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

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

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

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

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

The system formerly adopted was as follows:—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name?—W—— C——.

Age?—35 years.

How long a scavenger?—Three months.

What occupation previously?—Gentleman’s footman.

Married or single?—Married.

Reading, writing, or other education?—Yes.

Any children?—One.

Their ages?—Three years.

Wages?—Nine shillings per week.

Any parish relief?—No.

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

Meat?—2s. 6d.

Bacon?—None.

Fish?—None.

Bread?—-2s.

Potatoes?—4d.

Butter?—6d.

Tea and sugar?—1s.

Cocoa?—None.

What rent they pay?—2s.

Furnished or unfurnished lodgings?—Unfurnished.

Any change of dress?—No.

Sunday clothing?—No.

How many shirts?—Two shirts.

Boots and shoes?—One pair.

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

Do they go to church or chapel?—Sometimes.

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

Do they ever bathe?—No.

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

What are her earnings?—Uncertain.

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

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

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

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

How much do they spend per week in drink?

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

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

Their ages were:—

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

Their previous occupations had been:—

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

Therefore, of 67 scavagers

12 had been artizans.
55     „     unskilled workmen.

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

Time of having been at scavagering.

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

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

State of education.—Could they read and write?

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

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

Did they go to church or chapel?

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

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

Why did they not go to church?

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

Hence of those who never go (19 out of 67), very nearly two-thirds (say 12 in 19) have no clothes to appear in.

Did they bathe?

59 answered no.
3 replied yes.
2 said they did in the Thames.
2 returned “sometimes.”
1 was deaf and dumb.

Hence it appeared, that about seven-eighths never bathe, although following the filthiest occupation.

Were they married or single?

56 were married.
5    „    widowers.
6    „    single.

Thus it would seem, that about ten-elevenths are or have been married men.

How many children had they?

Consequently 51 out of 61, or five-sixths, are married, and have families numbering altogether 165 children; the majority had only 3 children, and this was about the average family.

What were the ages of their children?

11 were grown up.
2 between 30 and 40.
9      „    20 and 30.
49    „    10 and 20.
80    „    1 and 10.
8 were 1 year and under.
5 were returned at home.
1 returned as dead.

One-half of the scavagers’ children, therefore, are between 1 and 10 years of age; the majority would appear to be 8 years old.

Some were said to be grown up, but no number was given.

Did their children go to school?

13 answered yes.
13 to the National School.
5 to the Ragged School.
2 to Catholic.
2 to Parish.
6 to local schools.
1 replied that he went sometimes.
2 returned no.
1 replied that his children were “not with him.”
22 (of whom 16 had no children, and 1 was deaf and dumb) made no reply.

From this it would seem, that a large majority—41 out of 51, or four-fifths—of the parents who have children send them to school.

Did their wives work?

15 returned no.
6 said their wives were “unable.”
1 had lost the use of her limbs.
2 did, but “not often.”
4 did “when they could.”
10 worked “sometimes.”
12 answered yes.
1 sold cresses.
15 made no return (11 having no wives and 1 being deaf and dumb).

Hence two-fifths of the wives (22 out of 56) do no work, 16 do so occasionally, and 13, or one-fourth, are in the habit of working.

What were wives’ earnings?

10 returned them as “uncertain.”
1 “didn’t know.”
1 estimated them at 1s. 6d. per week.
1 at 1s. to 2s. „
2 at 2s. „
3 at 2s. or 3s. „
2 at about 3s. „
1 at 2s. to 4s. „
1 at 3s. or 4s. „
1 at 3d. or 4d. per day.
43 gave no returns (having either no wives, or their wives not working).
1 was deaf and dumb.

So that, out of 29 wives who were said to work, 16 occasionally and 13 regularly, there were returns for 23. Nearly half of their earnings were given as uncertain from their seldom doing work, while the remainder were stated to gain from 1s. to 4s. per week; about 2s. 6d. perhaps would be a fair average.

What wages were they themselves in the habit of receiving?

Hence it is evident, that one-half receive 15s. or more a week, and about a fourth 9s.

It was not the parishes, however, but the contractors with the parishes, who paid the higher rates of wages: Mr. Dodd, for St. Luke’s; Mr. Westley, for St. Botolph’s, Bishopsgate; Mr. Parsons, for Whitechapel; Mr. Newman, for Bethnal-green, &c.

These wages the scavagers laid out in the following manner:—

For rent, per week.

1 paid 4s.
1    „    3s. 6d.
8    „    3s.
14    „    2s. 6d.
33    „    2s.
4    „    1s. 6d.
1    „    1s. 3d.
2    „    1s.
1 lived rent free.
1 paid for board and lodging.
1 lived with mother.

Hence it would appear, that near upon half the number paid 2s. rent. The usual rent paid seems to be between 2s. and 3s., five-sixths of the entire number paying one or other of those amounts. Only three lived in furnished lodgings, and the rents of these were, respectively, two at 2s. 6d. and the other at 2s.

For bread, per week.

1 expended 5s. 3d.
1    „    5s.
1    „    4s. 7d.
1    „    4s. 6d.
1    „    4s. 3d.
7    „    4s.
13    „    3s. 6d.
8    „    3s.
3    „    2s. 6d.
4    „    2s. 3d.
13    „    2s.
4    „    1s. 6d.
1    „    1s. 9d.
4 two loaves a day from parish.
3 gave a certain sum per week to their wives or mothers to lay out for them, and 1 boarded and lodged.
1 was deaf and dumb.

Thus it would seem, that the general sum expended weekly on bread varies between 2s. and 4s. The average saving from free-trade, therefore, would be between 4d. and 8d., or say 6d., per week.

For meat, per week.

4 expended 4s.
5    „    3s. 6d.
11    „    3s.
12    „    2s. 6d.
1    „    2s. 4d.
5    „    2s.
4    „    1s. 6d.
1    „    1s. 2d.
9    „    1s.
2    „    10d.
2    „    6d.
1    „    8d.
1 once a week.
4 had none.
5 no returns (3 of this number gave a weekly allowance to wives or mothers, 1 was deaf and dumb, and 1 paid for board and lodging).

By the above we see, that the sum usually expended on meat is between 2s. 6d. and 3s. per week, about one-third of the entire number expending that sum. All those who expended 1s. and less per week had 9s. and less for their week’s labour. The average saving from the cheapening of provisions would here appear to be between 5d. and 6d. per week at the outside.

For tea and sugar, per week.

2 paid 2s. 6d.
1    „   2s. 4d.
1    „   2s. 3d.
19    „   2s.
2    „   1s. 9d.
4    „   1s. 8d.
12    „   1s. 6d.
5    „   1s. 4d.
5    „   1s. 3d.
5    „   1s. 2d.
13    „   1s.
2    „   8d.
5 no returns: 1 deaf and dumb, 1 board and lodging, and 3 making allowances.

The sum usually expended on tea and sugar seems to be between 1s. 6d. and 2s. per week.

For fish, per week.

3 expended 1s.
5    „    8d.
23    „    6d.
8    „    4d.
23    „    nothing.
4 allowed so much per week to wives, or mother, or landlady.
1 deaf and dumb.

Hence one-third spent 6d. weekly in fish, and one-third nothing.

For bacon, per week.

1 expended 1s.
2    „    10d.
1    „    9d.
5    „    8d.
9    „    6d.
1    „    4d.
43    „    nothing.
4 allowances to wives, &c.
1 deaf and dumb.

The majority (two-thirds), therefore, do not have bacon. Of those that do eat bacon, the usual sum spent weekly is 6d. or 8d.

For butter, per week.

1 expended 1s. 8d.
24    „    1s.
11    „    10d.
12    „    8d.
11    „    6d.
1    „    3d.
2    „    nothing.
4 made allowances.
1 deaf and dumb.

Thus one-third expended 1s., and about one-sixth spent 10d.; another sixth, 8d.; and another sixth, 6d. a week, for butter.

For potatoes, per week.

1 spent 1s.
2    „    10d.
6    „    8d.
1    „    7d.
18    „    6d.
6    „    4d.
28 spent nothing.
4 made allowances.
1 deaf and dumb.

About one-fourth spent 6d.; the greater proportion, however (nearly one-half), expended nothing upon potatoes weekly.

For clothes, yearly.

2 expended 2l.
2    „    1l. 10s.
2    „    1l. 5s.
3    „    1l.
1    „    18s.
1    „    17s.
1    „    15s.
4    „    12s.
1    „    10s.
34 couldn’t say.
1 had 2 pairs of boots a year, but no clothes.
2 expended “not much.”
2 got them as they could.
1 expended a few shillings.
1 said it “all depends.”
2 returned “nothing.”
1 was deaf and dumb.
6 made no return.

Hence 43 out of 67, or nearly two-thirds, spent little or nothing upon their clothes.

Had they a change of dress?

28 had a change of dress.
38 had not.
1 was deaf and dumb.

Above one-half, therefore, had no other clothes but those they worked in.

Had they any Sunday clothing?

20 had some.
45 had none.
21 made no return.
1 deaf and dumb.

More than two-thirds, then, had no Sunday clothes.

How many shirts had they?

10 had 3 shirts.
54   „   2    „
2   „   1 shirt.
1 was deaf and dumb.

The greater number, therefore, had two shirts.

How many shoes had they?

27 had 2 pairs.
39   „   1    „
1 was deaf and dumb.

Thus the majority had only one pair of shoes.

How much did then spend in drink?

1 expended 2s. a week.
1    „    1s. or 2s.    „
2    „    1s. 6d.    „
4    „    1s.    „
1    „    6d.    „
1    „    3d. or 5d.    „
7 said they “couldn’t say.”
1 said he “wouldn’t say.”
1 said “that all depends.”
2 said they “had none to spend.”
2 expended nothing.
44 gave no return (1 deaf and dumb).

Hence answers were given by one-third, of whom the greatest number “couldn’t say.” (?) Of the ten who acknowledged spending anything upon drink, the greater number, or 4, said they spent 1s. a week only. But?

Did they save any money?

36 answered no.
31 gave no reply (1 being deaf and dumb).

What did they in case of illness coming upon themselves or families?

28 went to the dispensary.
8 went to the hospital.
6      „       parish doctor.
3 wives went to the lying-in hospital.
1 went to the workhouse.
2 said “nothing.”
1 “never troubled any.”
8 made no reply (1 being deaf and dumb).

The greater number, then, go, when ill, to the dispensary.

Were they in receipt of alms?

56 answered no.
2    „    sometimes.
3    „    yes.
6 made no returns (1 being deaf and dumb).

Did the passers-by give them anything?

49 answered no.
2    „    sometimes beer.
1    „    never.
2    „    seldom.
1    „    very seldom.
12 no returns (1 being deaf and dumb).

Did they receive any relief from their parishes?

56 replied no.
4 had 2 loaves and 1s. a day as wages.
1 had 4 loaves a week.
1   „   a 4-lbs. loaf.
1   „   15 lbs. of bread.
2 answered “not at present.”
2 made no returns.

Thus the greater proportion (five-sixths), it will be seen, had no relief; two of those who had relief received 9s. wages a week, and two others only 7s., while four received part of their wages from the parish in bread.

These analyses are not merely the characteristics of the applicant or existent street-orderlies; they are really the annals of the poor in all that relates to their domestic management in regard to meat and clothes, the care of their children, their church-going, education, previous callings, and parish relief. The inquiry is not discouraging as to the character of the poor, and I must call attention to the circumstance of how rarely it is that so large a collection of facts is placed at the command of a public writer. In many of the public offices the simplest information is as jealously withheld as if statistical knowledge were the first and last steps to high treason. I trust that Mr. Cochrane’s example in the skilful arrangement of the returns connected with the Association over which he presides, and his courteous readiness to supply the information, gained at no small care and cost, will be more freely followed, as such a course unquestionably tends to the public benefit.

It will be seen from these statements, how hard the struggle often is to obtain work in unskilled labour, and, when obtained, how bare the living. Every farthing earned by such workpeople is necessarily expended in the support of a family; and in the foregoing details we have another proof as to the diminution of the purchasing fund of the country, being in direct proportion to the diminution of the wages. If 100 men receive but 7s. a week each for their work, their yearly outlay, to “keep the bare life in them,” is 1820l. If they are paid 16s. a week, their outlay is 4160l.; an expenditure of 2340l. more in the productions of our manufactures, in all textile, metal, or wooden fabrics; in bread, meat, fruit, or vegetables; and in the now necessaries, the grand staple of our foreign and colonial trade—tea, coffee, cocoa, sugar, rice, and tobacco. Increase your wages, therefore, and you increase your markets. For manufacturers to underpay their workmen is to cripple the demand for manufactures. To talk of the over-production of our cotton, linen, and woollen goods is idle, when thousands of men engaged in such productions are in rags. It is not that there are too many makers, but too few who, owing to the decrease of wages, are able to be buyers. Let it be remembered that, out of 67 labouring men, three-fourths could not afford to buy proper clothing, expending thereupon “little” or “nothing,” and, I may add, because earning little or nothing, and so having scarcely anything to expend.

I now come to the cost of cleansing the streets upon the street-orderly system, as compared with that of the ordinary modes of payment to contractors, &c. It will have been observed, from what has been previously stated, that the Council of the Association contend that far higher amounts may be realized for street manure when collected clean, according to the street-orderly plan. If, by a better mode of collecting the street dirt, it be kept unmixed, its increase in value and in price may be most positively affirmed.

Before presenting estimates and calculations of cost, I may remind the reader that, under the street-orderly system, no watering carts are required, and none are used where the system is carried out in its integrity. To be able to dispense with the watering of the streets is not merely to get rid of a great nuisance, but to effect a considerable saving in the rates.

I now give two estimates, both relating to the same district:—

“Present Annual Expense of Cleansing St. James’s Parish:—

“Annual Expense of Street-Orderly System:—

“Obs.—The sum of 800l. per annum was paid to the contractor on account of expenses incurred for the removal of slop. During the three years previous to 1849, the contractor paid money to the parish for permission to remove the house-ashes, the value of which was then 2s. per load; it is now 2s. 6d. In St. Giles’s and St. George’s parishes, whose surface is more than twice the extent of St. James’s, the expense of slop-cartage, in 1850, was 304l. 14s. 0d., whilst the sum received for cattle-manure collected by street-orderlies, was 73l. 14s. 0d.; and the slop-expenses for the four months ending November 29, were 59l. 18s. 6d., whilst the manure sold for 21l. 6s. 0d. Thus has the slop-expense in these extensive united parishes been reduced to less than 120l. per annum. Since the preceding estimate was submitted to the Commissioners of Paving, the street-orderly system has been introduced into St. James’s parish; and it is confidently expected that the ‘Annual Prospective saving’ of 938l., will be fully realised.”

A similar estimate has just been sent into the authorities of the great parish of St. Marylebone, but its results do not differ from the one I have just cited.

I next present an estimate contrasting the expense of the street-orderly method with the cost of employing sweeping-machines:—

“Expenses by Machinery in St. Martin’s Parish.

“Expenditure by the Employment of Street-Orderlies.

I now give an estimate concerning a smaller district, one of the divisions of St. Pancras parish. It was embodied in a Report read at a meeting in Camden-town, on the desirableness of introducing the street-orderly system:—

The Report set forth that the Committee had “made a minute investigation into the present systems of street-cleansing, as adopted under the superintendence of Mr. Bird, the parish surveyor, and under that of the National Philanthropic Association.