also from very narrow streets and passages, &c. In the wider streets use the snow plough, or with gangs of men (in the snow season there is generally plenty of labour obtainable), shovel the snow into a long narrow heap on each side of the street, taking care to leave the channel gutters and gratings quite clear, and a sufficient space between the heaps for at least two lines of traffic. Passages must also be cut at frequent intervals through the heaps, in order to allow foot passengers to cross the street, and also to let the water reach the channel gutters as soon as the snow begins to melt.[170]

The next point to be considered in this chapter is that of “The proper watering of streets for the whole or any part of their district.”

One of the earliest methods for watering streets, but one which has, I think, almost entirely died out, on account principally of the large quantity of water used in the process, was that of allowing the water to run down the channel gutters, ponding it back by means of canvas or leather aprons placed across the gutter, and then spreading the water on to the surface of the street by throwing it with wooden shovels. This method, which at first sight may appear clumsy, is an exceedingly good one upon sanitary grounds. It not only lays the dust, but it washes the surface of the street, and it most effectually scours out the gutters and at the same time flushes the sewers, which at the season that watering is necessary is also of great importance to any town. By this process a delightful freshness is given to the air, and the appearance of the cool and limpid water rushing along on each side of the street acts favourably upon the inhabitants. The great objections to this system are (1) the enormous quantity of water that is used in the process, and (2) the difficulty of doing the work after the traffic of the day has commenced.

Somewhat of a modification of this process is what is known as “Brown’s System of Street Watering,” which may be described as follows:—A lead pipe is laid in the footpath at the back of the kerb on each side of the street to be watered, small gratings or shields being fixed in the pipe at intervals of twelve inches, and the remaining space filled with asphalte; small holes are then bored in the pipe through the openings in the shields. The pipe is connected with the water main in the street, and is provided with the necessary stopcocks, &c. On the water being turned on, fine jets are thrown in different directions upon the surface of the street. The width of roadway that can be watered by this process depends upon the pressure of the water, but it may be fairly assumed that in most towns streets of fifty feet width could be effectually watered in a few minutes by a pipe on each side of the street.

This process has not gained much favour hitherto, principally on account of the large first cost involved, which would amount to upwards of 800l. per mile of street, but the expense afterwards should not much exceed the wages of one man at about 3s. 6d. per day to manipulate the necessary work, and the interest on the outlay and depreciation of the pipes, &c.

The other objections to this system are:—

(1.) The liability of the pipes and perforations to get out of order, especially when allowed to lie idle for so many months in each year.

(2.) The unpleasantness to pedestrians which must be caused whilst the watering is proceeding.

(3.) The inconvenience to the traffic during the process.

(4.) The effect upon the water by high winds, when in all probability it would be blown back across the foot pavement.

(5.) In very broad streets it would be inoperative.

In Paris and other continental cities, and also in several towns in this country, the watering is effected by hose and reels, or by portable iron tubes.

Mr. Parry, C.E., the Borough Surveyor of Reading, has given the following particulars of the system of hand watering adopted in that borough, in which he gives the cost, and describes the utility of that method as compared with the use of water carts:

A water cart (he states) will water twice a day a superficial area of 23,849 yards, and for a length watered one width that means 5,962 lineal yards, or for a double width 2,981 yards, the cost per day of laying on being as follows:—Horse, cart, and man, 8s. cost of maintenance of cart, harness, shoeing, &c., 1s. 5d., making 9s. 5d. per day.

With respect to the hand machines he states that he has one of Headley’s drum machines, and three of special make, somewhat similar to those used in Paris. They are equal in point of work; and one machine will water 23,740 square yards twice a day, which, it will be observed, is very close to the amount of work performed by a cart.

“Headley’s machine cost us (he continues), five years ago when new, 31l. 7s. 3d., and the repairs and maintenance since that date have been 22l., or an average of 4l. 8s. per annum, and is just now almost past repair. The other description of hand machine cost each when new 20l., and the repairs and maintenance have amounted to an average of 3l. 18s. each year. They were in use some time before Headley’s was obtained, and they will be of use for a long time yet. The cost of labour per day by the hand machines is for two men at 2s. 10d. each—5s. 8d.—as it requires two men to work the machine properly, one to distribute the water, and the other to move the machine and to attach and detach the apparatus to and from the hydrants; add to this 7d. per day for maintenance and repairs, will make 6s. 3d. per day. The quantity of water delivered by the water carts is 0·51 gallons per square yard, and by the hand machine 1·30 gallons.”

It will thus be seen that in the case of the cart 24,324 gallons of water are used per diem, and 61,724 gallons by the hand machines, the surface watered being very nearly the same in both cases. Assuming that the water has a commercial value of 6d. per 1000 gallons, and adding this to the cost per diem in each case, the total cost stands thus:

the advantage in point of cost being in favour of the carts; but the hand machine may water better, especially in broad streets, although in narrow streets or where there is much traffic, this method would be impracticable.

In Paris both hose and carts are used for watering the thoroughfares, the former for the boulevards, the avenues, and a certain number of first-class streets.

The most commonly known method in this country for watering the streets and roads of our towns is that of carrying the water in wheeled barrels, carts, or vans, and distributing it therefrom through a perforated pipe upon the surface of the road as the vehicle is drawn along by a horse attached to the shafts.[171]

The old barrel upon wheels gave place to a cart, and now we have “Bayley’s Patent Hydrostatic Van,” which is too well known to almost all town surveyors to need much description. It holds about 450 gallons of water and takes about 9 minutes to fill (this time of course varying with the size of main and pressure of water), and ten minutes to spread the water upon the surface of the road.

With regard to the work that one of these vans will accomplish in comparison to that effected by an ordinary cart, the following table, compiled from experiments on the question, will be useful:

This shows a mean gain of 26 per cent. in favour of the van, and the following tables, made by an inspector in 1873, showing the actual occupation of the ordinary carts and Bayley’s vans during a day’s work, are extremely interesting, as showing that while the van is engaged in spreading the water the time of the cart is wasted in travelling to and from the stand posts, and when it is borne in mind also that the van spreads water more widely than the cart, there can be no doubt that a saving of at least 30 per cent. can be effected by the substitution of these vans for the old-fashioned cart.

In the year 1856, Mr. Scott, C.E., the Chief Surveyor of the parish of St. Pancras, kept an account of the daily round of an ordinary water cart, when he found that through an average working day of 10¹/4 hours, exclusive of the breakfast and dinner hours, the cart took one hour and twenty minutes filling, fifty minutes only in distributing the water on the roads, and eight hours and seven minutes in travelling to spread the water and back to the stand posts. It was obvious that these were placed too far apart, and by the subsequent introduction of additional standposts Mr. Scott found, in the year 1867, that the filling occupied two hours, the distribution one hour and thirty minutes, and the travelling to and fro six hours and thirty minutes; so that it may be assumed, with an ordinary two-wheeled water cart, that two-thirds of the day is spent in travelling, one fifth in filling, and about one-seventh in the actual spreading. But a watch should be kept upon the man who is engaged in this work, otherwise he will idle away his time and the streets remain unwatered. A good check upon this is Mr. Bayley’s Tell-Tale, which registers automatically on a dial at the side of the van the number of rounds a man goes each day.

Watering the streets with sea water should be adopted whenever it is feasible, as it not only gives a delightful freshness to the air and dispels iodine, but it also causes the surface of the street to maintain its humidity for a longer period than when fresh water is used, as it impregnates the soil with hygrometric matter. This has been often attempted artificially, by adding common salt to the water used for watering, but it is rather too expensive for the benefit derived.[172]

Watering the roads with a largely diluted disinfectant such as “Sanitas” in the liquid form, is frequently of great benefit, and where it can be afforded, it should be occasionally done, especially in the narrower streets and more crowded districts of a city or town, or when an epidemic has broken out.

With reference to the very important question as to the cost of scavenging, street-cleansing and watering. It is, of course, not possible to lay down any hard and fast lines, as it must necessarily vary considerably according to circumstances; much depends upon whether the district is an urban one, consisting of houses closely packed together, or whether it is suburban, with scattered villas and mansions standing in their own grounds; the question, also, of the distance of the depÔts to which the material has to be carted, considerably affects the result of any estimate, as also does the cost of horse hire, the rate of wages, and whether the district is of a hilly or flat nature, and, as I have before shown, the manner in which the streets are formed and paved, the habits of the people, the requirements as to cleansing streets and watering, and last, but not least, the manner of the eventual disposal of the rubbish after removal; all these points must bear with great weight upon any question of cost, and make the results widely different.

On referring to the returns to which I have more than once alluded, it is found that the cost of removing the house refuse and cleansing and sweeping the streets combined, varies considerably in different localities. In one case the sum amounts only to the rate of one half-penny per annum per head of the population of the town, whereas in another case the amount is at the rate of three shillings and sixpence per head. On calculating the average cost per head of population per annum of the ninety towns from which I received replies on this point, I find that it amounts to about tenpence half-penny, after giving credit for any sum of money realised by the sale of the refuse to farmers and others; so that if this work is costing the ratepayers of a town or city anything under a shilling per head of the whole population every year, they have no cause to grumble.

Before closing this chapter I will make a few observations upon the subject of contracts for work of this description.

There is no doubt that the “dust and slopping” contractor is fast going out of fashion,[173] as it has been found that the work is far more carefully and systematically carried out without the intervention of a contractor; for if we turn to the articles of agreement or contract usually drawn up between a sanitary authority and a contractor for scavenging, we find that they must be very binding in their phraseology, and enter fully into the details of the work; they should state very clearly the number of times in every week that the contractor shall cause all the ashpits in the districts enumerated to be emptied and cleansed, the manner in which this work shall be performed, and how the materials thus removed shall be disposed of and the place of their ultimate destination. The conditions should further specify what amount of manual, team labour, and carts, are necessary for the work, and also what plant the contractor must keep in the way of ladders, baskets, shovels, and brooms, &c. The conditions should also contain a carefully prepared list of the streets to be swept, and the manner and number of times this work must be executed, and arrange for the disposal of the materials thus removed.

In many such contracts it is found necessary to insert clauses binding the contractor, under all sorts of penalties, to be always at the disposal of and under the commands of the inspector of nuisances, or such other officer or officers as the sanitary authority may appoint. The contractor’s men also are forbidden to accept gratuities, and are directed on no account to remove either trade or garden refuse, and they are also enjoined to be “careful to consult the convenience of the householders in their visits, and to thoroughly clean up all dirt and litter that they may cause in the discharge of their duties. If they fail in any or either of these injunctions and commands, or for any other dereliction of duty, the inspector of nuisances, or such other officer as the sanitary authority shall appoint, may summarily dismiss them, without any reference being made on the subject to their employer the contractor, and in fact the conditions have necessarily to be made so stringent and binding as to be either totally inoperative or open to grave abuses, or, on the other hand, the work can be carelessly and improperly executed by the contractor.

The consequence of such binding clauses is that the officers, if they do their strict duty, will probably be engaged in constant disputes and litigation with the contractor as to the due and proper observance of the terms of his contract, and thus their time is much occupied instead of in other more important matters, which is naturally detrimental to the interests of the ratepayers.

I am strongly of opinion that the work of the collection of house refuse and cleansing the streets should be carried out by the local authority with their own officers and staff, and that executing this work by contract is a mistake and a false economy. It is, perhaps, true that it may be done in the latter manner at less actual cost to the ratepayers, but all public work should be done in the best manner possible, irrespective of cost, thoroughly, but without extravagance, and the result of such work, especially where it affects the cleanliness and the appearance of a town, soon fully repays any moderate extra cost that may thus have been incurred, irrespective of the enormous benefit that is conferred upon any community by the reduction of disease and the death-rate by a proper attention to such necessary sanitary work.