cartage; but though the proportion of cesspoolage which finally appears
as sewage is daily increasing, still it is but trifling compared with
the quantity removed by cartage.

Here, then, we have three different estimates as to the gross quantity
of the London cesspoolage, each slightly varying from the other two.

  The first, drawn from the            Cubic Feet.
  average capacity of the London
  cesspools, makes the gross
  annual amount of cesspoolage         14,775,000

  The second, deduced from
  the average quantity removed
  from each cesspool                   13,462,500

  And the third, calculated
  from the individual production
  of wet refuse                        16,670,950

The mean of these three results is, in round numbers, 15,000,000 cubic
feet, so that the statement would stand thus:--

  The quantity of wet house-refuse
  annually carried off by
  sewers (chiefly covered) from
  the urban moiety of the metropolis
  is (in cubic feet)                3,650,000,000

  The quantity annually carried
  off by sewers (principally
  open) from the suburban moiety
  of the metropolis                   150,000,000
                                    -------------
  The total amount of wet
  house-refuse annually carried
  off by the sewers of the metropolis
                                    3,800,000,000

  The gross amount of wet
  house-refuse annually deposited
  in cesspools throughout
  the metropolis                       15,000,000
                                    -------------
  The total amount of sewage
  and cesspoolage of the metropolis
                                    3,815,000,000

Thus we perceive that the total quantity of wet house-refuse annually
_removed_, corresponds so closely with the gross quantity of wet
house-refuse annually _produced_, that we may briefly conclude the
gross sewage of London to be equal to 3,800,000,000 cubic feet, and the
gross cesspoolage to be equal to 15,000,000 cubic feet.

The accuracy of the above conclusion may be tested by another process;
for, unless the Board of Health’s conjectural mode of getting at
_facts_ be adopted, it is absolutely necessary that statistics not only
upon this, but indeed any subject, be checked by all the different
modes there may be of arriving at the same conclusion. False facts are
worse than no facts at all.

The number of nightmen may be summed up as follows:--

  Masters            521
  Labourers      200,000

The number of cesspools emptied during the past year by these men may
be estimated at 50,692; and the quantity of soil removed, 253,460
loads, or tons, and this at the rate of 35·9 cubic ft. to the ton gives
a total of 6,099,214 cubic ft.

It might, perhaps, be expected, that from the quantity of fæcal refuse
proceeding from the inhabitants of the metropolis, a greater quantity
would be found in the existent cesspools; but there are many reasons
for the contrary.

One prime cause of the dispersion of cesspoolage is, that a
considerable quantity of the night-soil does not find its way into the
cesspools at all, but is, when the inhabitants have no privies to their
dwellings, thrown into streets, and courts, and waste places.

I cannot show this better than by a few extracts from Dr. Hector
Gavin’s work, published in 1848, entitled, “Sanitary Ramblings; being
Sketches and Illustrations of Bethnal Green, &c.”

“_Digby-walk, Globe-road._--Part of this place is private property,
and the landlord of the new houses has built a cesspool, into which to
drain his houses, but he will not permit the other houses to drain into
this cesspool, unless the parish pay to him 1_l._, a sum which it will
not pay.” Of course the inhabitants throw their garbage and filth into
the street or the by-places.

“_Whisker’s-gardens._--This is a very extensive piece of ground,
which is laid out in neat plots, as gardens. The choicest flowers are
frequently raised here, and great taste and considerable refinement
are evidently possessed by those who cultivate them. Now, among the
cultivators are the poor, even the very poor, of Bethnal-green....
Attached to all these little plots of ground are summer-houses. In the
generality of cases they are mere wooden sheds, cabins, or huts. It
is very greatly to be regretted that the proprietors of these gardens
should permit the slight and fragile sheds in them to be converted into
abodes for human beings.... Sometimes they are divided into rooms; they
are planted on the damp undrained ground. The privies are sheds erected
over holes in the ground; the _soil itself_ is removed from these holes
and is _dug into the ground_ to promote its fertility.

“_Three Colt-lane._--A deep ditch has been dug on either side of the
Eastern Counties Railway by the Company. These ditches were dug by the
Company to prevent the foundations of the arches being endangered,
and are in no way to be considered as having been dug to promote the
health of the neighbourhood. The double privies attached to the new
houses (22 in number) are immediately contiguous to this ditch, and
are constructed so that the night-soil shall drain into it. For this
purpose the cesspools are small, and the bottoms are above the level of
the ditch.”

It would be easy to multiply such proofs of night-soil not finding its
way into the cesspools, but the subject need not be further pursued,
important as in many respects it may be. I need but say, that in the
several reports of the Board of Health are similar accounts of other
localities. The same deficiency of cesspoolage is found in Paris, and
from the same cause.

What may be the quantity of night-soil which becomes part of the
contents of the street scavenger’s instead of the nightman’s cart,
no steps have been taken, or perhaps can be taken, by the public
sanitary bodies to ascertain. Many of the worst of the nuisances
(such as that in Digby-street) have been abolished, but they are still
too characteristic of the very poor districts. The fault, however,
appears to be with the owners of property, and it is seldom _they_ are
coerced into doing their duty. The doubt of its “paying” a capitalist
landlord to improve the unwholesome dwellings of the poor seems to be
regarded as a far more sacred right, than the right of the people to be
delivered from the foul air and vile stenches to which their poverty
may condemn them.

There is, moreover, the great but unascertained waste from cesspool
evaporation, and it must be recollected that of the 2-1/2 lbs. of
cesspool refuse, calculated as the daily produce of each individual,
2-1/4 lbs. are liquid.

The gross cesspoolage of Paris should amount to upwards of 600,000
cubic mètres, or more than 21,000,000 cubic feet, at the estimate of
three pints daily per head. The quantity actually collected, however,
amounts to only 230,000 cubic mètres, or rather more than 8,000,000
cubic feet, which is 13,000,000 cubic feet less than the amount
produced.

In London, the cesspoolage of 150,000 _undrained_ houses should, at
the rate of 2-1/2 lbs. to each individual and 15 inhabitants to every
two houses, amount to 16,500,000 cubic feet, or about 460,000 loads,
whereas the quantity collected amounts to but little more than 250,000
loads, or about 9,000,000 cubic feet. Hence, the deficiency is 210,000
loads, or 7,500,000 cubic feet, which is nearly half of the entire
quantity.

In Paris, then, it would appear that only 38 per cent of the refuse
which is not removed by sewers is collected in the cesspools, whereas
in London about 54-1/2 per cent is so collected. The remainder in both
cases is part deposited in by-places and removed by the scavenger’s
cart, part lost in evaporation, whereas a large proportion of the
deficiency arises from a less quantity of water than the amount stated
being used by the very poor.

We have now to see the means by which this 15,000,000 cubic feet of
cesspoolage is annually removed, as well as to ascertain the condition
and incomes of the labourers engaged in the removal of it.

OF THE CESSPOOL SYSTEM OF LONDON.

A cesspool, or some equivalent contrivance, has long existed in
connexion with the structure of the better class of houses in the
metropolis, and there seems every reason to believe--though I am
assured, on good authority, that there is no public or official record
of the matter known to exist--that their use became more and more
general, as in the case of the sewers, after the rebuilding of the
City, consequent upon the great fire of 1666.

The older cesspools were of two kinds--“soil-tanks” and “bog-holes.”

“Soil-tanks” were the filth receptacles of the larger houses, and
sometimes works of solid masonry; they were almost every size and
depth, but always perhaps much deeper than the modern cesspools, which
present an average depth of 6 feet to 6-1/2 feet.

The “bog-hole” was, and is, a cavity dug into the earth, having less
masonry than the soil-tank, and sometimes no masonry at all, being in
like manner the receptacle for the wet refuse from the house.

The difference between these old contrivances and the present mode
is principally in the following respect: the soil-tank or bog-hole
formed a receptacle immediately under the privy (the floor of which has
usually to be removed for purposes of cleansing), whereas the refuse
is now more frequently carried into the modern cesspool by a system of
drainage. Sometimes the soil-tank was, when the nature of the situation
of the premises permitted, in some outer place, such as an obscure
part of the garden or court-yard; and perhaps two or more bog-holes
were drained into it, while often enough, by means of a grate or a
trap-door, any kind of refuse to be got rid of was thrown into it.

I am informed that the average contents of a bog-hole (such as now
exist) are a cubic yard of matter; some are round, some oblong, for
there is, or was, great variation.

Of the few remaining soil-tanks the varying sizes prevent any average
being computable.

What the old system of cesspoolage _was_ may be judged from the fact,
that until somewhere about 1830 no cesspool matter could, without an
indictable offence being committed, be drained into a sewer! _Now_,
no new house can be erected, but it is an indictable offence if the
cesspool (or rather water-closet) matter be drained anywhere else
than into the sewer! The law, at the period specified, required most
strangely, so that “the drains and sewers might not be choked,” that
cesspools should “be not only periodically emptied, but _made_ by
nightmen.”

The principal means of effecting the change from cesspoolage to
sewerage was the introduction of Bramah’s water-closets, patented in
1808, but not brought into general use for some twenty years or more
after that date. The houses of the rich, owing to the refuse being
drained away from the premises, improved both in wholesomeness and
agreeableness, and so the law was relaxed.

There are two kinds of cesspools, viz. _public_ and _private_.

The _public cesspools_ are those situated in courts, alleys, and
places, which, though often packed thickly with inhabitants, are not
horse-thoroughfares, or thoroughfares at all; and in such places one,
two, or more cesspools receive the refuse from all the houses. I do not
know that any official account of public cesspools has been published
as to their number, character, &c., but their number is insignificant
when compared with those connected with private houses. The public
cesspools are cleansed, and, where possible, filled up by order of the
Commissioners of Sewers, the cost being then defrayed out of the rate.

The _private cesspools_ are cleansed at the expense of the occupiers of
the houses.

OF THE CESSPOOL AND SEWER SYSTEM OF PARIS.

As the Court of Sewers have recently adopted some of the French
regulations concerning cesspoolage, I will now give an account of the
cesspool system of France.

When after the ravages of the epidemic cholera of 1848-9, sanitary
commissioners under the authority of the legislature pursued their
inquiries, it was deemed essential to report upon the cesspool system
of Paris, as that capital had also been ravaged by the epidemic. The
task was entrusted to Mr. T. W. Rammell, C.E.

Even in what the French delight to designate--and in some respects
justly--the most refined city in the world, a filthy and indolent
custom, once common, as I have shown, in England, still prevails.
In Paris, the kitchen and _dry_ house-refuse (and formerly it was
the fæcal refuse also) is deposited in the dark of the night in the
streets, and removed, as soon as the morning light permits, by the
public scavengers. But the refuse is not removed unexamined before
being thrown into the cart of the proper functionary. There is in Paris
a large and peculiar class, the chiffonniers (literally, in Anglo-Saxon
rendering, the _raggers_, or rag-finders). These men nightly traverse
the streets, each provided with a lantern, and generally with a basket
strapped to the back; the poorer sort, however--for poverty, like rank,
has its gradations--make a bag answer the purpose; they have also a
pole with an iron hook to its end; and a small shovel. The dirt-heaps
or mounds of dry house-refuse are carefully turned over by these men;
for their morrow’s bread, as in the case of our own street-finders,
depends upon _something_ saleable being acquired. Their prizes are
bones (which sometimes they are seen to gnaw); bits of bread; wasted
potatoes; broken pots, bottles, and glass; old pans and odd pieces of
old metal; cigar-ends; waste-paper, and rags. Although these people are
known as rag-pickers, rags are, perhaps, the very thing of which they
pick the least, because the Parisians are least apt to throw them away.
In some of the criminal trials in the French capital, the chiffonniers
have given evidence (but not much of late) of what they have found
in a certain locality, and supplied a link, sometimes an important
one, to the evidence against a criminal. With these refuse heaps is
still sometimes mixed matter which should have found its way into the
cesspools, although this is an offence punishable, and occasionally
punished.

Before the habits of the Parisians are too freely condemned, let it be
borne in mind that the houses of the French capital are much larger
than in London, and that each floor is often the dwelling-place of a
family. Such is generally the case in London in the poorer districts,
but in Paris it pervades almost all districts. There, some of the
houses contain 70, not fugitive but permanent, inmates. The average
number of inhabitants to each house, according to the last census,
was upwards of _twenty-four_ (in London the average is 7·6), the
extremes being eleven to each house in St. Giles’s and between five
and six in the immediate suburbs (see p. 165, _ante_). Persons who are
circumstanced then, as are the Parisians, can hardly have at their
command the proper means and appliances for a sufficient cleanliness,
and for the promotion of what we consider--but the two words are
unknown to the French language--the _comforts_ of a _home_.

“The greater portion of the liquid refuse,” writes Mr. Rammell,
“including water, which has been used in culinary or cleansing
processes, is got rid of by means of open channels laid across the
court-yards and the foot pavements to the street gutters, along which
it flows until it falls through the nearest gully into the sewers, and
ultimately into the Seine. If produced in the upper part of a house,
this description of refuse is first poured into an external shoot
branching out of the rainwater pipe, with one of which every floor is
usually provided. Iron pipes have been lately much introduced in place
of the open channels across the foot pavements; these are laid level
with the surface, and are cast with an open slit, about one inch in
width, at the top, to afford facility for cleansing. During the busy
parts of the day there are constant streams of such fluids running
through most of the streets of Paris, the smell arising from which is
by no means agreeable. In hot weather it is the practice to turn on
the public stand pipes for an hour or two, to dilute the matter and
accelerate its flow.”

“With respect to fæcal refuse,” says Mr. Rammell, “and much of the
house-slops, particularly those of bed-chambers, the _cesspool_ is
universally adopted in Paris as the immediate receptacle.”

By far the greater proportion of the wet house-refuse of Paris,
therefore, is deposited in cesspools.

I shall, then, immediately proceed to show the quantity of matter thus
collected yearly, as well as the means by which it is removed.

The aggregate _quantity_ of the cesspool matter of Paris has greatly
increased in quantity within the present century, though this might
have been expected, as well from the increase of population as from
the improved construction of cesspools (preventing leakage), and the
increased supply of water in the French metropolis.

The following figures show both the aggregate quantity and the
increase that has taken place in the cesspoolage of Paris, from 1810 to
the present time:--

                              Cub. Mètres.  Cub. Feet.
   In 1810 the total
  quantity of refuse matter
  deposited in the
  basins at Montfaucon
  amounted to                    50,151  =  1,770,330
    In 1811 the quantity
  was                            49,545  =  1,748,938
    In 1812                      49,235  =  1,737,995
                                 ------     ---------
    Giving an average
  for the three years of         49,877  =  1,760,658
    The quantity at present
  conveyed to Montfaucon
  and Bondy
  amounts, according to
  M. Héloin (a very good
  authority), to from 600
  to 700 cubic mètres
  daily, giving, in round
  numbers, an annual
  quantity of                   230,000  =  8,119,000

This shows an increase in 36 years of very nearly 400 per cent, but
still it constitutes little more than one-half the cesspoolage of
London.

The quantity of refuse matter which is daily drawn from the cesspools,
Mr. Rammell states--and he had every assistance from the authorities
in prosecuting his inquiries--at “between 600 and 700 cubic mètres;
(21,180 and 24,710 cubic feet), giving, in round numbers, the annual
quantity of 230,000 cubic mètres.

“Dividing this annual quantity at 230,000 cubic mètres (or 8,000,000
cubic feet) by the number of the population of Paris (94,721
individuals, according to the last census), we have 243 litres only as
the annual produce from each individual. The daily quantity of matter
(including water necessary for cleanliness) passing from each person
into the cesspool in the better class of houses is stated to be 1-3/4
litre (3·08 pints), or 638 litres annually. The discrepancy between
these two quantities, wide as it is, must be accounted for by the fact
of a large proportion of the lower orders in Paris rarely or ever using
any privy at all, and by allowing for the small quantity of water made
use of in the inferior class of houses. There can be no doubt that
this latter quantity of 1-3/4 litre daily is very nearly correct, and
not above the average quantity used in houses where a moderate degree
of cleanliness is observed. This proportion was ascertained to hold
good in the case of some barracks in Paris, where the contents of the
cesspools were accurately measured, the total quantity divided by the
number of men occupying the barracks, and the quotient by the number of
days since the cesspools had been last emptied; the result showing a
daily quantity of 1-3/4 litre from each individual.

“The average charge per cubic mètre for extraction and transport of the
cesspoolage is nine francs, giving a gross annual charge of 2,070,000
francs (82,800_l._ sterling), which sum, it would appear, is paid every
year by the house-proprietors of Paris for the extraction of the matter
from their cesspools, and its transport to the Voirie.”

Mr. Rammell says that, were a tubular system of house-drainage, such as
has been described under the proper head, adopted in Paris, in lieu of
the present mode, it would cost less than one-tenth of the expense now
incurred.

The principal place of deposit for the general refuse of Paris has long
been at Montfaucon. A French writer, M. Jules Garnier, in a recent
work, “A Visit to Montfaucon,” says:--“For more than nine hundred years
Montfaucon has been devoted to this purpose. There the citizens of
Paris deposited their filth before the walls of the capital extended
beyond what is now the central quarter. The distance between Paris and
Montfaucon was then more than a mile and a half.” Thus it appears that
Montfaucon was devoted to its present purposes, of course in a much
more limited degree, as early as the reign of King Charles the Simple.

This deposit of cesspool matter is the property of the commune (as in
the city of London it would be said to belong to the “corporation”),
and it is farmed out, for terms of nine years, to the highest bidders.
The amount received by the commune has greatly increased, as the
following returns, which are official, will show:--

  A.D.                           Francs             £
  1808 the cesspoolage fetched   97,000,   abt.   3,880
  1817          „                75,000,    „     3,000
  1834          „               165,000,    „     7,000
  1843          „               525,000,    „    21,000

It is here that the “_poudrette_,”[74] of which I have spoken
elsewhere, is prepared. Besides this branch of commerce, Montfaucon has
establishments for the extracting of ammonia from the cesspool matter,
and the right of doing so is now farmed out for 80,000 francs a-year
(3200_l_).

Montfaucon is on the north side of Paris, and the place of refuse
deposit is known as the Voirie. The following account of it, and of
the manufacture of poudrette, is curious in many respects:--

“The area, which is about 40 acres in extent, is divided into three
irregular compartments:--

“1. The system of basins.

“2. The ground used for spreading and drying the matter.

“3. The place where the matter is heaped up after having been dried.

“The basins, standing for the most part in gradations, one above
another, by reason of the slope of the ground, are six in number. The
two upper ones, which are upon a level, first receive the soil upon its
arrival at the Voirie; the four others are receptacles for the more
liquid portion as it gradually flows off from the upper basins.

“There is a great difference in the character of the soil brought; that
taken from the upper part of the cesspools, and amounting to a large
proportion of the whole, being entirely liquid; while the remainder is
more or less solid, according to the depth at which it is taken. The
whole, however, during winter or rainy weather, is indiscriminately
deposited in the upper basins; but in dry weather, the nearly solid
portion is at once thrown upon the drying-ground.”[75]

“The quantity of poudrette sold in 1818 was:--

  At the Voirie              50,000 setiers[76]
  Sent into the departments  20,000    „
    Total sale               70,000    „

at prices of 7, 8, and 9 francs the setier.

“This is equal, at the average price of 8 francs, to 22,400_l._
sterling.

“The refuse liquids, as fast as they overflow the basins, or are passed
through the chemical works, are conducted into the public sewers, and
through them into the Seine, nearly opposite the Jardin des Plantes.
_They thus fall into the river at the very commencement of its course
through Paris, and pollute its waters before they have reached the
various works lower down and near the centre of the city, where they
are raised and distributed for household purposes, for the supply of
baths, and for the public fountains._

“Rats are found by thousands in the Voirie, and their voracity is such,
that I have often known them, during a single night, convert into
skeletons the carcasses of twenty horses which had been brought thither
the evening before. The bones are burnt to heat the coppers, or to get
rid of them.

“Speaking of the disgusting practices at the Voirie, Mr. Gisquet
says, ‘I have seen men stark naked, passing entire days in the midst
of the basins, seeking for any objects of value they might contain.
I have seen others fishing for the rotten fish the market inspectors
had caused to be thrown into the basins. Two cartloads of spoilt and
stinking mackerel were thrown into the largest of the basins; two hours
afterwards all the fish had disappeared.’

“The emanations from the Voirie are, as may well be supposed, most
powerfully offensive. To a stranger unaccustomed to the atmosphere
surrounding them it would be almost impossible to make the tour of
the basins without being more or less affected with a disposition to
nausea. Large and numerous bubbles of gas are seen constantly rising
from a lake of urine and water, while evaporation of the most foul
description is going on from many acres of surrounding ground, upon
which the solid matter is spread to dry.”

The late M. Parent du Châtelet, a high authority on this matter, stated
(in 1833) that the emanations from the Voirie were insupportable
within a circumference of 2000 mètres (about a mile and a quarter,
English measure); while the winds carried them sometimes, as was shown
when an official inquiry was made as to the ravages and causes of
cholera, 2-1/2 miles; and in certain states of the atmosphere, 8 French
miles (not quite 5 English miles). The same high authority has also
stated, that in addition to the emanations from the cesspool matter at
the Voirie the greater part of the carcasses of about 12,000 horses,
and between 25,000 and 30,000 smaller animals, were allowed to rot upon
the ground there.

To abate this nuisance a new Voirie was, more than 20 years since,
formed in the forest of Bondy, 8 miles from Paris. It consists of
eight basins, four on each side of the Canal de l’Ourcq, arranged
like those at Montfaucon. The area of these basins is little short of
96,000 square yards, and their collective capacity upwards of 261,000
cubic yards. The expectations of the relief that would be experienced
from the establishment of the new Voirie in the forest have not been
realized. The movable cesspools only have been conveyed there, by boats
on the canal, to be emptied; the empty casks being conveyed back by
the same boats. The basins are not yet full; for the conveyance by the
Canal de l’Ourcq is costly, and in winter its traffic is sometimes
suspended by its being frozen. In one year the cost of conveying these
movable cesspools to Bondy was little short of 1500_l._

In the latest Report on this subject (1835) the Commissioners, of whom
M. Parent du Châtelet was one, recommend that all the cesspool matter
at the Voiries should be disinfected. M. Salmon, after a course of
chemical experiments (the Report of the Commission states), disinfected
and carbonized a mass of mud and filth, containing much organic matter,
deposited (from a sewer) on the banks of the Seine.

The Commissioners say, “The discovery of M. Salmon awakened the
attention of the contractors of Montfaucon, who employed one of our
most skilful chemists to find for them a means of disinfection other
than that for which M. Salmon had taken out a patent. M. Sanson and
some other persons made similar researches, and from their joint
investigations it resulted that disinfection might be equally well
produced with turf ashes, with carbonized turf, and with the simple
_débris_ of this very abundant substance; and that the same success
might be obtained with saw-dust, with the refuse matter of the
tan-yards, with garden mould, so abundant in the environs of Paris, and
with many other substances. A curious experiment has even shown, that
after mixing with a clayey earth a portion of fæcal matter, it was only
necessary to carbonize this mixture to obtain a perfect disinfectant
powder. Theory had already indicated the result.”

This disinfection, however, has not been carried out in the Voiries,
nor in the manufacture of poudrette.

From the account of the general refuse depositories of Paris we pass to
the particular receptacles or cesspools of the French capital.

The Parisian cesspools are of two sorts:--

1. Fixed or excavated cesspools.

2. Movable cesspools.

“In early times the _excavated cesspools_ or pits were constructed in
the rudest manner, and cleaned out more or less frequently, or utterly
neglected, at the discretion of their owners. As the city increased in
size, however, and as the permeations necessarily taking place into
the soil accumulated in the lapse of centuries, the evil resulting
was found to be of grave magnitude, calling for prompt and vigorous
interference on the part of the authorities. It appears certain that
prior to the year 1819 (when a strict _ordonnance_ was issued on the
subject) the cesspools were very carelessly constructed. For the
most part they were far from water-tight, and very probably were not
intended to be otherwise. Consequently, nearly the whole of the fluid
matter within them drained into the springs beneath the substratum, or
became absorbed by the surrounding soil. Nor was this the only evil:
the basement walls of the houses became saturated with the offensive
permeations, and the atmosphere, more particularly in the interior of
the dwellings, tainted with their exhalations.

“The _movable cesspools_, for the most part, consist simply of tanks
or barrels, which, when full, are removed to some convenient spot for
the purpose of their contents being discharged. This form of cesspool,
though not leading to that contamination of the substratum which is
naturally induced by the fixed or excavated cesspool, may occasion many
offensive nuisances from carelessness in overfilling, or in the process
of emptying.”

“The movable cesspools are of two kinds; the one,” says Mr. Rammell,
“extremely simple and primitive in construction, the other more
complicated. The former retains all the refuse, both liquid and solid,
passed into it; the latter retains only the solid matter, the liquid
being separated by a sort of strainer, and running off into another
receptacle.

“The advantage of this separating apparatus is, that those cesspools
provided with it require to be emptied less frequently than the others;
the solid matter being alone retained in the movable part. The liquid
portion is withdrawn from the tank into which it is received by pumping.

“The other kind of movable cesspool consists simply of a wooden cask
set on end, and having its top pierced to admit the soil-pipe. It
is intended to retain both solid and liquid matter. When full, it
is detached, and the aperture in the top having been closed by a
tight-fitting lid secured by an iron bar placed across, it is removed,
and an empty one immediately substituted for it.

“The movable cesspool last described is much more generally used than
the other kind; very few are furnished with the separating apparatus.
But the use of either sort, I am told, is not on the increase. The
movable cesspools are found, on the whole, to be more expensive than
the fixed, besides entailing many inconveniences, one of which is the
frequent entrance of workmen upon the premises for the purpose of
removing them, which sometimes has to be done every second or third
day. Moreover, if the cask becomes in the slightest degree overcharged,
there is an overflow of matter.”

Indeed, the movable system of cesspools (it appears from further
accounts) seems to be now adopted only in those places where fixed
cesspools could not be altered in accordance with the ordonnance, or
where it is desired to avoid the first cost of a fixed cesspool.

An ordonnance of 1819 enacts peremptorily that _all_ cesspools, fixed
or excavated, then existing, shall be altered in accordance with its
provisions upon the first subsequent emptying after the date of the
enactment, “or if that be found impracticable, they shall be filled
up.” This full delegation of power to a centralised authority was the
example prompting our late stringent enactments as to buildings and
sewerage.

The French ordonnance provides also that the walls, arches, and bottoms
of the cesspools, shall be constructed of a very hard description of
stone, known as “pierres meulières” (mill-stone); the mortar used is
to be hydraulic lime and clean river sand. Each arch is to be 30 to
35 centimètres (12 to 14 inches) in thickness, and the walls 45 to 50
centimètres (18 to 20 inches); the interior height not to be less than
2 mètres (2 yards 6 inches). A soil-pipe is always to be placed in the
middle of the cesspool; its interior diameter is not to be less than
9-7/8 inches in pottery-ware piping, or 7-7/8 inches in cast iron. A
vent-pipe, not less than 9-7/8 inches in diameter, is to be carried up
to the level of the chimney-tops, or to that of the chimneys of the
adjoining houses. This is, if possible, to divert the smell from the
house to which the cesspool is attached.

“A principal object of the _ordonnance_,” it is stated in the Reports,
“was to ensure the cesspools being thenceforth made water-tight;
so that further pollution of the substratum and springs might be
prevented; and the provisions for its attainment have been very
strictly enforced by the police. The present cesspools are, in fact,
water-tight constructions, retaining the whole of the liquids passed
into them until the same are withdrawn by artificial means. The
advantage has its attendant inconveniences, and, moreover, has been
dearly paid for; for, independently of the cost of the alterations and
the increased cost of making the cesspools in the outset--the liquids
no longer draining away by natural permeation--the constant expense of
emptying them has enormously increased. In the better class of houses,
where water is more freely used, the operation has now to be repeated
every three, four, or five months, whereas formerly the cesspool was
emptied every eighteen months or two years. An increased water supply
has added to the evil, moderate even now as the extent of that supply
is.”

“It is estimated that, in the better class of houses, the daily
quantity of matter, including the water necessary for cleanliness and
to ensure the passage of the solids through the soil-pipe, passing
into the cesspool from each individual, amounts to 1-3/4 litre (3·08
English pints). Foreign substances are found in great abundance in the
cesspools; the large soil-pipes permitting their easy introduction; so
that the cesspool becomes the common receptacle for a great variety
of articles that it is desired secretly to get rid of. Article 19 of
the Police Regulations directs that nightmen finding any articles in
the cesspools, especially such as lead to the suspicion of a crime or
misdemeanor, shall make a declaration of the fact the same day to a
Commissary of Police.”

In all such matters the police regulations of France are far more
stringent and exacting than those of England.

“The cesspools vary considerably in foulness,” continues the Report;
“and _it is remarkable that those containing the greatest proportion of
water are the most foul and dangerous_. This is accounted for by the
increased quantity of sulphuretted hydrogen gas evolved: and is more
particularly the case where, from their large size, or from the small
number of people using them, much time is allowed for the matter to
stagnate and decompose in them. Soap-suds are said to add materially
to their offensive and dangerous condition. _The_ FOULNESS _of the
cesspools, therefore, would appear to be in direct proportion to the_
CLEANLY _habits of the inmates of the houses to which they respectively
belong._ Where urine predominates ammoniacal vapours are given off in
considerable quantities, and although these affect the eyes of those
exposed to them--and the nightmen suffer much from inflammation of
these organs--no danger to life results. The inflammation, however, is
often sufficiently acute to produce temporary blindness, and from this
cause the men are at times thrown out of work for days together.”[77]

The _emptying of the cesspools_ is the next point to be considered.

No cesspool is allowed to be emptied in Paris, and no nightman’s cart,
containing soil, is allowed to be in the streets from 8 A.M. to 10
P.M. from October 1st to March 31st, nor from 6 A.M. to 11 P.M. from
April 1st to September 30th. In the winter season the hours of labour
permitted by law are ten, and in the summer season seven, out of the
twenty-four; while in London the hours of night-work are limited to
five, without any distinction of season. These hours, however, only
relate to the cleansing of the fixed cesspools of Paris.

Fixed or excavated cesspools are emptied into carts, which are driven
to the receptacles. As far as regards the removal of night-soil along
the streets, there are far more frequent complaints of stench and
annoyance in Paris than in London. None of these cesspools can be
emptied without authority from the police, and the police exercise
a vigilant supervision over the whole arrangements; neither can any
cesspool, after being emptied, be closed without a written authority,
after inspection, by the Director of Health; nor can a cesspool, if
found defective when emptied, be repaired without such authority.

“With regard to the movable cesspool,” it is reported, “the process of
emptying is very simple, though undoubtedly demanding a considerable
expenditure of labour. The tank or barrel, when filled, is disconnected
from the soil-pipe, an empty one being immediately substituted in its
place, and the bung-hole being securely closed, it is conveyed away
on a vehicle, somewhat resembling a brewer’s dray (which holds about
eight or ten of them), to the spot appointed as the depository of its
discharged contents. The removal of movable cesspools is allowed to
take place during the day.”

In opening a cesspool in Paris, precautions are always taken to prevent
accidents which might result from the escape or ignition of the gases.

The general, not to say universal, mode of emptying the fixed or
excavated cesspools is to pump the contents into closed carts for
transport.

“This operation is,” says Mr. Rammell, “performed with two descriptions
of pumps, one working on what may be called the _hydraulic_ principle,
the other on the _pneumatic_. In the former, the valves are placed
in the pipe communicating between the cesspool and the cart, and the
matter itself is pumped. In the latter, the valves are placed beyond
the cart, and the air being pumped out of the cart, the matter flows
into it to fill up the vacuum so occasioned. The real principle is
of course the same in both cases, the matter being forced up by
atmospheric pressure. One advantage of the pneumatic system is, that
there are no valves to impede the free passage of matter through the
suction-pipe; another, that it permits the use of a pipe of larger
diameter.

“The cart employed for the pneumatic system consists of an iron
cylinder, mounted sometimes upon four, but generally upon two wheels,
the latter arrangement being found to be the more convenient. Previous
to use at the cesspool, the carts are drawn to a branch establishment,
situate just within the Barrière du Combat, where they are exhausted of
air with an air-pump, worked by steam power. A 12-horse engine erected
there is capable of exhausting five carts at the same time; the vacuum
produced being equal to 28-3/8 inches (72 centimètres) of mercury. A
cart (in good repair, and upon two wheels) will preserve a practical
vacuum for 48 hours after exhaustion.”

The total weight of one of these carts when full is about 3 tons and 8
cwt. This is somewhat more than the weight of the contents of a London
waggon employed in night-soil carriage. Three horses are attached to
each cart.

When an opening into the cesspool has been effected, a suction-pipe on
the pneumatic principle is laid from the cesspool to the cart. This
pipe is 3-15/16 inches in diameter, and is in separate pieces of about
10 feet each, with others shorter (down even to 1 foot), to make up
any exact length required. Two kinds are commonly used; one made of
leather, having iron wire wound spirally inside to prevent collapse,
the other of copper. The leather pipe is used where a certain degree of
pliability is required; the copper for the straight parts of the line,
and for determined curves; pieces struck from various radii being made
for the purpose.

Gutta-percha has been tried as a substitute for leather in the piping,
but was pronounced liable to split, and its use was abandoned. So with
India-rubber in London.

The communication between the suction-pipe and the vehicle used by
the nightmen is opened by withdrawing a plug by means of a forked rod
into the “recess” (hollow) of the machine, an operation tasking the
muscular powers of two men. This done, the cesspool contents rush into
the cart, being forced up by the weight of the atmosphere to occupy the
existing vacuum; this occupies about three minutes. The cart, however,
is then but three-fourths filled with matter, the remaining fourth
being occupied by the rarefied air previously in the cart, and by the
air contained in the suction-pipe. This air is next withdrawn by the
action of a small air-pump, worked usually by two, but sometimes by one
man. The air-pump is placed on the ground at a little distance from
the cesspool cart, and communicates with it by a flexible India-rubber
tube, an inch in diameter. The air, as fast as it is pumped out, is
forced through another India-rubber tube of similar dimensions, which
communicates with a furnace, also placed on the ground at a little
distance from the air-pump, the pump occupying the middle space between
the cart and the furnace, the furnace and the pump being portable. To
ascertain when the vehicle is full, a short glass tube is inserted in
the end of the air-pipe (the end being of brass), and through this,
with the help of a small lantern, the matter is seen to rise.

“The number of carts required for each operation,” states Mr. Rammell,
“of course varies according to the size of the cesspool to be emptied;
but as these contain on the average about five cartloads, that is the
number usually sent.[78]

“In addition to the carts for the transport of the night-soil, a
light-covered spring van drawn by one horse is used to carry the tools,
&c., required in the process.

“These tools consist of--

“1. An air-pump when the work is to be done on the pneumatic system,
and of an hydraulic pump when it is to be done on the hydraulic system.

“2. About 50 mètres of suction-pipe of various forms and lengths.

“3. A furnace for the purpose of burning the gases.

“4. Wooden hods for the removal of the solid night-soil.

“5. Pails, a ladder, pincers, levers, hammers, and other articles.”

I have hitherto spoken of the _Pneumatic_ System of emptying the
Parisian cesspools. The results of the _Hydraulic_ System are so
similar, as regards time, &c., that only a brief notice is required.
The hydraulic pump is worked by four men; it is placed on the ground in
the place most convenient for the operation, and the cart is filled in
the space of from three to five minutes.

A furnace is used.

“The furnace,” says the Report, “consists of a sheet-iron cylinder,
about nine inches in diameter, pierced with small holes, and covered
with a conical cap to prevent the flame spreading. The vent-pipe first
communicates underneath with a small reservoir, intended to contain
the matter in case the operation should be carried too far. A piece is
inserted in the bottom of this reservoir, by unscrewing which it may be
emptied. The furnace is sometimes fixed upon a plank, which rests upon
two projecting pieces behind the cart.”

An indicator is also used to show the advancement of the filling of
the cart; a glass tube and a cork float are the chief portions of the
apparatus of the indicator.

“Towards the end of the operation, when the quantity of matter
remaining in the cesspool, although sufficiently fluid, is too shallow
for pumping, it is scooped into a large pail; and, the end of the
suction-pipe being introduced, drawn up into the cart. When the matter
is in too solid a state to pass through the pipe, it is carried to the
cart in hods, unless it is in considerable quantity. In that case it is
removed in vessels called _tinettes_, in the shape of a truncated cone,
holding each about 3-1/2 cubic feet. These vessels are closed with a
lid, and are lifted into an open waggon for transport.”

Of these two systems the pneumatic is the more costly, and is likely to
be supplanted by the hydraulic. Each system, according to Mr. Rammell,
is still a nuisance, as, in spite of every precaution, the gases
escape the moment the cesspool emptying is commenced, and vitiate the
atmosphere. They force their way very often through the joints of the
pipes, and are insufficiently consumed in the furnaces. Mr. Rammell
mentions his having twice, after witnessing two of these operations,
suffered from attacks of illness. On the first occasion, the men
omitted to burn the foul air, and the atmosphere being heavy with
moisture, the odour was so intense that it was smelt from the Rue du
Port Mahon to the Rue Menars, more than 400 yards distant.

The emptying of the cesspools is let by contract, the commune acting
in the light of a proprietor. To obtain a contract, a man must have
license or permission from the prefect of police, and such license
is only granted after proof that the applicant is provided with the
necessary apparatus, carts, &c., and also with a suitable dépôt for the
reception of the pumps, carts, &c., when not in use. The stock-in-trade
of a contractor is inspected at least twice a-year, and if found
inadequate or out of repair the license is commonly withdrawn. The
“gangs” of nightmen employed by the contractors are fixed by the law
at four men each (the number employed in London), but without any
legal provision on the subject. The terms of these contracts are not
stated, but they appear to have ceased to be undertakings by individual
capitalists, being all in the hands of companies, known as _compagnies
de vidanges_ (filth companies). There are now eight companies in
Paris carrying on these operations. More than half of the whole work,
however, is accomplished by one company, the “_Compagnie Richer_.” The
capital invested in their working stock is said to exceed 4,800,000
francs (200,000_l._). They now require the labour of 350 horses, and
the use of 120 vehicles of different descriptions.

The construction of a cesspool in Paris costs about 18_l._ as an
average. The houses containing from 30 to 70 inmates may have two, and
occasionally more, cesspools. Taking the average at one and a half, the
capital sunk in a cesspool is 27_l._ Mr. Rammell says:--

“Adopting these calculations of the number of cesspools to each house,
and their cost, and allowing only the small quantity of 1-3/4 litre
(3·08 pints) of matter to each individual, the annual expense of the
cesspool system in Paris, per house containing 24 persons, will be,--

“For interest, at 5 per cent upon capital sunk in works of
construction, 1_l._ 7_s._

“For extraction and removal of matter, 5_l._ 11_s._

“Total, 6_l._ 18_s._

“The annual expense per inhabitant will be 5_s._ 9_d._

“The latter, then, may be taken as the average yearly sum per head
actually paid by that portion of the inhabitants of Paris who use the
cesspools.”

The following, among others before shown, are the conclusions arrived
at by Mr. Rammell:--

1. “That with the most perfect regulations, and the application of
machines constructed upon scientific principles, the operation of
emptying cesspools is still a nuisance, not only to the inmates of the
house to which it belongs, but to those of the neighbouring houses, and
to persons passing in the street.

2. “That the cesspool system of Paris presents an obstacle to the
proper extension of the water supply, and consequently represses the
growth of habits of personal and domestic cleanliness, with their
immense moral results; and that in this respect it may be said to be
inconsistent with a high degree of civilization of the masses of any
community.

3. “That, compared with a tubular system of refuse drainage, it is an
exceedingly expensive mode of disposing of the fæcal refuse of a town.”

OF THE EMPTYING OF THE LONDON CESSPOOLS BY PUMP AND HOSE.

Having now ascertained the quantity of wet house-refuse annually
deposited in the cesspools of the metropolis, the next step is to show
the means by which these 15,000,000 cubic feet of cesspoolage are
removed, and whence they are conveyed, as well as the condition of the
labourers engaged in the business.

There are two methods of removing the soil from the tanks:--

1. By pump and hose, or the hydraulic method;

2. By shovel and tube, or manual labour.

The first of these is the new French mode, and the other the old
English method of performing the work. The distinctive feature between
the two is, that in the one case the refuse is discharged by means of
pipes into the sewers, and in the other that it is conveyed by means of
carts to some distant night-yard.

[Illustration: DIAGRAM OF THE

MODE OF CLEANSING CESSPOOLS BY PUMP AND HOSE.]

According to the French method, therefore, the cesspoolage ultimately
becomes sewage, the refuse being deposited in a cesspool for a greater
or a less space of time, and finally discharged into the sewers; so
that it is a kind of intermediate process between the cesspool system
and the sewer system of defecating a town, being, as it were, a
compound of the two.

The great advantage of the sewer system, as contradistinguished from
the cesspool system of defecation, is, that it admits of the wet
refuse being removed from the neighbourhood of the house as soon
as it is produced; while the advantage of the cesspool system, as
contradistinguished from the sewer system, is, that it prevents the
contamination of the river whence the town draws its principal supply
of water. The cesspool system of defecation remedies the main evil of
the sewer system, and the sewer system the main evil of the cesspool
system. The French mode of emptying cesspools, however, appears to
have the peculiar property of combining the ill effects of both
systems without the advantages of either. The refuse of the house not
only remains rotting and seething for months under the noses of the
household, but it is ultimately--that is, after more than a year’s
decomposition--washed into the stream from which the inhabitants are
supplied with water, and so returned to them diluted in the form of
_aqua pura_, for washing, cooking, or drinking. The sole benefit
accruing from the French mode of nightmanship is, that it performs a
noisome operation in a comparatively cleanly manner; but surely this
is a small compensation for the evils attendant upon it. The noses
of those who prefer stagnant cesspools to rapid sewers cannot be so
particularly sensitive, that for the sake of avoiding the smell of
the nightman’s cart they would rather that its contents should be
discharged into the water that they use for household purposes.

The hydraulic or pump-and-hose method of emptying the cesspools is
now practised by the Court of Sewers, who introduced the process into
London in the winter of 1847. The apparatus used in this country
consists of an hydraulic pump, which is generally placed six or eight
feet distant from, but sometimes close to, the cesspool--indeed, on
its edge. It is worked by two men, “just up and down,” as one of the
labourers described it to me, “like a fire-engine.” A suction-pipe,
with an iron nozzle, is placed in the cesspool, into which is first
introduced a deodorising fluid, in the proportion, as well as can be
estimated, of a pint to a square yard of matter, and diluted with water
from the fire-plugs.

The pipes are of leather, the suction-pipes being wrapped with
spring-iron wire at the joints. India-rubber pipes were used, and
“answered very tidy,” one of the gangers told me, but they were too
expensive, the material being soon worn out: they were only tried
five or six months. The pipes now employed differ in no respect of
size or appearance from the leathern fire-engine pipes; and as the
work is always done in the daytime, and no smell arises from it, the
neighbourhood is often alarmed, and people begin to ask where the
fire is. One outsideman said, “Why, that’s always asked. I’ve been
asked--ay, I dare say a hundred times in a day--‘Where’s the fire?
where’s the fire?’” A cesspool, by this process, has been emptied into
a sewer at 300 yards distant. The pipe is placed within the nearest
gullyhole, down which the matter is washed into the sewer. When the
cesspool is emptied, it is well sluiced with water; the water is pumped
into the sewer, and then the work is complete.

The pumping is occasionally very hard work, making the shoulders and
back ache grievously; indeed, some cesspools have been found so long
neglected, and so choked with rags and rubbish, that manual labour had
to be resorted to, and the matter dug and tubbed out, after the old
mode of the nightmen. A square yard of cesspoolage is cleared out,
under ordinary circumstances, in an hour; while an average duration of
time for the cleansing of a regularly-sized cesspool is from three to
four hours.

A pneumatic pump, with an iron cart, drawn by two horses (similar to
the French invention), was tried as an experiment, but discontinued in
a fortnight.

For the hydraulic method of emptying cesspools, a gang of four men,
under the direction of a ganger, who makes a fifth, is required.

The _division of labour_ is as follows:--

1. The pumpmen, who, as their name implies, work the engine or pumps.

2. The holeman, who goes into the cesspool and stirs up the matter, so
as to make it as fluid as possible.

3. The outsideman, whose business it is to attend to the pipe, which
reaches from the cesspool, along the surface of the street, or other
place, to the gullyhole.

4. The ganger, who is the superintendent of the whole, and is only
sometimes present at the operation; he is not unfrequently engaged,
while one cesspool is being emptied, in making an examination or any
necessary arrangement for the opening of another. He also gives notice
(acting under the instruction of the clerk of the works) to the water
company of the district, that the pumps will be at work in this or that
place, a notice generally given a day in advance, and the water is
supplied gratuitously, from a street fire-plug, and used at discretion,
some cesspool contents requiring three times more water than others to
liquefy them sufficient for pumping.

The cesspool-pumping gangs are six in number, each consisting of five
men, although the “outsideman” is sometimes a strong youth of seventeen
or eighteen. The whole work is done by a contractor, who makes an
agreement with the Court of Sewers, and finds the necessary apparatus,
appointing his own labourers. All the present labourers, however, have
been selected as trusty men from among the flushermen, the contractor
concurring in the recommendation of the clerk of the works, or the
inspector. The cesspool-sewermen work in six districts. Two divisions
(east and west) of Westminster; Finsbury and Holborn; Surrey and Kent;
Tower Hamlets (now including Poplar); and the City. The districts
vary in size, but there is usually a gang devoted to each: in case
of emergency, however, a gang from another district (as among the
flushermen) is sent to expedite any pressing work. All the men are
paid by the job, the payment being 2_s._ each per job, to the pumpmen
and holeman, and 3_s._ to the ganger; but in addition to the 2_s._ per
job, the holeman has 6_d._ a-day extra; and the outsideman has 6_d._
a-day _deducted_ from the 4_s._ he would earn in two jobs, which is a
frequent day’s work. The men told me that they had four or four and
a-half days’ work (or eight or nine jobs) every week; but such was the
case more particularly when the householders were less cognizant of
the work, and did not think of resorting to it; now, I am assured, the
men’s average employment may be put at five days a week, or ten jobs.

The perquisites of these workmen are none, except the householder sends
them some refreshment on his own accord. There may be a perquisite, but
very rarely, occurring to the holeman, should he find anything in the
soil; but the finding is far less common than among the nightmen, with
whom the process goes through different stages. I did not hear among
cesspool-sewermen of anything being found by them or by their comrades;
of course, when the soil is once absorbed into the pipe, it is unseen
on its course of deposit down the gullyhole.

The men have no trade societies, and no arrangements of any equivalent
nature; no benefit clubs or sick clubs, for which their number, indeed,
is too small; or, as my informant sometimes wound up in a climax, “No,
nothing that way, sir.” They are sober and industrious men, chiefly
married, and with families. Into further statistics, however, of diet,
rent, &c., I need not enter, concerning so small a body; they are the
same as among other well-conducted labourers.

The men find their own dresses, which are of the same cost, form, and
material as I have described to pertain to the flushermen; also their
own “picks” and shovels, costing respectively 2_s._ 6_d._ and 2_s._
3_d._ each.

One cesspool-sewerman told me, that when he was first a member of one
of those gangs he was “awful abused” by the “regular nightmen,” if he
came across any of them “as was beery, poor fellows;” but that had all
passed over now.

The total sum paid to the six gangs of labourers in the course of the
year would, at the rate of ten cesspools emptied per week, amount to
the following:--

                                       Yearly Total.
  12 pumpmen, 10 jobs a-week each,
  20_s._ per week, or 52_l._ per year, each     £624

  6 holemen, ditto, ditto, with 2_s._ 6_d._
  a-week extra                                   351

  6 outsidemen, 20_s._ a-week, less by
  6_d._ a-day, or 2_s._ 6_d._ a-week, 45_l._
  10_s._ a-year                                  296
  6 gangers, 30_s._ a-week each, or 78_l._
  per year                                       468
                                               -----
                                               £1739

Any householder, &c., who applies to the Court of Sewers, or to any
officer of the court whom he may know, has his cesspool cleansed by
the hydraulic method, in the same way as he might employ any tradesman
to do any description of work proper to his calling. The charge (by
the Court of Sewers) is 5_s._ or 6_s._ per square yard, according to
pipeage, &c. required; a cesspool emptied by this system costs from
20_s._ to 30_s._ The charges of the nightmen, who have to employ
horses, &c., are necessarily higher.

  Estimating that throughout London
  60 cesspools are emptied by the hydraulic
  method every week, or 3120
  every year, and the charge for each to
  be on an average 25_s._, we have for the
  gross receipts    3120 × 25_s._ =          £3900

  And deducting from this the sum
  paid for labour                             1739
                                             -----
  It shows a profit of                       £2161

This is upwards of 123 per cent; but out of this, interest on capital
and wear and tear of machinery have to be paid.

During the year 1851, I am credibly informed that as many as 3000
sewers were emptied by the hydraulic process; and calculating each to
have contained the average quantity of refuse, viz. five tons or loads,
or about 180 cubic feet, we have an aggregate of 540,000 cubic feet of
cesspoolage ultimately carried off by the sewers. This, however, is
only a twenty-seventh of the entire quantity.

The sum paid in wages to the men engaged in emptying these 3000
cesspools by the hydraulic process would, at the rate of 2_s._ per man
to the four members of the gang, and 3_s._ to the ganger, or 11_s._ in
all for each cesspool, amount to 1650_l._, which is 139_l._ and 250
cesspools less than the amount above given.

STATEMENT OF A CESSPOOL-SEWERMAN.

I give the following brief and characteristic statement, which is
peculiar in showing the habitual _restlessness_ of the mere labourer.
My informant was a stout, hale-looking man, who had rarely known
illness. All these sort of labourers (nightmen included) scout the
notion of the cholera attacking _them!_

“Work, sir? Well, I think I _do_ know what work is, and has known it
since I was a child; and then I was set to help at the weaving. My
friends were weavers at Norwich, and 26 years ago, until steam pulled
working men down from being well paid and well off, it was a capital
trade. Why, my father could sometimes earn 3_l._ at his work as a
working weaver; there was money for ever then; now 12_s._ a-week
is, I believe, the tip-top earnings of his trade. But _I didn’t like
the confinement or the close air in the factories_, and so, when I
grew big enough, I went to ground-work in the city (so he frequently
called Norwich); I call ground-work such as digging drains and the
like. Then I ’listed into the Marines. _Oh, I hardly know what made
me_; men does foolish things and don’t know why; it’s human natur.
I’m sure it wasn’t the bounty of 3_l._ that tempted me, for I was
doing middling, and sometimes had night-work as well as ground-work
to do. I was then sent to Sheerness and put on board the _Thunderer_
man-of-war, carrying 84 guns, as a marine. She sailed through the
Straits (of Gibraltar), and was three years and three months blockading
the Dardanelles, and cruising among the islands. I never saw anything
like such fortifications as at the Dardanelles; why, there was mortars
there as would throw a ton weight. No, I never heard of their having
been fired. Yes, we sometimes got leave for a party to go ashore on
one of the islands. They called them Greek islands, but I fancy as
how it was Turks near the Dardanelles. O yes, the men on the islands
was civil enough to us; they never spoke to us, and we never spoke
to them. The sailors sometimes, and indeed the lot of us, would have
bits of larks with them, laughing at ’em and taking sights at ’em and
such like. Why, I’ve seen a fine-dressed Turk, one of their grand
gentlemen there, when a couple of sailors has each been taking a sight
at him, and dancing the shuffle along with it, make each on ’em a low
bow, as solemn as could be. Perhaps he thought it was a way of being
civil in our country! I’ve seen some of the head ones stuck over with
so many knives, and cutlasses, and belts, and pistols, and things,
that he looked like a cutler’s shop-window. We were ordered home at
last, and after being some months in barracks, which I didn’t relish
at all, were paid off at Plymouth. Oh, a barrack life’s anything but
pleasant, but I’ve done with it. After that I was eight years and a
quarter a gentleman’s servant, coachman, or anything (in Norwich),
and then got tired of that and came to London, and got to ground and
new sewer-work, and have been on the sewers above five years. Yes, I
prefer the sewers to the Greek islands. I was one of the first set as
worked a pump. There was a great many spectators; I dare say as there
was 40 skientific gentlemen. I’ve been on the sewers, flushing and
pumping, ever since. The houses we clean out, all says it’s far the
best plan, ours is. ‘Never no more nightmen,’ they say. You see, sir,
our plan’s far less trouble to the people in the house, and there’s no
smell--least I never found no smell, and it’s cheap, too. In time the
nightmen’ll disappear; in course they must, there’s so many new dodges
comes up, always some one of the working classes is a being ruined. If
it ain’t steam, it’s something else as knocks the bread out of their
mouths quite as quick.”

OF THE PRESENT DISPOSAL OF THE NIGHT-SOIL.

It would appear, according to the previous calculations, that of
the 15,000,000 cubic feet of house-refuse annually deposited in the
cesspools of the metropolis, about 500,000 cubic feet are pumped by the
French process into the sewers; consequently there still remains about
14,500,000 cubic feet, or about 404,000 loads, to be disposed of by
other means. I shall now proceed to explain how the cesspoolage proper,
that is to say, that which is removed by cartage rather than by being
discharged into the sewers, is ultimately got rid of.

Until about twenty months ago, when the new sanitary regulations
concerning the disposal of night-soil came into operation, the cesspool
matter was “shot” in a night-yard, generally also a dust-yard.
These were the yards of the parish contractors, and were situate
in Maiden-lane, Paddington, &c., &c. Any sweeper-nightman, or any
nightman, was permitted by the proprietor of one of these places to
deposit his night-soil there. For this the depositor received no
payment, the privilege of having “a shoot” being accounted sufficient.

There were, till within these six or eight years, I was informed,
60 places where cesspool manure could be shot. These included the
nightmen’s yards and the wharves of manure dealers (some of the small
coasting vessels taking it as ballast); but as regards the cesspool
filth, there are now none of these places of deposit, though some
little, I was told, might be done by stealth.

Of one of these night-yard factories Dr. Gavin gave, in 1848, the
following account:--

“On the western side of Spitalfields workhouse, and entering from a
street called Queen-street, is a nightman’s yard. A heap of dung and
refuse of every description, about the size of a tolerably large house,
lies piled to the left of the yard; to the right is an artificial pond,
into which the contents of cesspools are thrown. The contents are
allowed to desiccate in the open air; and they are frequently stirred
for that purpose. The odour which was given off when the contents were
raked up, to give me an assurance that there was nothing so very bad in
the alleged nuisance, drove me from the place with the utmost speed.

“On two sides of this horrid collection of excremental matter was
a patent manure manufactory. To the right in this yard was a large
accumulation of dung, &c., but to the left there was an extensive layer
of a compost of blood, ashes, and nitric acid, which gave out the most
horrid, offensive, and disgusting concentration of putrescent odours it
has ever been my lot to be the victim of. The whole place presented a
most foul and filthy aspect, and an example of the enormous outrages
which are perpetrated in London against society.

“It is a curious fact, that the parties who had charge of these two
premises were each dead to the foulness of their own most pestilential
nuisances. The nightman’s servant accused the premises of the manure
manufacturer as the source of perpetual foul smells, but thought his
yard free from any particular cause of complaint; while the servant
of the patent manure manufacturer diligently and earnestly asserted
the perfect freedom of his master’s yard from foul exhalations; but
considered that the raking up of the drying night-soil on the other
side of the wall was ‘quite awful, and enough to kill anybody.’

“Immediately adjoining the patent manure manufactory is the
establishment of a bottle merchant. He complained to me in the
strongest terms of the expenses and annoyances he had been put to
through the emanations which floated in the atmosphere having caused
his bottles to spoil the wine which was placed in such as had not been
_very_ recently washed. He was compelled frequently to change his
straw, and frequently to wash his bottles, and considered that unless
the nuisance could be suppressed, he would be compelled to leave his
present premises.”

This and similar places were suppressed soon after the passing of the
sanitary measures of September, 1848.

The cesspool refuse, which was disposed of for manure, was at that time
first shot into recesses in the night-yard, where it was mixed with
exhausted hops procured from the brewhouses, which were said to absorb
the liquid portions, when stirred up with the matter, and to add not
only to the consistency of the mass, but to its readier portability for
land manure or for stowage in a barge. It was also mixed with littered
straw from the mews, and with stable manure generally. An old man who
had worked many years--he did not know how many--in one of these yards,
told me that when this night-soil was “fresh shot and first mixed”
(with the hops, &c.), the stench was often dreadful. “How we stood it,”
he said, “I don’t know; but we did stand it.”

In one of the night-and-dust-yards, I ascertained that as many as 50
loads, half of them waggon-loads, have been shot from the proprietor’s
own carts, and from the carts of the nightmen “using” the yard, in one
morning, but the average “shoot” was about ten loads (half a waggon)
a-day for six days in the week.

Of the mode of manufacture of this manure, a full account has been
given in the details of the cesspool system of Paris, for the process
was the same in London, although on a much smaller scale; and indeed
the manufacture here was chiefly in the hands of Frenchmen.

The manure was, after it had been deposited for periods varying from
one month to five or six, sold to farmers and gardeners at from 4_s._
to 5_s._ the cart-load, although 4_s._, I was informed, might have
been the general average. The cesspool matter, considered _per se_,
was not worth, of late years, I am told, above 2_s._ a ton (or a load,
which is sometimes rather more and sometimes less than a ton). It was
when mixed that the price was 4_s._ to 5_s._ a ton. This cesspool filth
was shot on the premises of the manufacturer gratuitously, as it was in
any of the night-yards. It was not until it had been kept some time,
and had been mixed (generally) with other manures, and sometimes with
road-sweepings, that this manure was used in gardens; for it was said
that if this had not been done, its ammoniacal vapours would have been
absorbed and retained by the leaves of the fruit-trees.

This night-soil manure was devoted to two purposes--to the manufacture
of deodorized and portable manure for exportation (chiefly to our
sugar-growing colonies), and to the fertilization of the land around
London.

When manufactured into manure it was shipped--in new casks generally,
the manure casks of the outward voyage being transformed into the brown
sugar casks of the homeward-bound vessels. I was told by a seaman who
some years ago sailed to the West Indies, that these manure casks in
damp weather gave out an unpleasant odour.

It was only to the home cultivators who resided at no great distance
from a night-yard, from five to six miles or a little more, that this
manure was sold to be carted away; their attendance at the markets
with carts, waggons, and horses, giving them facilities of conveying
the manure at a cheap rate. But upwards of three-fourths of the whole
was sent in barges into the more distant country parts, having a ready
water communication either by the Thames or by canal.

The purchaser nearer home conveyed it away in his own cart, and with
his own horses, which had perhaps come up to town laden with cabbages
to Covent Garden, or hay to Cumberland-market, the cart being made
water-tight for the purpose. The “legal hours” to be observed in the
cleansing of cesspools, and the transport of the contents upon such
cleansing, not being required to be observed in this second transport
of the cesspool manure, it was carted away at any hour, as stable dung
now is.

It is not possible at the present time, when night-yards are no longer
permitted to exist in London, and the manufacture of the night-soil
manure is consequently suppressed, to ascertain the precise quantities
disposed of commercially, in a former state of things.

The money returns to the master-nightman for the manure he now collects
need no figures. The law requires him to refrain from shooting this
soil in his own yard, or in _any_ inhabited part of the metropolis, and
it is shot on the nearest farm to which he has access, merely for the
privilege of shooting it, the farmer paying nothing for the deposit,
with which he does what he pleases. It is mixed with other refuse, I
was told, at present, and kept as compost, or used on the land, but the
change is too recent for the establishment of any systematic traffic in
the article.

OF THE WORKING NIGHTMEN AND THE MODE OF WORK.

Nightwork, by the provisions of the Police Act, is not to be commenced
before twelve at night, nor continued beyond five in the morning,
winter and summer alike. This regulation is known among the nightmen
as the “legal hours,” and tends, in a measure, to account for the
heterogeneous class of labourers who still seek nightwork; for
strong men think little of devoting a part of the night, as well
as the working hours of the day, to toil. A rubbish-carter, a very
powerfully-built man, told me he was partial to nightwork, and always
looked out for it, even when in daily employ, as “it was sometimes like
found money.” The scavengers, sweeps, dustmen, and labourers known as
ground-workers, are anxious to obtain night-work when out of regular
employment; and, ten years and more since, it was often an available
and remunerative resource.

Night-work is, then, essentially, and perhaps necessarily,
extra-work, rather than a distinct calling followed by a separate
class of workers. The generality of nightmen are scavengers, or
dustmen, or chimney-sweepers, or rubbish-carters, or pipe-layers,
or ground-workers, or coal-porters, carmen or stablemen, or men
working for the market-gardeners round London--all either in or out
of employment. Perhaps there is not at the present time in the whole
metropolis a working nightman who is _solely_ a working nightman.

It is almost the same with the master-nightmen. They are generally
master-chimney-sweepers, scavengers, rubbish-carters, and builders.
Some of the contractors for the public street scavengery, and the
house-dust-bin emptying, are (or have been) among the largest employers
of nightmen, but only in their individual trading capacity, for
they have no contracts with the parishes concerning the emptying
of cesspools; indeed the parish or district corporations have
nothing to do with the matter. I have already shown, that among the
best-patronised master-nightmen are now the Commissioners of the Court
of Sewers.

For how long a period the master and working chimney-sweepers and
scavengers have been the master and labouring nightmen I am unable to
discover, but it may be reasonable to assume that this connexion, as a
matter of trade, existed in the metropolis at the commencement of the
eighteenth century.

The police of Paris, as I have shown, have full control over cesspool
cleansing, but the police of London are instructed merely to prevent
night-work being carried on at a later or earlier period than “the
legal hours;” still a few minutes either way are not regarded, and the
legal hours, I am told, are almost always adhered to.

Nightwork is carried on--and has been so carried on, within the memory
of the oldest men in the trade, who had never heard their predecessors
speak of any other system--after this method:--A gang of four men
(exclusive of those who have the care of the horses, and who drive
the night-carts to and from the scenes of the men’s labours at the
cesspools) are set to work. The labour of the gang is divided, though
not with any individual or especial strictness, as follows:--

1. The _holeman_, who goes into the cesspool and fills the tub.

2. The _ropeman_, who raises the tub when filled.

3. The _tubmen_ (of whom there are two), who carry away the tub when
raised, and empty it into the cart.

The mode of work may be thus briefly described:--Within a foot, or
even less sometimes, though often as much as three feet, below the
surface of the ground (when the cesspool is away from the house) is
what is called the “main hole.” This is the opening of the cesspool,
and is covered with flag stones, removable, wholly or partially, by
means of the pickaxe. If the cesspool be immediately under the privy,
the flooring, &c., is displaced. Should the soil be near enough to the
surface, the tub is dipped into it, drawn out, the filth scraped from
its exterior with a shovel, or swept off with a besom, or washed off
by water flung against it with sufficient force. This done, the tubmen
insert the pole through the handles of the tub, and bear it on their
shoulders to the cart. The mode of carriage and the form of the tub
have been already shown in an illustration, which I was assured by a
nightman who had seen it in a shopwindow (for he could not read), was
“as nat’ral as life, tub and all.”

Thus far, the ropeman and the holeman generally aid in filling the tub,
but as the soil becomes lower, the vessel is let down and drawn up full
by the ropeman. When the soil becomes lower still, a ladder is usually
planted inside the cesspool; the “holeman,” who is generally the
strongest person in the gang, descends, shovels the tub full, having
stirred up the refuse to loosen it, and the contents, being drawn up by
the ropeman, are carried away as before described.

The labour is sometimes severe. The tub when filled, though it is never
quite filled, weighs rarely less than eight stone, and sometimes more;
“but that, you see, sir,” a nightman said to me, “depends on the nature
of the sile.”

Beer, and bread and cheese, are given to the nightmen, and frequently
gin, while at their work; but as the bestowal of the spirit is
voluntary, some householders from motives of economy, or from being
real or pretended members or admirers of the total-abstinence
principles, refuse to give any strong liquor, and in that case--if
such a determination to withhold the drink be known beforehand--the
employers sometimes supply the men with a glass or two; and the men,
when “nothing better can be done,” club their own money, and send to
some night-house, often at a distance, to purchase a small quantity
on their own account. One master-nightman said, he thought his men
worked best, indeed he was sure of it, “with a drop to keep them up;”
another thought it did them neither good nor harm, “in a moderate way
of taking it.” Both these informants were themselves temperate men,
one rarely tasting spirits. It is commonly enough said, that if the
nightmen have no “allowance,” they will work neither as quickly nor
as carefully as if accorded the customary gin “perquisite.” One man,
certainly a very strong active person, whose services where quickness
in the work was indispensable might be valuable (and he had work as a
rubbish-carter also), told me that he for one would not work for any
man at nightwork if there was not a fair allowance of drink, “to keep
up his strength,” and he knew others of the same mind. On my asking
him what he considered a “fair” allowance, he told me that at least a
bottle of gin among the gang of four was “looked for, and mostly had,
over a gentleman’s cesspool. And little enough, too,” the man said,
“among four of us; what it holds if it’s public-house gin is uncertain:
for you must know, sir, that some bottles has great ‘kicks’ at their
bottoms. But I should say that there’s been a bottle of gin drunk at
the clearing of every two, ay, and more than every two, out of three
cesspools emptied in London; and now that I come to think on it, I
should say that’s been the case with three out of every four.”

Some master-nightmen, and more especially the sweeper-nightmen, work
at the cesspools themselves, although many of them are men “well to
do in the world.” One master I met with, who had the reputation of
being “warm,” spoke of his own manual labour in shovelling filth in
the same self-complacent tone that we may imagine might be used by a
grocer, worth his “plum,” who quietly intimates that he will serve a
washerwoman with her half ounce of tea, and weigh it for her himself,
as politely as he would serve a duchess; for _he_ wasn’t above his
business: neither was the nightman.

On one occasion I went to see a gang of nightmen at work. Large horn
lanterns (for the night was dark, though at intervals the stars shone
brilliantly) were placed at the edges of the cesspool. Two poles also
were temporarily fixed in the ground, to which lanterns were hung, but
this is not always the case. The work went rapidly on, with little
noise and no confusion.

The scene was peculiar enough. The artificial light, shining into the
dark filthy-looking cavern or cesspool, threw the adjacent houses into
a deep shade. All around was perfectly still, and there was not an
incident to interrupt the labour, except that at one time the window of
a neighbouring house was thrown up, a night-capped head was protruded,
and then down was banged the sash with an impatient curse. It appeared
as if a gentleman’s slumbers had been disturbed, though the nightmen
laughed and declared it was a lady’s voice! The smell, although the air
was frosty, was for some little time, perhaps ten minutes, literally
sickening; after that period the chief sensation experienced was a
slight headache; the unpleasantness of the odour still continuing,
though without any sickening effect. The nightmen, however, pronounced
the stench “nothing at all;” and one even declared it was refreshing!

The cesspool in this case was so situated that the cart or rather
waggon could be placed about three yards from its edge; sometimes,
however, the soil has to be carried through a garden and through the
house, to the excessive annoyance of the inmates. The nightmen whom I
saw evidently enjoyed a bottle of gin, which had been provided for them
by the master of the house, as well as some bread and cheese, and two
pots of beer. When the waggon was full, two horses were brought from a
stable on the premises (an arrangement which can only be occasionally
carried out) and yoked to the vehicle, which was at once driven away; a
smaller cart and one horse being used to carry off the residue.

TABLE SHOWING THE NUMBER OF MASTER-SWEEPS, DUST, AND OTHER CONTRACTORS,
AND MASTER-BRICKLAYERS, THROUGHOUT THE METROPOLIS, ENGAGED IN
NIGHT-WORK, AS WELL AS THE NUMBER OF CESSPOOLS EMPTIED, AND QUANTITY OF
SOIL COLLECTED YEARLY. ALSO THE PRICE PAID TO EACH OPERATIVE PER LOAD,
OR PER NIGHT, AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT ANNUALLY PAID TO THE MASTER-NIGHTMEN.

  --------------+------------------------------------------------------------
                |Number of Cesspools
                |emptied during the year.
                |    |
                |    |Quantity of Night-soil
                |    |collected annually.
                |    |      |
                |    |      |Number of operative
                |    |      |Nightmen employed to
                |    |      |empty each Cesspool.
                |    |      |    |
                |    |      |    |Total number of times
                |    |      |    |the working Nightmen are
                |    |      |    |employed during the year.
                |    |      |    |      |
      SWEEPS    |    |      |    |      |Sum paid to each operative
     EMPLOYED   |    |      |    |      |Nightman engaged in removing
        AS      |    |      |    |      |soil from Cesspools.
     NIGHTMEN   |    |      |    |      |      |
                |    |      |    |      |      |Total Amount
                |    |      |    |      |      |paid to the operative
                |    |      |    |      |      |Nightmen during
                |    |      |    |      |      |the year.
                |    |      |    |      |      |              |
                |    |      |    |      |      |              |Total Amount
                |    |      |    |      |      |              |paid to
                |    |      |    |      |      |              |Master-Nightmen
                |    |      |    |      |      |              |during the year
                |    |      |    |      |      |              |for emptying
                |    |      |    |      |      |              |Cesspools, at
                |    |      |    |      |      |              |10_s._ per load.
  --------------+----+------+----+------+------+--------------+----------------
                |    |Loads.|    |      |Pence.|  £ _s._ _d._ |    £.
  KENSINGTON.   |    |      |    |      |      |              |
     Hurd       |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |   24
     Francis    |  12|   72 |  4 |    48|  6   |  1  16   0   |   36
     Russell    |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |   24
     Hough      |  20|  120 |  4 |    80|  7   |  3  10   0   |   60
  CHELSEA.      |    |      |    |      |      |              |
     Burns      |  12|   72 |  3 |    36|  6   |  1  16   0   |   36
     Clements   |  10|   60 |  3 |    30|  6   |  1  10   0   |   30
     Groves     |  18|  108 |  3 |    54|  6   |  2  14   0   |   54
     Clayton    |  20|  120 |  3 |    60|  6   |  3   0   0   |   60
     Sheppard   |  14|   84 |  4 |    56|  6   |  2   2   0   |   32
     Nie        |  16|   96 |  3 |    48|  6   |  2   8   0   |   48
     Haddox     |  20|  120 |  3 |    60|  6   |  3   0   0   |   60
     Albrook    |  30|  180 |  4 |   120|  7   |  5   5   0   |   90
  WESTMINSTER.  |    |      |    |      |      |              |
     Peacock    |  60|  360 |  4 |   240|  7   | 10  10   0   |  180
     Reiley     |  40|  240 |  4 |   160|  7   |  6  13   4   |  120
     White      |  20|  120 |  3 |    60|  6   |  3   0   0   |   60
     Ramsbottom |  12|   72 |  3 |    36|  6   |  1  16   0   |   36
     Ness       |  12|   72 |  3 |    36|  6   |  1  16   0   |   36
     Porter     |  10|   60 |  3 |    30|  6   |  1  10   4   |   30
     Edwards    |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |   24
     Andrews    |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |   24
     Foreman    |  10|   60 |  3 |    30|  6   |  1  10   4   |   30
  ST. MARTIN’S. |    |      |    |      |      |              |
     Wakefield  |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |   24
     Whateley   |   6|   36 |  3 |    18|  6   |  0  18   0   |   18
     Templeton  |  10|   60 |  3 |    30|  6   |  1  10   0   |   30
     Pearce     |  10|   60 |  3 |    30|  6   |  1  10   0   |   30
  MARYLEBONE.   |    |      |    |      |      |              |
     Effery     |   2|   72 |  3 |    36|  6   |  1  16   0   |   36
     Brigham    |  10|   60 |  3 |    30|  6   |  1  10   0   |   30
     Ballard    |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |   24
     Pottle     |  25|  150 |  4 |   100|  7   |  3  15   0   |   75
     Shadwick   |  20|  120 |  3 |    60|  6   |  3   0   0   |   60
     Wilson     |  20|  120 |  3 |    60|  6   |  3   0   0   |   60
     Lewis      |  10|   60 |  3 |    30|  6   |  1  10   0   |   30
     Cuss       |  30|  180 |  4 |   120|  7   |  4  10   0   |   90
     Wood       |  20|  120 |  3 |    60|  6   |  3   0   0   |   60
  PADDINGTON.   |    |      |    |      |      |              |
     Prichard   |  20|  120 |  3 |    60|  6   |  3   0   0   |   60
     Randall    |  25|  150 |  3 |    75|  6   |  3  15   0   |   75
     Brown      |  10|   60 |  3 |    30|  6   |  1  10   0   |   30
     Lamb       |  20|  120 |  3 |    60|  6   |  3   0   0   |   60
     Bolton     |  10|   60 |  3 |    30|  6   |  1  10   0   |   30
     Davis      |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |   24
     Rickwood   |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |    4
     Elkins     |   6|   36 |  3 |    18|  6   |  0  18   0   |   18
  HAMPSTEAD.    |    |      |    |      |      |              |
     Kippin     |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |   24
     Bowden     |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |   24
  ISLINGTON.    |    |      |    |      |      |              |
     Hughes     |  25|  150 |  3 |    75|  6   |  3  15   0   |   75
     Boven      |  20|  120 |  3 |    60|  6   |  3   0   0   |   60
     Chilcott   |  25|  150 |  3 |    75|  6   |  3  15   0   |   75
     Baker      |  12|   72 |  3 |    36|  6   |  1  16   0   |   36
     Burrows    |  20|  120 |  3 |    60|  6   |  3   0   0   |   60
  ST. PANCRAS.  |    |      |    |      |      |              |
     Justo      |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |   24
     Neill      |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |   24
     Robinson   |  12|   72 |  3 |    36|  6   |  1  16   0   |   36
     Marriage   |  20|  120 |  3 |    60|  6   |  3   0   0   |   60
     Rose       |  12|   72 |  3 |    36|  6   |  1  16   0   |   36
     Hall       |  20|  120 |  3 |    60|  6   |  3   0   0   |   60
     Jenkins    |  12|   72 |  3 |    36|  6   |  1  16   0   |   36
     Steel      |   4|   24 |  3 |    12|  6   |  0  12   0   |   12
     Lake       |  60|  360 |  4 |   240|  7   | 10  10   0   |  180
     Hewlett    |  10|   60 |  3 |    30|  6   |  1  10   0   |   30
     Snell      |  10|   60 |  3 |    30|  6   |  1  10   0   |   30
     McDonald   |  30|  180 |  4 |   120|  7   |  5   5   0   |   90
  HACKNEY.      |    |      |    |      |      |              |
     Mason      |  20|  120 |  3 |    60|  6   |  3   0   0   |   60
     Clark      |  12|   72 |  3 |    36|  6   |  1  16   0   |   36
     Starkey    |  25|  150 |  4 |   100|  6   |  3  15   0   |   75
     Attewell   |  20|  120 |  4 |    80|  7   |  3  10   0   |   60
     Brown      |  12|   72 |  3 |    36|  6   |  1  16   0   |   36
  ST. GILES     |    |      |    |      |      |              |
   AND ST.      |    |      |    |      |      |              |
   GEORGE’S,    |    |      |    |      |      |              |
   BLOOMSBURY.  |    |      |    |      |      |              |
     Store      |  20|  120 |  3 |    60|  6   |  3   0   0   |   60
     Richards   |  20|  120 |  3 |    60|  6   |  3   0   0   |   60
     Norris     |  12|   72 |  3 |    36|  6   |  3  16   0   |   36
     Eldridge   |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |   24
     Davis      |  10|   60 |  3 |    30|  6   |  1  10   0   |   30
     Francis    |  10|   60 |  3 |    30|  6   |  1  10   0   |   30
     Tiney      |  12|   72 |  3 |    36|  6   |  1  16   0   |   36
     Johnson    |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |   24
     Tinsey     |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |   24
     Randall    |   4|   24 |  3 |    12|  6   |  0  12   0   |   12
     Day        |  60|  360 |  4 |   240|  7   | 10  10   0   |  180
  STRAND.       |    |      |    |      |      |              |
     Catlin     |  10|   60 |  3 |    30|  6   |  1  10   0   |   30
     Richards   |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |   24
     Hutchins   |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |   24
     Barker     |   4|   24 |  3 |    12|  6   |  0  12   0   |   12
  HOLBORN.      |    |      |    |      |      |              |
     Duck       |  30|  180 |  4 |   120|  7   |  5   5   0   |   90
     Eagle      |  20|  120 |  4 |    80|  7   |  3  10   0   |   60
     Froome     |  12|   72 |  3 |    36|  6   |  1  16   0   |   36
     Smith      |  12|   72 |  3 |    36|  6   |  1  16   0   |   36
  CLERKENWELL.  |    |      |    |      |      |              |
     Davis      |  30|  180 |  3 |    90|  6   |  4  10   0   |   90
     Brown      |  20|  120 |  4 |    80|  7   |  3  10   0   |   60
     Day        |  12|   72 |  3 |    36|  6   |  1  16   0   |   36
     Hawkins    |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |   24
     Grant      |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |   24
  ST. LUKE’S.   |    |      |    |      |      |              |
     Brown      |  20|  120 |  4 |    80|  7   |  3   0   0   |   60
     Mawley     |  20|  120 |  4 |    80|  7   |  3   0   0   |   60
     Stevens    |  12|   72 |  3 |    36|  6   |  1  16   0   |   36
     Badger     |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |   24
     Lewis      |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |   24
  EAST LONDON.  |    |      |    |      |      |              |
     Crozier    |  30|  180 |  4 |   120|  7   |  5   5   0   |   90
     James      |  20|  120 |  4 |    80|  7   |  3  10   0   |   60
     Dawson     |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |   24
     Newell     |  20|  120 |  4 |    80|  7   |  3  10   0   |   60
     Lumley     |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |   24
     Harvey     |   6|   36 |  3 |    18|  6   |  0  18   0   |   18
  WEST LONDON.  |    |      |    |      |      |              |
     Rayment    |  20|  120 |  4 |    80|  6   |  3   0   0   |   60
     Clarke     |  20|  120 |  4 |    80|  7   |  3   0   0   |   60
     Watson     |  12|   72 |  3 |    36|  6   |  1  16   0   |   36
     Desater    |  12|   72 |  3 |    36|  6   |  1  16   0   |   36
  LONDON, CITY. |    |      |    |      |      |              |
     Tyler and  |    |      |    |      |      |              |
       Tyso     |  30|  180 |  4 |   120|  7   |  5   5   0   |   90
     Burgess    |  20|  120 |  4 |    80|  7   |  3  10   0   |   60
     Wilson     |  20|  120 |  4 |    80|  7   |  3  10   0   |   60
     Potter     |  10|   60 |  3 |    30|  6   |  1  10   0   |   30
     Wright     |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |   24
  SHOREDITCH.   |    |      |    |      |      |              |
     Wells      |  20|  120 |  4 |    80|  6   |  3   0   0   |   60
     Whittle    |  20|  120 |  4 |    80|  6   |  3   0   0   |   60
     Collins    |  15|   90 |  3 |    45|  6   |  2   5   0   |   45
     Crew       |  12|   72 |  3 |    36|  6   |  1  16   0   |   36
     Atwood     |  12|   72 |  3 |    36|  6   |  1  16   0   |   36
     Conroy     |  10|   60 |  3 |    30|  6   |  1  10   0   |   30
     Pusey      |   6|   36 |  3 |    18|  6   |  0  18   0   |   18
     Pedrick    |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |   24
  BETHNAL GREEN.|    |      |    |      |      |              |
     Crosby     |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |   24
     Mull       |  12|   72 |  3 |    36|  6   |  1  16   0   |   36
     Darby      |  20|  120 |  4 |    80|  6   |  3   0   0   |   60
     Hall       |  20|  120 |  4 |    80|  6   |  3   0   0   |   60
     Collins    |  12|   72 |  3 |    36|  6   |  1  16   0   |   36
  WHITECHAPEL.  |    |      |    |      |      |              |
     Brazier    |  10|   60 |  3 |    30|  6   |  1  10   0   |   30
     Harrison   |  20|  120 |  3 |    60|  6   |  3   0   0   |   60
     Harris     |  16|   96 |  3 |    48|  6   |  2   8   0   |   48
     Mantz      |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |   24
     Whitehead  |  20|  120 |  4 |    80|  6   |  3   0   0   |   60
  ST. GEORGE-IN-|    |      |    |      |      |              |
   THE-EAST.    |    |      |    |      |      |              |
     Rawton     |  20|  120 |  4 |    80|  6   |  3   0   0   |   60
     Wrotham    |  20|  120 |  4 |    80|  6   |  3   0   0   |   60
     Harewood   |  20|  120 |  3 |    60|  6   |  3   0   0   |   60
     Rawthorn   |  25|  150 |  4 |   100|  6   |  3  15   0   |   75
     Darling    |  20|  120 |  4 |    80|  6   |  3   0   0   |   60
     Jones      |  15|   90 |  3 |    45|  6   |  2   5   0   |   45
     Johnson    |  12|   72 |  3 |    36|  6   |  1  16   0   |   36
     Simpson    |  15|   90 |  3 |    45|  6   |  2   5   0   |   45
  BERMONDSEY.   |    |      |    |      |      |              |
     Wilkinson  |  12|   72 |  3 |    36|  6   |  1  16   0   |   36
     Goring     |  10|   60 |  3 |    30|  6   |  1  10   0   |   36
     Lively     |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  2   4   0   |   30
     Stone      |   9|   54 |  3 |    27|  6   |  1   7   0   |   24
     Ward       |   6|   36 |  3 |    18|  6   |  0  18   0   |   24
  WALWORTH AND  |    |      |    |      |      |              |
   NEWINGTON.   |    |      |    |      |      |              |
     Kingsbury  |   6|   36 |  3 |    18|  6   |  0  18   0   |   27
     Goodge     |   4|   24 |  3 |    12|  6   |  0  12   0   |   18
     Wells      |  15|   90 |  3 |    45|  6   |  2   5   0   |   18
     Wilks      |  12|   72 |  3 |    36|  6   |  1  16   0   |   12
     James      |  10|   60 |  3 |    30|  6   |  1  10   0   |   45
     Morgan     |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |   36
     Croney     |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |   30
     Holmes     |   8|   48 |  3 |     4|  6   |  1   4   0   |   24
  STEPNEY.      |    |      |    |      |      |              |
     Newell     |  10|   60 |  3 |    30|  6   |  1  10   0   |   30
     Fleming    |  20|  120 |  3 |    60|  6   |  3   0   0   |   60
     Tuff       |  20|  120 |  3 |    60|  6   |  3   0   0   |   60
     Hillings-  |    |      |    |      |      |              |
       worth    |  12|   72 |  3 |    36|  6   |  1  16   0   |   36
     Smith      |  10|   60 |  3 |    30|  6   |  1  10   0   |   30
     Field      |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |   24
  POPLAR.       |    |      |    |      |      |              |
     Weaver     |  18|  108 |  3 |    54|  6   |  2  14   0   |   54
     Strawson   |  12|   72 |  3 |    36|  6   |  1  16   0   |   36
     Culloder   |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |   24
     Ward       |  10|   60 |  3 |    30|  6   |  1  10   0   |   30
  ST. OLAVE’S,  |    |      |    |      |      |              |
    ST.         |    |      |    |      |      |              |
    SAVIOUR’S,  |    |      |    |      |      |              |
    AND ST.     |    |      |    |      |      |              |
    GEORGE’S,   |    |      |    |      |      |              |
    SOUTHWARK.  |    |      |    |      |      |              |
     Vines      |  12|   72 |  3 |    36|  6   |  1  16   0   |   36
     Humfry     |  15|   90 |  3 |    45|  6   |  2   5   0   |   45
     Young      |  10|   60 |  3 |    30|  6   |  1  10   0   |   30
     James      |  12|   72 |  3 |    36|  6   |  1  16   0   |   36
     Penn       |  10|   60 |  3 |    30|  6   |  1  10   0   |   30
     Holliday   |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |   24
     Muggeridge |  15|   90 |  3 |    45|  6   |  2   5   0   |   45
     Alcorn     |  12|   72 |  3 |    36|  6   |  1  16   0   |   36
     Fisher     |  12|   72 |  3 |    26|  6   |  1  16   0   |   36
     Goode      |  10|   60 |  3 |    30|  6   |  1  10   0   |   30
     Smith      |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |   24
     Roberts    |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |   24
     Pilkington |   9|   54 |  3 |    27|  6   |  1   7   0   |   27
     Lindsey    |   6|   36 |  3 |    18|  6   |  0  18   0   |   18
     Daycock    |   6|   36 |  3 |    18|  6   |  0  18   0   |   18
     Moulton    |   4|   24 |  3 |    12|  6   |  0  12   0   |   12
  LAMBETH.      |    |      |    |      |      |              |
     Roberts    |  25|  150 |  4 |   100|  7   |  4   7   6   |   75
     Holland    |  12|   72 |  3 |    36|  6   |  1  16   0   |   36
     Ballard    |  12|   72 |  3 |    36|  6   |  1  16   0   |   36
     Brown      |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |   24
     Mills      |  10|   60 |  3 |    30|  6   |  1  10   0   |   30
     Giles      |   6|   36 |  3 |    18|  6   |  0  18   0   |   18
     Spooner    |   6|   36 |  3 |    18|  6   |  0  18   0   |   18
     Green      |   4|   24 |  3 |    12|  6   |  0  12   0   |   12
     Barnham    |   4|   24 |  3 |    12|  6   |  0  12   0   |   12
     Price      |   4|   24 |  3 |    12|  6   |  0  12   0   |   12
  CHRISTCHURCH, |    |      |    |      |      |              |
    LAMBETH.    |    |      |    |      |      |              |
     Plummer    |  18|  108 |  3 |    54|  6   |  2  14   0   |   54
     Steers     |  12|   72 |  3 |    36|  6   |  1  16   0   |   36
     Clare      |  10|   60 |  3 |    30|  6   |  1  10   0   |   30
     Garlick    |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |   24
     Hudson     |   6|   36 |  3 |    18|  6   |  0  18   0   |   18
     Jones      |   4|   24 |  3 |    12|  6   |  0  12   0   |   12
  WANDSWORTH &  |    |      |    |      |      |              |
    BATTERSEA.  |    |      |    |      |      |              |
     Foreman    |  15|   90 |  3 |    45|  6   |  2   5   0   |   45
     Smith      |  10|   60 |  3 |    30|  6   |  1  10   0   |   30
     Giles      |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |   24
     Davis      |   6|   36 |  3 |    18|  6   |  0  18   0   |   18
     Flushman   |   4|   24 |  3 |    12|  6   |  0  12   0   |   12
  ROTHERHITHE.  |    |      |    |      |      |              |
     Shelley    |   6|   36 |  3 |    18|  6   |  0  18   0   |   18
     Richardson |  20|  120 |  4 |    80|  6   |  3   0   0   |   60
     Norris     |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |   24
     Smith      |  12|   72 |  3 |    36|  6   |  1  16   0   |   36
     Dyer       |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |   24
  GREENWICH &   |    |      |    |      |      |              |
    DEPTFORD.   |    |      |    |      |      |              |
     Manning    |  30|  180 |  4 |   120|  6   |  4  10   0   |   90
     Vines      |  20|  120 |  4 |    80|  6   |  3   0   0   |   60
     Roseworthy |  20|  120 |  4 |    80|  6   |  3   0   0   |   60
     Tyler      |  12|   72 |  3 |    36|  6   |  1  16   0   |   36
     Munshin    |  12|   72 |  3 |    36|  6   |  1  16   0   |   36
  WOOLWICH.     |    |      |    |      |      |              |
     Pearce     |  30|  180 |  4 |   120|  6   |  4  10   0   |   90
     Fiddeman   |  12|   72 |  3 |    36|  6   |  1  16   0   |   36
     Sims       |  12|   72 |  3 |    36|  6   |  1  16   0   |   36
     Smithers   |  12|   72 |  3 |    36|  6   |  1  16   0   |   36
     Rooke      |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |   24
     James      |   8|   48 |  3 |    24|  6   |  1   4   0   |   24
  LEWISHAM.     |    |      |    |      |      |              |
     Ridgeway   |  20|  120 |  4 |    80|  6   |  3   0   0   |   60
     Binney     |  10|   60 |  3 |    30|  6   |  1  10   0   |   30
                +----+------+----+------+------+------------- +-----
  Total for     |2992| 14960|3&4 |10,062|6&7d. |455  15   0   |£7480
  Sweep-nightmen

DUST AND OTHER CONTRACTORS ENGAGED AS NIGHTMEN.

  --------------+------+-------+----+-------+------+----------+----------
                |      | Loads.|    |       |Pence.| £ _s. d._|   £  _s._
  Darke         |    50|   300 |  4 |   200 |  8   |10     0 0|    157 10
  Cooper        |   300|  1800 |  4 |  1200 |  8   |60     0 0|    945  0
  Dodd          |   300|  1800 |  4 |  1200 |  8   |60     0 0|    945  0
  Starkey       |   250|  1500 |  4 |  1000 |  8   |50     0 0|    787 10
  Williams      |   200|  1200 |  4 |   800 |  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Boyer         |   150|   900 |  4 |   600 |  8   |30     0 0|    472 10
  Gore          |   200|  1200 |  4 |   800 |  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Limpus        |   200|  1200 |  4 |   800 |  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Emmerson      |   150|   900 |  4 |   600 |  8   |30     0 0|    472 10
  Duggins       |   360|  2160 |  4 |  1440 |  8   |72     0 0|   1134  0
  Bugbee        |   250|  1500 |  4 |  1000 |  8   |50     0 0|    787 10
  Gould         |   200|  1200 |  4 |   800 |  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Reddin        |   200|  1200 |  4 |   800 |  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Newman        |   200|  1200 |  4 |   800 |  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Tame          |   300|  1800 |  4 |  1200 |  8   |60     0 0|    945  0
  Sinnot        |   200|  1200 |  4 |   800 |  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Tomkins       |   200|  1200 |  4 |   800 |  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Cordroy       |   150|   900 |  4 |   600 |  8   |30     0 0|    472 10
  Samuels       |   150|   900 |  4 |   600 |  8   |30     0 0|    472 10
  Robinson      |   100|   600 |  4 |   400 |  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Bird          |   100|   600 |  4 |   400 |  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Clarke        |   100|   600 |  4 |   400 |  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Brown         |   100|   600 |  4 |   400 |  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Bonner        |   150|   900 |  4 |   600 |  8   |30     0 0|    472 10
  Guess         |   100|   600 |  4 |   400 |  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Jeffries      |   200|  1200 |  4 |   800 |  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Ryan          |    60|   360 |  4 |   240 |  8   |12     0 0|    189  0
  Hewitt        |   100|   600 |  4 |   400 |  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Leimming      |    50|   300 |  4 |   200 |  8   |10     0 0|    157 10
  Ellis         |   100|   600 |  4 |   400 |  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Monk          |   150|   900 |  4 |   600 |  8   |30     0 0|    472 10
  Phillips      |   250|  1000 |  4 |  1000 |  8   |33     6 8|    525  0
  Porter        |   200|  1200 |  4 |   800 |  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Dubbins       |   150|   900 |  4 |   600 |  8   |30     0 0|    472 10
  Taylor        |   100|   600 |  4 |   400 |  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Nicholls      |   250|  1000 |  4 |  1000 |  8   |33     6 8|    525  0
  Freeman       |   100|   600 |  4 |   400 |  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Pattison      |   200|  1200 |  4 |   800 |  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Rawlins       |   150|   900 |  4 |   600 |  8   |30     0 0|    472 10
  Watkins       |   200|  1200 |  4 |   800 |  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Liddiard      |   100|   600 |  4 |   400 |  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Farmer        |   250|  1500 |  4 |  1000 |  8   |50     0 0|    787 10
  Francis       |   150|   900 |  4 |   600 |  8   |30     0 0|    472 10
  Chadwick      |   200|  1200 |  4 |   800 |  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Perkins       |    80|   480 |  4 |   320 |  8   |16     0 0|    252  0
  Culverwell    |   100|   600 |  4 |   400 |  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Rutty         |   150|   900 |  4 |   600 |  8   |30     0 0|    472 10
  Crook         |   100|   600 |  4 |   400 |  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  M’Carthy      |    50|   300 |  4 |   200 |  8   |10     0 0|    157 10
  Bateman       |   100|   600 |  4 |   400 |  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Boothe        |   250|  1500 |  4 |  1000 |  8   |50     0 0|    787 10
  Wood          |   100|   600 |  4 |   400 |  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Calvert       |   150|   900 |  4 |   600 |  8   |30     0 0|    472 10
  Tilley        |   200|  1200 |  4 |   800 |  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Abbott        |   100|   600 |  4 |   400 |  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Potter        |   250|  1500 |  4 |  1000 |  8   |50     0 0|    787 10
  Church        |   100|   600 |  4 |   400 |  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Humphries     |   200|  1200 |  4 |   800 |  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Jackson       |   100|   600 |  4 |   400 |  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Batterbury    |    50|   300 |  4 |   200 |  8   |10     0 0|    157 10
  Smith         |    50|   300 |  4 |   200 |  8   |10     0 0|    157 10
  Perkins       |   200|  1200 |  4 |   800 |  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Rose          |    50|   300 |  4 |   200 |  8   |10     0 0|    157 10
  Croot         |   150|   900 |  4 |   600 |  8   |30     0 0|    472 10
  Speller       |    50|   300 |  4 |   200 |  8   |10     0 0|    157 10
  Piper         |    50|   300 |  4 |   200 |  8   |10     0 0|    157 10
  North         |   100|   600 |  4 |   400 |  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Crooker       |   150|   900 |  4 |   600 |  8   |30     0 0|    472 10
  Tingey        |   100|   600 |  4 |   400 |  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Jones         |   200|  1200 |  4 |   800 |  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Whitten       |   300|  1800 |  4 |  1200 |  8   |60     0 0|    945  0
  Webbon        |   150|   900 |  4 |   600 |  8   |30     0 0|    472 10
  Ryder         |   100|   600 |  4 |   400 |  8   |30     0 0|    315  0
  Wright        |   150|   900 |  4 |   600 |  8   |30     0 0|    472 10
  Duckett       |   300|  1800 |  4 |  1200 |  8   |60     0 0|    945  0
  Elworthy      |   200|  1200 |  4 |   800 |  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Slee          |   200|  1200 |  4 |   800 |  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Adams         |   150|   900 |  4 |   600 |  8   |30     0 0|    472 10
  Gutteris      |    50|   300 |  4 |   200 |  8   |10     0 0|    157 10
  Martainbody   |   200|  1200 |  4 |   800 |  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Nicholson     |   100|   600 |  4 |   400 |  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Mears         |   100|   600 |  4 |   400 |  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Parsons       |   150|   900 |  4 |   600 |  8   |30     0 0|    472 10
  Kenning       |   200|  1200 |  4 |   800 |  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Hooke         |   250|  1500 |  4 |  1000 |  8   |50     0 0|    787 10
  Michell       |   100|   600 |  4 |   400 |  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Walton        |   200|  1200 |  4 |   800 |  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Evans         |    50|   300 |  4 |   200 |  8   |10     0 0|    157 10
  Walker        |    90|   540 |  4 |   360 |  8   |18     0 0|    283 10
  Hobman        |   200|  1200 |  4 |   800 |  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Stevens       |   250|  1500 |  4 |  1000 |  8   |50     0 0|    787 10
  Jeffry        |   150|   900 |  4 |   600 |  8   |30     0 0|    472 10
  Hiscock       |   200|  1200 |  4 |   800 |  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Allen         |   100|   600 |  4 |   400 |  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Connall       |   100|   600 |  4 |   400 |  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Waller        |    50|   300 |  4 |   200 |  8   |10     0 0|    157 10
  Mullard       |    50|   300 |  4 |   200 |  8   |10     0 0|    157 10
  Miller        |   100|   600 |  4 |   400 |  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Barnes        |   150|   900 |  4 |   600 |  8   |30     0 0|    472 10
  Sharpe        |   100|   600 |  4 |   400 |  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Graham        |   150|   900 |  4 |   600 |  8   |30     0 0|    472 10
  Wellard       |   100|   600 |  4 |   400 |  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Hollis        |    50|   300 |  4 |   200 |  8   |10     0 0|    157 10
  Fletcher      |   150|   900 |  4 |   600 |  8   |30     0 0|    472 10
  Hearne        |   100|   600 |  4 |   400 |  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Stapleton     |    50|   300 |  4 |   200 |  8   |10     0 0|    157 10
  Martin        |   200|  1200 |  4 |   800 |  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Prett and     |      |       |    |       |      |          |
    Sewell      |   300|  1800 |  4 |   1200|  8   |60     0 0|    945  0
  Jenkins       |   200|  1200 |  4 |    800|  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Westley       |   150|   900 |  4 |    600|  8   |30     0 0|    472 10
  Bird          |   100|   600 |  4 |    400|  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Gale          |   200|  1200 |  4 |    800|  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Porter        |   100|   600 |  4 |    400|  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Wells         |   200|  1200 |  4 |    800|  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Hall          |   250|  1500 |  4 |   1000|  8   |50     0 0|    787 10
  Kitchener     |   150|   900 |  4 |    600|  8   |30     0 0|    472 10
  Wickham       |   100|   600 |  4 |    400|  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Walker        |   200|  1200 |  4 |    800|  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Bindy         |   100|   600 |  4 |    400|  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Styles        |   250|  1500 |  4 |   1000|  8   |50     0 0|    787 10
  Kirtland      |   100|   600 |  4 |    400|  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Kingston      |   100|   600 |  4 |    400|  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Eldred        |   150|   900 |  4 |    600|  8   |30     0 0|    472 10
  Rumball       |   250|  1500 |  4 |   1000|  8   |50     0 0|    787 10
  Mildwater     |    60|   360 |  4 |    240|  8   |12     0 0|    189  0
  Lovell        |   100|   600 |  4 |    400|  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Clarkson      |   150|   900 |  4 |    600|  8   |30     0 0|    472 10
  Rhodes        |   100|   600 |  4 |    400|  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Pine          |   200|  1200 |  4 |    800|  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Monk          |   250|  1500 |  4 |   1000|  8   |50     0 0|    787 10
  Gabriel       |   100|   600 |  4 |    400|  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Packer        |   200|  1200 |  4 |    800|  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Crawley       |   250|  1500 |  4 |   1000|  8   |50     0 0|    787 10
  Easton        |   150|   900 |  4 |    600|  8   |30     0 0|    472 10
  Marsland      |   150|   900 |  4 |    600|  8   |30     0 0|    472 10
  East          |   100|   600 |  4 |    400|  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Turtle        |   200|  1200 |  4 |    800|  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Fuller        |   200|  1200 |  4 |    800|  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Taylor        |   100|   600 |  4 |    400|  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Ginnow        |   150|   900 |  4 |    600|  8   |30     0 0|    472 10
  Peakes        |   150|   900 |  4 |    600|  8   |30     0 0|    472 10
  Fleckell      |    50|   300 |  4 |    200|  8   |60     0 0|    157 10
  Cook          |    50|   300 |  4 |    200|  8   |10     0 0|    157 10
  Stewart       |   100|   600 |  4 |    400|  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Cooper        |   100|   600 |  4 |    400|  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Bentley       |   200|  1200 |  4 |    800|  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Harford       |   200|  1200 |  4 |    800|  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Litten        |   100|   600 |  4 |    400|  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Mills         |   150|   900 |  4 |    600|  8   |30     0 0|    472 10
  Voy           |   100|   600 |  4 |    400|  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Cortman       |    50|   300 |  4 |    200|  8   |10     0 0|    157 10
  Forster       |   100|   600 |  4 |    400|  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Davison       |   150|   900 |  4 |    600|  8   |30     0 0|    472 10
  Williams      |   250|  1500 |  4 |   1000|  8   |50     0 0|    787 10
  Draper        |   200|  1200 |  4 |    800|  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Claxton       |   100|   600 |  4 |    400|  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Robertson     |    50|   300 |  4 |    200|  8   |10     0 0|    157 10
  Cornwall      |   100|   600 |  4 |    400|  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Price         |   150|   900 |  4 |    600|  8   |30     0 0|    472 10
  Milligan      |   200|  1200 |  4 |    800|  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  West          |   250|  1500 |  4 |   1000|  8   |50     0 0|    787 10
  Wilson        |   100|   600 |  4 |    400|  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Lawn          |   100|   600 |  4 |    400|  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Oakes         |    50|   300 |  4 |    200|  8   |10     0 0|    157 10
  Joliffe       |   150|   900 |  4 |    600|  8   |30     0 0|    472 10
  Liley         |   100|   600 |  4 |    400|  8   |20     0 0|    313  0
  Treagle       |   120|   720 |  4 |    480|  8   |24     0 0|    378  0
  Coleman       |    50|   300 |  4 |    200|  8   |10     0 0|    157 10
  Brooker       |   200|  1200 |  4 |    800|  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Dignam        |   200|  1200 |  4 |    800|  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Hillier       |   150|   900 |  4 |    600|  8   |30     0 0|    472 10
  Simmonds      |   150|   900 |  4 |    600|  8   |30     0 0|    472 10
  Penrose       |   100|   600 |  4 |    400|  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Jordan        |   200|  1200 |  4 |    800|  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Macey         |   100|   600 |  4 |    400|  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Williams      |   150|   900 |  4 |    600|  8   |30     0 0|    472 10
  Palmer        |   200|  1200 |  4 |    800|  8   |40     0 0|    650  0
  Anderson      |   100|   600 |  4 |    400|  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  George        |   200|  1200 |  4 |    800|  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Hasleton      |    50|   300 |  4 |    200|  8   |10     0 0|    157 10
  Willis        |   250|  1500 |  4 |   1000|  8   |50     0 0|    787 10
  Farringdon    |    50|   300 |  4 |    200|  8   |10     0 0|    157 10
  Doyle         |   100|   600 |  4 |    400|  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Lamb          |   100|   600 |  4 |    400|  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Bolton        |   200|  1200 |  4 |    800|  8   |40     0 0|    630  0
  Lovelock      |   250|  1500 |  4 |   1000|  8   |50     0 0|    787 10
  Ashfield      |    50|   300 |  4 |    200|  8   |10     0 0|    157 10
  Braithwaite   |   100|   600 |  4 |    400|  8   |20     0 0|    315  0
  Total for Dust+------+-------+----+-------+------+----------+----------
   and other    |
   Contractors  |
   engaged as   |
    Nightmen    |27,820|139,100|  4 |101,240| 8_d._|£5596 13 4|£73,027 10

MASTER-BRICKLAYERS ENGAGED AS NIGHTMEN.

  -----------+-----+--------+---+------+---------+----------+--------
             |     |        |   |      |Average 2|          |
             |     |        |   |      |Cesspools|          |
             |     |        |   |      | a Night.|          |
             |     | Loads. |   |      |         |£. _s. d._| £. _s._
  Albon      | 100 |  600   | 4 |  400 |5_s._ ea.| 12 10 0  | 315  0
  Danver     | 150 |  900   | 4 |  600 |    „    | 18 15 0  | 472 10
  Buck       |  90 |  540   | 4 |  360 |    „    | 11  5 0  | 283 10
  Aldred     | 150 |  900   | 4 |  600 |    „    | 18 15 0  | 472 10
  Bowler     | 150 |  900   | 4 |  600 |    „    | 18 15 0  | 472 10
  Deacon     | 250 | 1500   | 4 | 1000 |    „    | 31  5 0  | 787 10
  Barrett    | 200 | 1200   | 4 |  800 |    „    | 25  0 0  | 630  0
  Elmes      |  90 |  540   | 4 |  360 |    „    | 11  5 0  | 283 10
  Gray       | 100 |  600   | 4 |  400 |    „    | 12 10 0  | 315  0
  Emmerton   | 150 |  900   | 4 |  600 |    „    | 18 15 0  | 472 10
  Coleman    | 100 |  600   | 4 |  400 |    „    | 12 10 0  | 315  0
  Belchier   | 250 | 1500   | 4 | 1000 |    „    | 31  5 0  | 787  0
  Wade       | 200 | 1200   | 4 |  800 |    „    | 25  0 0  | 630  0
  Turner     | 100 |  600   | 4 |  400 |    „    | 12 10  0 | 315  0
  Sutton     | 150 |  900   | 4 |  600 |    „    | 18 15  0 | 472 10
  Cutmore    | 200 | 1200   | 4 |  800 |    „    | 25  0  0 | 630  0
  Plowman    | 150 |  900   | 4 |  600 |    „    | 18 15  0 | 472 10
  Brockwell  | 200 | 1200   | 4 |  800 |    „    | 25  0  0 | 630  0
  Bellamy    | 200 | 1200   | 4 |  800 |    „    | 25  0  0 | 630  0
  Janes      |  50 |  300   | 4 |  200 |    „    |  6  5  0 | 157 10
  Higgs      |  50 |  300   | 4 |  200 |    „    |  6  5  0 | 157 10
  Avery      | 100 |  600   | 4 |  400 |    „    | 12 10  0 | 315  0
  Bailey     | 150 |  900   | 4 |  600 |    „    | 18 15  0 | 472 10
  Pitman     | 200 | 1200   | 4 |  800 |    „    | 25  0  0 | 630  0
  Hosier     | 150 |  900   | 4 |  600 |    „    | 18 15  0 | 472 10
  Chambers   | 150 |  900   | 4 |  600 |    „    | 18 15  0 | 472 10
  Turner     | 100 |  600   | 4 |  400 |    „    | 12 10  0 | 315  0
  Sutton     | 150 |  900   | 4 |  600 |    „    | 18 15  0 | 472 10
  Phenix     |  80 |  480   | 4 |  320 |    „    | 10  0  0 | 252  0
  Elsden     |  50 |  300   | 4 |  200 |    „    |  6  5  0 | 157 10
  Fuller     | 200 | 1200   | 4 |  800 |    „    | 25  0  0 | 630  0
  Heath      | 200 | 1200   | 4 |  800 |    „    | 25  0  0 | 630  0
  Beach      |  80 |  480   | 4 |  320 |    „    | 10  0  0 | 252  0
  Jones      | 100 |  600   | 4 |  400 |    „    | 12 10  0 | 315  0
  Gilbert    | 250 | 1500   | 4 | 1000 |    „    | 31  5  0 | 787 10
  Green      | 100 |  600   | 4 |  400 |    „    | 12 10  0 | 315  0
  King       | 250 | 1500   | 4 | 1000 |    „    | 31  5  0 | 787 10
  Parker     | 150 |  900   | 4 |  600 |    „    | 18 15  0 | 472 10
  Kelsey     | 200 | 1200   | 4 |  800 |    „    | 25  0  0 | 630  0
  Palmer     | 250 | 1500   | 4 | 1000 |    „    | 31  5  0 | 787 10
  Sinclair   | 100 |  600   | 4 |  400 |    „    | 12 10  0 | 315  0
  Peck       | 200 | 1200   | 4 |  800 |    „    | 25  0  0 | 630  0
  Young      |  50 |  300   | 4 |  200 |    „    |  6  5  0 | 157 10
  Winter     | 100 |  600   | 4 |  400 |    „    | 12 10  0 | 315  0
  Wolfe      |  90 |  540   | 4 |  360 |    „    | 11  5  0 | 283 10
  Taber      |  50 |  300   | 4 |  200 |    „    |  6  5  0 | 157 10
  Kellow     | 100 |  600   | 4 |  400 |    „    | 12 10  0 | 315  0
  Mercer     | 150 |  900   | 4 |  600 |    „    | 18 15  0 | 472 10
  Oswell     | 250 | 1500   | 4 | 1000 |    „    | 31  5  0 | 787 10
  Mallett    |  90 |  540   | 4 |  360 |    „    | 11  5  0 | 283 10
  Handley    | 180 | 1080   | 4 |  720 |    „    | 22 10  0 | 567  0
  Bull       | 150 |  900   | 4 |  600 |    „    | 18 15  0 | 472 10
  Atkinson   | 200 | 1200   | 4 |  800 |    „    | 25  0  0 | 630  0
  Dennis     | 250 | 1500   | 4 | 1000 |    „    | 31  5  0 | 787 10
  Fordham    | 100 |  600   | 4 |  400 |    „    | 12 10  0 | 315  0
  Wigmore    | 150 |  900   | 4 |  600 |    „    | 18 15  0 | 472 10
  Ricketts   | 300 |  1800  | 4 |  1200|    „    | 37 10  0 | 945  0
  Linnegar   | 250 |  1500  | 4 |  1000|    „    | 31  5  0 | 787 10
  Price      | 100 |   600  | 4 |   400|    „    | 12 10  0 | 315  0
  James      | 300 |  1800  | 4 |  1200|    „    | 37 10  0 | 945  0
  Wills      | 180 |  1080  | 4 |   720|    „    | 22 10  0 | 567  0
  Templar    | 100 |   600  | 4 |   400|    „    | 12 10  0 | 315  0
  Tolley     |  50 |   300  | 4 |   200|    „    |  6  5  0 | 157 10
  Smallman   | 100 |   600  | 4 |   400|    „    | 12 10  0 | 315  0
  Macey      | 150 |   900  | 4 |   600|    „    | 18 15  0 | 472 10
  Livermore  | 250 |  1500  | 4 |  1000|    „    | 31  5  0 | 787 10
  Oakham     | 250 |  1500  | 4 |  1000|    „    | 31  5  0 | 787 10
  Rudd       | 100 |   600  | 4 |   400|    „    | 12 10  0 | 315  0
  Kerridge   | 150 |   900  | 4 |   600|    „    | 18 15  0 | 472 10
  Perrin     | 150 |   900  | 4 |   600|    „    | 18 15  0 | 472 10
  Thomas     | 300 |  1800  | 4 |  1200|    „    | 37 10  0 | 945  0
  Moore      | 150 |   900  | 4 |   600|    „    | 18 15  0 | 472 10
  Reeves     | 200 |  1200  | 4 |   800|    „    | 25  0  0 | 630  0
  Pearson    | 100 |   600  | 4 |   400|    „    | 12 10  0 | 315  0
  Stollery   |  50 |   300  | 4 |   200|    „    |  6  5  0 | 157 10
  Connew     | 250 |  1500  | 4 |  1000|    „    | 31  5  0 | 787 10
  Floyd      | 100 |   600  | 4 |   400|    „    | 12 10  0 | 315  0
  Girling    | 300 |  1800  | 4 |  1200|    „    | 37 10  0 | 945  0
  Gilbert    | 150 |   900  | 4 |   600|    „    | 18 15  0 | 742 10
  Carter     | 250 |  1500  | 4 |  1000|    „    | 31  5  0 | 787 10
  Clayden    | 200 |  1200  | 4 |   800|    „    | 25  0  0 | 630  0
  Bibbing    |  50 |   300  | 4 |   200|    „    |  6  5  0 | 157 10
  Dunn       | 100 |   600  | 4 |   400|    „    | 12 10  0 | 315  0
  Howell     | 100 |   600  | 4 |   400|    „    | 12 10  0 | 315  0
  Fursey     | 100 |   600  | 4 |   400|    „    | 12 10  0 | 315  0
  Archer     | 250 |  1500  | 4 |  1000|    „    | 31  5  0 | 787 10
  Hart       | 300 |  1800  | 4 |  1200|    „    | 37 10  0 | 945  0
  Cole       | 100 |   600  | 4 |   400|    „    | 12 10  0 | 315  0
  Essex      | 250 |  1500  | 4 |  1000|    „    | 31  5  0 | 787 10
  Hinton     | 100 |   600  | 4 |   400|    „    | 12 10  0 | 315  0
  Wiseman    | 150 |   900  | 4 |   600|    „    | 18 15  0 | 472 10
  Tepner     | 200 |  1200  | 4 |   800|    „    | 25  0  0 | 630  0
  Unwin      | 250 |  1500  | 4 |  1000|    „    | 31  5  0 | 787 10
  Treharne   | 300 |  1800  | 4 |  1200|    „    | 37 10  0 | 945  0
  Havenny    |  50 |   300  | 4 |   200|    „    |  6  5  0 | 157 10
  Williams   | 100 |   600  | 4 |   400|    „    | 12 10  0 | 315  0
  Plant      | 200 |  1200  | 4 |   800|    „    | 25  0  0 | 630  0
  Linfield   | 250 |  1500  | 4 |  1000|    „    | 31  5  0 | 787 10
  Morris     | 150 |   900  | 4 |   600|    „    | 18 15  0 | 472 10
  Jenkins    | 300 |  1800  | 4 |  1200|    „    | 37 10  0 | 945  0
  Buck       | 200 |  1200  | 4 |   800|    „    | 25  0  0 | 630  0
  Hadnutt    | 150 |   900  | 4 |   600|    „    | 18 15  0 | 472 10
  Cuming     | 200 |  1200  | 4 |   800|    „    | 25  0  0 | 630  0
  Douglas    | 100 |   600  | 4 |   400|    „    | 12 10  0 | 315  0
  Hogden     | 300 |  1800  | 4 |  1200|    „    | 37 10  0 | 945  0
  M’Currey   | 300 |  1800  | 4 |  1200|    „    | 37 10  0 | 945  0
  Warne      |  50 |   300  | 4 |   200|    „    |  6  5  0 | 157 10
  Whitechurch| 200 |  1200  | 4 |   800|    „    | 25  0  0 | 630  0
  Stevenson  | 150 |   900  | 4 |   600|    „    | 18 15  0 | 472 10
  Izard      | 300 |  1800  | 4 |  1200|    „    | 37 10  0 | 945  0
  Jones      | 250 |  1500  | 4 |  1000|    „    | 31  5  0 | 787 10
  Rutley     | 100 |   600  | 4 |   400|    „    | 12 10  0 | 315  0
  Prichard   | 200 |  1200  | 4 |   800|    „    | 25  0  0 | 630  0
  Watts      | 250 |  1500  | 4 |  1000|    „    | 31  5  0 | 787 10
  Woodcock   | 150 |   900  | 4 |   600|    „    | 18 15  0 | 472 10
  Osborn     | 300 |  1800  | 4 |  1200|    „    | 37 10  0 | 945  0
  Morland    | 250 |  1500  | 4 |  1000|    „    | 31  5  0 | 787 10
  Brown      | 300 |  1800  | 4 |  1200|    „    | 37 10  0 | 945  0
  Hughes     | 150 |   900  | 4 |   600|    „    | 18 15  0 | 472 10
  Total for  +-------+------+---+------+---------+----------+--------
  Master-    |
  Bricklayers|
  engaged as |
  Nightmen   |19,880|99,400 | 4 |59,520|   5_s._ |£2,485  0 |£52,185 0

SUMMARY OF THE ABOVE TABLE.

  ------------------------+-----+--------------------------------------------------------------
                          |Number of Masters employed as Nightmen.
                          |     |-------+------------------------------------------------------
                          |     | Number of Cesspools emptied during the year.
                          |     |       +------------------------------------------------------
                          |     |       |Quantity of Night soil collected annually.
                          |     |       |        +---------------------------------------------
                          |     |       |        |Number of working Nightmen employed to
                          |     |       |        |each Cesspool.
                          |     |       |        |       +-------------------------------------
   MASTER-SWEEPS EMPLOYED |     |       |        |       |Sum per load paid to each operative
       AS NIGHTMEN IN     |     |       |        |       | Nightman engaged in removing soil
                          |     |       |        |       |from Cesspools.
                          |     |       |        |       |             +-----------------------
                          |     |       |        |       |             |Total amount
                          |     |       |        |       |             |paid to Master-Nightmen
                          |     |       |        |       |             |during the Year for
                          |     |       |        |       |             |emptying Cesspools.
  ------------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------+-------------+-----------------------
                          |     |       | Loads. |       |   Pence.    |     £  _s._ _d._
  Kensington              |   4 |    48 |    240 | 3 & 4 |    6 & 7    |    120  0  0
  Chelsea                 |   8 |   140 |    700 | 3 & 4 |    6 & 7    |    350  0  0
  Westminster             |   9 |   180 |    900 | 3     |    6        |    450  0  0
  St. Martin’s            |   4 |    34 |    170 | 3     |    6        |     85  0  0