The evidence already given will, to some extent, have furnished answers to the question—how far the physical evils by which the health, and strength, and morals of the labouring classes are depressed may be removed, or can reasonably be expected to be removed by private and voluntary exertions. I now submit for consideration the facts which serve to show how far the aid of the legislature, and of administrative arrangements are requisite for the attainment of the objects in question.
It will have been perceived, that the first great remedies, external arrangements, i. e. efficient drainage, sewerage and cleansing of towns, come within the acknowledged province of the legislature. Public opinion has of late required legislative interference for the regulation of some points of the internal economy of certain places of work, and the appointment of special agents to protect young children engaged in certain classes of manufactures from mental deterioration from the privation of the advantages of education, and from permanent bodily deterioration from an excess of labour beyond their strength. Claims are now before Parliament for an extension of the like remedies to other classes of children and to young persons, who are deemed to be in the same need of protection. The legislature has interfered to put an end to one description of employment which was deemed afflicting and degrading, i. e. that of climbing-boys for sweeping chimneys, and to force a better means of performing by machinery the same work. It will be seen that it has been the policy of the legislature to interfere for the public protection by regulating the structure of private dwellings to prevent the extension of fires; and the common law has also interposed to protect the public health by preventing overcrowding in private tenements. The legislature has recently interfered to direct the poorer description of tenements in the metropolis to be properly cleansed. On considering the evidence before given with relation to the effects of different, classes of buildings, the suggestion immediately arises as to the extent to which it is practicable to protect the health of the labouring classes by measures for the amendment of the existing buildings, and for the regulation of new buildings in towns in the great proportion of cases where neither private benevolence nor enlightened views can be expected to prevail extensively.
It will have been perceived how much of the existing evils originate from the defects of the external arrangements for drainage, and for cleansing, and for obtaining supplies of water. Until these are completed, therefore, the force of the evils arising from the construction of the houses could scarcely be ascertained.
The experience of legislation available for England for the regulation of buildings is chiefly confined to the Metropolitan Building Act. The provisions of that Act were directed simply to the prevention of the spread of fires by requiring that party-walls should be built so as to prevent the spread of fires, by confining them to the houses where the fires occur. In this object it is in most instances successful. Wherever a fire spreads beyond the single dwelling in the metropolis, it is usually found either that the provisions of the Act have been evaded, the walls being of the required thickness but rotten in substance, or that omissions have occurred from default of notice, or from neglect of the district surveyor. Out of the jurisdiction of the Act, the instances are frequent where fires spread from the want of party-walls. The erection of party-walls is good economy as a matter of insurance, for each house is thereby confined to its own risks, instead of having the additional risks of each of the contiguous houses, and perhaps of two or three houses beyond them. If there were any point on which à priori legislative interference might be thought unnecessary it would be this, on which the self-interest of the parties, for their own protection, would ensure attention. Yet the immediate interest of the builder in getting buildings erected at the lowest cost, or the want of foresight on the part of the owner himself, has caused extensive masses of buildings to be run up in the suburbs of the metropolis, and in provincial towns, without any such protection. Whilst this Report was in preparation I was informed of the destruction by fire of several contiguous houses at Oxford that were without party-walls. But party-walls are only one provision against fire; the omissions of other necessary precautions are fearfully extensive, especially in warehouses and buildings of a magnitude too great for the fire to be restrained by party-walls, or to prevent fire catching the adjacent buildings whenever it occurs.
One, however, I may advert to, as connected with the provisions necessary for the improvement of the sanitary condition of a town population. It has been shown that the cheapest mode of street cleansing is by supplies of water, which it would be necessary to use from standing pipes. By the Street Act, the parish officers are directed to provide standing pipes for the supply of engines in case of fire. This regulation is declared to be almost a dead letter. The only means to obtain supplies of water in the case of fire are from the plugs provided by the water companies themselves for cleansing the pipes by occasionally allowing the water to flow into the streets. It has been proved to be practicable without any considerable cost to keep up, at all times, such a pressure of water as on putting on a hose on any standing pipe connected with the service, to enable the water to be thrown over the highest houses. The fronts of houses in London have, in some instances, been washed by this means, and in one instance it was immediately and successfully applied to extinguish a fire. A large proportion of houses are destroyed or seriously injured before engines can be brought to the spot or water obtained. During the last four years the fires in London have been more than 600 per annum. If each fire on the average incurred a loss of 500l., the total loss annually would exceed the total cost of the supplies of water for the whole of the metropolis to the inhabitants, which, according to returns made to Parliament in the year 1834, amounted to 276,200l. The superintendent of the police at Liverpool estimated the average loss by fires in that town during eight years at a much greater amount before a better system of prevention was established. The cost of keeping the water always on in the mains is so inconsiderable that it was voluntarily proferred by a competing company in the metropolis, as an advantageous arrangement to save the expense of water-tanks in private houses. I have high practical authority for stating that the arrangement for keeping the water on the mains for street cleansing, for washing the footways as well as the carriage-ways, and, when necessary, for washing the fronts of the houses, would also serve, at an inconsiderable expense, as the most efficient means of extinguishing fires. Instead of the general loss of a considerable part of an hour’s time before intelligence can be dispatched and the distant fire-engines be got to the spot, in a few minutes, or as soon as the flexible pipe in daily use could be screwed on the main, a supply of water as powerful as that from any engine might be brought to bear upon the fire. An extensive saving of life and property, and of well-grounded alarm, might thus be added to the train of benefits derivable from systematised arrangements for the cleansing of towns and the prevention of epidemics.
The provisions of the old Building Acts afford no sanitary securities, but in connexion with the provisions respecting sewerage they afford examples of what would be the effect of any measure which shall be either unequally applied as to the jurisdiction, or unequally administered.
The attention of the Board has several times been directed to the sickness prevalent amongst the working classes in various parts of the Kensington union. Having had occasion to inquire into the subject, I found that nearly all the illness occurred in premises run up by inferior speculating builders out of the jurisdiction of the commissions of sewers, or of the district surveyors; that they were built on undrained spots, with walls not more than one brick thick; and that the immediate expenditure for protective or sanitary purposes had thus been extensively evaded. On carrying the inquiry further, it became apparent that the limits of the jurisdiction of the commissioners of sewers, and the limits of the jurisdiction of the district surveyors around the metropolis, mark the commencement of buildings of an inferior character, built without drains, without the security from party-walls, and without proper means of cleansing. (Vide Appendix, the evidence of Mr. Gutch, district surveyor.) Under the peculiar circumstances of the country, towns may arise and the old evils may be implanted before any old district would probably be taken to include them. For example, the town of Old Kingston is tolerably well drained and healthy; on the completion of the railway a new town was suddenly run up by building speculators, called New Kingston, built out of the jurisdiction of Old Kingston, but without any adequate under-drainage, on a soil retentive of moisture, and with streets unpaved and covered with mud; it is reported as a consequence that fever has been rife in New Kingston, whilst Old Kingston is comparatively free from it.
If any one had to erect forty or fifty fourth-rate tenements near the metropolis, by shifting them beyond the limits of the jurisdiction of the district surveyor, he would nearly gain one house by the saving of fees alone in the ordinary mode of remunerating such officers.
All the information as to the actual condition of the most crowded districts is corroborative of the apprehensions entertained by witnesses of practical experience, such as Mr. Thomas Cubitt and other builders, who are favourable to measures for the improvement of the condition of the labouring classes, that anything of the nature of a Building Act that is not equally and skillfully administered will aggravate the evils intended to be remedied. To whatever districts regulations are confined, the effect proved to be likely to follow will be, that the builder of tenements which stand most in need of regulation will be driven over the boundary, and will run up his habitations before measures can be taken to include them. The condition of the workman will be aggravated by the increased fatigue and exposure to weather in traversing greater distances to sleep in a badly-built, thin, and damp house. An increase of distance from his place of work will have the more serious effect upon his habits by rendering it impracticable to take his dinner with his family, compelling him either to take it in some shed or at the beer shop. It is also apprehended that anything that may be done to increase unnecessarily or seriously the cost of new buildings, or discourage their erection, will aggravate the horrors of the overcrowding of the older tenements; at the same time, the certain effect of an immediate and unprepared dislodgement of a cellar population, would be to overcrowd the upper portions of the houses where they reside. It would indeed often be practicable to make those cellars as habitable as are the cellars inhabited by servants in the houses of the middle and higher classes of society. The difficulties which beset such regulations do not arise from the want of means to pay any necessary increase of rents for increased accommodation, but in the very habits which afford evidence of the existence of the sufficiency of the means of payment.
For practical legislation on the subject of increased charges on tenements, the labourers must be considered to be in a state of penury, and ready to shift from bad to worse for the avoidance of the slightest charges, and therefore to be approached with the greatest caution.
But there are other elements which it is proper to note as increasing the tendency to evade immediate charges even for benefits.
The increasing tendency to carry on manufacturing as well as commercial operations for small profits on large outlays will probably occasion the subject of the rents of labourers’ tenements in manufacturing districts to be more closely considered as part of the cost of production than it has hitherto been. The whole of the consequences cannot distinctly be foreseen, further than that it will probably occasion a reduction of high ground-rents, or the abandonment of particular districts which are now the seats of some descriptions of manufacture. In the course of an examination of the condition of the working population of Macclesfield, which I was requested to aid, it was complained that much work was put out to a rural district at a few miles distance from the town. On inquiring as to the cause, it was answered, that the weavers in the rural district were enabled to do the work at a reduced price, but at the same real wages in consequence of reduced rents. The following examination, however, displays the element indicated:—
Mr. Shatwell, relieving officer, examined—
“What is the common amount of rent paid by weavers in Macclesfield and the adjacent districts?—A weaver cannot get, in Macclesfield, a proper house for his loom, with due lights, for less than 10l. a-year. In Hazel Grove and other places, he may get them for 2l. or 3l. less—for about 7l.—with a small garden attached, worth at least 20s. a-year more.
“What difference in price do you think would induce a manufacturer to send goods to Hazel Grove in preference to Macclesfield?—A farthing a yard, as that difference might make the difference in his profit.
“How many yards will a weaver weave in the week?—They calculate that a good weaver will weave 12 yards a-day, or an average of 60 yards a-week.
“Since 1s. 3d. a-week, or a farthing a yard, will make the difference in profit, will not the difference in rent enable the weaver to make that difference in price and yet obtain the same net amount of wages?—Precisely so.
“So that a manufacturer who employs 1000 hands at a low-rented place, 3l. or 4l. a-year cheaper, such as Hazel Grove, if he obtain the difference of rent as profit, will obtain a profit of 3,000l. or 4,000l. per annum?—Certainly.
“The cost of building and building materials being nearly the same in Macclesfield and such a place as Hazel Grove, does not the difference in rent consist chiefly in the difference of ground-rent?—Yes.”
If in all instances, as in the last, better as well as cheaper residences, with gardens attached, were likely to be the result of the commercial operation to the workmen, the change were, of course, to be desired. But it is to be feared that it may often be otherwise than a competition of comforts, unless timely security be taken against its being otherwise by appropriate legislative measures, which indeed were necessary for the due protection of the ratepayers against the pecuniary consequences of the disease and destitution undoubtedly occasioned by such tenements as are thus described by Mr. Mott:—
“An immense number of the small houses occupied by the poorer classes in the suburbs of Manchester are of the most superficial character; they are built by the members of building clubs, and other individuals, and new cottages are erected with a rapidity that astonishes persons who are unacquainted with their flimsy structure. They have certainly avoided the objectionable mode of forming underground dwellings, but have run into the opposite extreme, having neither cellar nor foundation. The walls are only half brick thick, or what the bricklayers call ‘brick noggin,’ and the whole of the materials are slight and unfit for the purpose. I have been told of a man who had built a row of these houses; and on visiting them one morning after a storm, found the whole of them levelled with the ground; and in another part of Manchester, a place with houses even of a better order has obtained the appellation of ‘Pickpocket-row,’ from the known insecure and unsubstantial nature of the buildings. I recollect a bricklayer near London complaining loudly of having to risk his credit by building a house with nine-inch walls, and declared it would be like ‘Jack Straw’s House,’ neither ‘wind nor water tight:’ his astonishment would have been great had he been told that thousands of houses occupied by the labouring classes are erected with walls of 4½ inch thickness. The chief rents differ materially according to the situation, but are in all cases high; and thus arises the inducement to pack the houses so close. They are built back to back, without ventilation or drainage; and, like a honeycomb, every particle of space is occupied. Double rows of these houses form courts, with, perhaps, a pump at one end and a privy at the other, common to the occupants of about twenty houses.”
Whilst there is the new element of this extreme rapidity of construction to accommodate demands for labour, the increasing rapidity of the conveyance of goods and information is manifestly loosening the ties of the manufacturer to particular neighbourhoods. Whilst looms have been idle in Spitalfields on disputes on scale-prices, or from hesitation as to comply with the requisite changes of modes of working, I am informed that large quantities of work have been taken away, executed in the new neighbourhoods, and returned at reduced prices to the London markets. In the instance of Macclesfield, it is shown that neither foresight nor considerations of the expediency of a reduction operates on the speculating owners of tenements occupied by workmen in towns, or even on the other ratepayers, (who bear the burdens of the sickness and mortality, and pay extravagant rates, which are incident to them); nor can the operation of a wise self-interest be relied upon to avert the tendency to the dispersion of work, and the multiplication of ill-conditioned and ultimately burdensome tenements. The following evidence supplies additional illustration of this state of things:—
John Wilson, relieving officer.
Are you acquainted with the cottage property in Macclesfield?—Yes, I am; as an assistant overseer, I see that the rates are collected.
Are there in Macclesfield many large owners of cottage tenements?—The number of owners of property in Macclesfield is about 1000; of these about 300 receive incomes from cottage property, some of those only one, others only two. The chief owner owns about 200 cottages; the next owns about two streets or 45 cottages. One man owns about 180.
Do you receive rates from these cottages?—From the cottages belonging to these large holders we get no rates.
How is it that you obtain no rates from these classes of cottages?—Because they are tenanted by the lowest class of persons who have nothing in their houses from which we could recover the rates.
What are the rents paid from these cottages?—The rents vary from 1s. to 2s. 8d. each house. The average would be about 2s. a-week.
What would be the amount of rates on this cottage property if payment were enforced?—From the 1s. a-week cottages the rates would be 6s. per annum; from the others, 12s. per annum. Last quarter there were nearly 300 people excused; and the total amount lost for rates excused and houses empty was 900l.
What proportion does that bear to the whole rates for the quarter or for the year?—The loss for the year would be 1800l., and the rate last year was 8726l.; the amount collected was 5900l.; but the arrear of the former year would be in round numbers about 2000l. more.
Is the tenantry of these cottages a fluctuating tenantry?—Yes, very much so.
Are these tenements taken on the expectation that the rates will be excused?—Yes; in many cases they are told when objecting to the payment of the rent that they will have no rates to pay.
Considering the qualities of the tenements, are the rents charged really high rents?—Yes, they are.
Are they such rents, as would justify the levy or the deduction of rates from the proprietor, comparing them with the rents paid for good property?—Yes, they are such rents; the house which I live in, and for which I pay rates, and pay 8l. a-year rent, is a house of three rooms on a floor, two floors, detached yard, and every convenience; whilst cottages of a very inferior description, with two rooms only on a floor, are as high rented and pay no rates.
Are the rents from the inferior tenements rigorously exacted?—Yes, they are.
Are the occupants of these houses frequently applicants for parochial relief?—Yes, they are.
Do any numbers of them receive relief?—Yes, they do.
What is the average amount of weekly out-door relief given to the recipients?—Perhaps about 3s.
Then the average relief is of the average amount of the rent of the tenements you describe?—Yes; and I have no doubt that much of the relief has gone to pay rent.
If the rates were duly exacted, do you think it must follow that the unduly high rents must be lowered in proportion?—Yes, they must.
If the landlords were compelled to pay the rates, what would be the saving to the town?—1s. in the pound.
And no additional burden cast on the labouring classes?—No material additional burden.
Of course the diminution of out-door relief would diminish the means of unduly paying high rents?—Certainly, it would.
The sanitary condition of many of these dwellings is described in the reports of Mr. Bland, the medical officer already quoted.
It may hereafter excite surprise, that the labouring classes have hitherto been left exposed to such influences as those described in the last evidence, and in the evidence previously cited, as to the pernicious operation of exemptions from payments of rates on the parties intended to be benefited.
My inquiries into the effects of the administration of the old poor law brought before me numerous instances of such devastation, the effects of which would not be obliterated during the lives of a generation. Examples might also be presented of the deterioration of property by the irruptions of an ill-regulated population by the running up of undrained and badly-constructed dwellings in the finest suburbs of the metropolis, and other towns throughout the country. Any regulations of the nature of Building Acts confined to towns, or to particular districts, or that were unequally or oppressively administered, must powerfully tend to increase such evils to the labouring classes, to the ratepayers, and to the owners of all suburban property.
Frequent opportunities are, however, presented and commonly lost for the erection of improved tenements for the use of the labouring classes, on the occasion of taking down old tenements and erecting new ones to form new streets, under the authority of Buildings’ and Towns’ Improvement Acts. It is usually assumed that the general effect of the “clearances,” as they are called, occasioned by the formation of new streets, though attended with the present inconvenience of disturbing the occupants, is ultimately of unmixed advantage, by driving them into new and better tenements in the suburbs. I have endeavoured to ascertain by inquiries, with the aid of the relieving officers, how far the assumption is justified by the experience of such alterations as have been already made in some of the crowded districts of the metropolis, by taking down inferior tenements to form new streets.
It is found to be difficult to trace the individuals of a population so removed, and the inquiries on the subject are incomplete; but they tend to show that the working people make considerable sacrifices to avoid being driven to a distance from their places of work; that the poorest struggle against removal to a distance from the opportunities of charitable donations; and that where new habitations are not opened to them in the immediate vicinity, every effort is made by biddings of rent to gain lodgings in the nearest and poorest of the old tenements. To the extent to which the displaced labourers succeed in getting lodgings in the same neighbourhood, as a large proportion of them certainly do, the existing evils are merely shifted, and, by being shifted, they are aggravated. On a survey of the newly-built houses in the suburbs to which displaced labourers can go, it appears that the labourer, to use the expression of Dr. Ferriar, is almost “driven to hire disease,” for if he do not find any lodging near his place of work, he is driven to a choice amongst tenements of the character of those found in the parts of Kensington out of the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Building Act, without sewers or drains, without water or proper conveniences on the premises, without pavements or means of cleansing the streets; where exorbitant rents are levied, where adequate means of moral or religious instruction are yet unprovided, and where they will neither gain in health nor in morals.
On reference to such past experience it appears to suggest itself as an expedient arrangement, that on the removal of old tenements and the occupation of the old ground by building new houses and streets for a superior class of tenants, or for public buildings, some provision should be made against the aggravation of the existing evils as respects the old occupants; that it should be required to be shown, for example, that appropriate unoccupied tenements are in the market, and on failure to do so, provisions might be made (on the principle of those provided for preserving accommodation for the labouring classes in enclosure bills) for the construction of appropriate tenements, in which qualities of the nature of those described by Mr. Sydney Smirke might be ensured. If the attention and power by which large public alterations are obtained were, at the same time, directed to the construction of new dwellings for the labouring classes, instead of spreading existing evils, all such alterations might certainly, and at remunerative though not at increased rents, be made the means of greatly improving the condition of those who stand in the greatest need of attention and aid for improvement.
The most important immediate general measure of the nature of a Building Act, subsidiary to measures for drainage, would be a measure for regulating the increments of towns, and preventing the continued reproduction in new districts of the evils which have depressed the health and the condition of whole generations in the older districts. Regulations of the sites of town buildings have comparatively little effect on the cost of construction, and it may in general be said that a Building Act would effect what any enlightened owner of a district would effect for himself, of laying it out with a view to the most permanent advantage; or what the separate owners would effect for themselves if they had the power of co-operation, or if each piece of work were governed by enlarged public and private views. Had Sir Christopher Wren been permitted to carry out his plan for the rebuilding of London after the great fire, there is little doubt that it would have been the most advantageous arrangement for rendering the whole space more productive, as a property to the great mass of the separate interests, by whom the improvement was defeated. The most successful improvements effected in the metropolis by opening new lines of street, and the greater number of the openings projected are approximations at an enormous expense to the plan which he laid down. The larger towns present instances of obstructions of the free current of air even through the principal streets, and of deteriorations which a little foresight and the exercise of an impartial authority would have prevented. In one increasing town, a builder made a successful money speculation by purchasing such plots of ground as would enable him to erect impediments and extort compensation for their removal from the path of improvements in building. The improvements affecting whole towns are also frequently frustrated by the active jealousies of the occupants of rival streets. It would appear to be possible to provide an impartial authority to obtain and, on consultation with the parties locally interested, to settle plans for regulating the future growth of towns, by laying down the most advantageous lines for occupation with due protection of the landowners’ interest. The most serious omissions in the building of common houses are so frequently oversights as to make it probable, that if it were required that a plan of any proposed building should be deposited with a trustworthy officer, with a specification of the arrangements intended for the attainment of the essential objects, such as cleansing and ventilation, the mere preparation of the document would of itself frequently lead to the detection of grievous defects. An examination of Mr. Loudon’s specification of the requisites of cottages will show that a large proportion of the most important of these are independent of the cost of construction.
In a work which is considered in Germany the chief authority in respect to the extensive administrative duties comprehended under the term police,[41] the author, Professor Mohl, of Tubingen, in speaking of the sanitary police of towns, observes, that “Medical police is both in theory and practice essentially German. In German states only, as Austria and Prussia, has anything been done in it systematically; the literature also of medical police is almost entirely German. Other states either do nothing at all, as England, the United States of America, or only very imperfectly, as France; where anything is done, German principles and arrangements are closely imitated.”
It is stated that some of the new towns and the new parts of the old towns in Germany, as in Stuttgard, Manheim, Darmstadt, exhibit striking marks of this care in the comparative structure and arrangements of the houses, and in the general administration, with a view to the health and pleasure of the population, which is sometimes impressively displayed in the superior condition of the public walks and gardens, as at Frankfort and Baden-Baden. The professor’s reproach is, however, scarcely applicable to the substantive English law, or to the early constitutional arrangements in which are found extensive and useful provisions, and complete principles for the protection of the public health.
1st. So much of the structural arrangements as depended on drainage was provided for by the Commissions of Sewers, who were invested with valuable powers by the statute 23d Hen. VIII, cap. 5, s. 1; the authority of these Commissions “to be directed into all parts within this realm where need shall require, according to the form ensuing, to such substantial persons as shall be named by the Lord Chancellor and Lord Treasurer, and the two chief justices, or by three of them, whereof the Lord Chancellor to be one,” to cause “to be made, corrected or repaired, amended, put down or reformed, as the case shall require, walls, ditches, banks, gutters, sewers, gates, cullices, bridges, streams, and other defences by the coasts of the sea and marsh ground.”
2dly. The ancillary arrangements as to road cleansing as well as road structure, were provided for by the highway laws, including the provisions of the 5th Eliz. c. 13, s. 7, for the cleansing of the ditches, &c.
The common law provided general remedies for the redress of injuries, under the comprehensive title nuisance (nocumentum), meaning anything by which the health or the personal safety, or the conveniences of the subject might be endangered or affected injuriously. By the law as it now stands, the subject is entitled to protection against things which are offensive to the senses, from which no injury to the health or other injury can be proved than the often overlooked but serious injury of discomfort, of daily annoyance, as by matters offensive to the sight, as by allowing blood to flow in the streets; by filth, by offensive smells, and by noises. The injuries termed nuisances were threefold,—first, public or general; second, common; third, private. “Public is that which is a nuisance to the whole realm; common is that which is to the common nuisance of all passing by; private is that which is to a house or mill, &c.” 2 Institute, 406. A common nuisance is defined to be an offence against the public “either by doing a thing which tends to the annoyance of all the king’s subjects, or by neglecting to do a thing which the common good requires.” Hawk, p. 1. c. 107, c. 75, f. 1. For the private injury there was the remedy by civil action; for the common and the public injuries, the remedy was by indictment.
The common-law obligation upon all owners of property has, in general, been adhered to by the superior courts. “Prohibetur ne quis faciet in suo quod nocere possit alieno; et sic utere tuo ut alienum non lædas.” 9 Co. Rep. 58.
Thus, it is held to be a common nuisance and indictable to divide a messuage in a town for poor people to inhabit, by which it will be more dangerous in time of infection. 2 Roll’s Abridgment, 139. Such indictment of one Brown for dividing a messuage in the village of Hertford was held good, and he was put to plead to it; and it was then said that such indictments are frequent in London for dividing of messuages.
The policy of the common law was endeavoured to be enforced by the statute of the 31st of Eliz. c. 7, which provided that there should not be any inmate or more families or households than one dwelling or inhabiting in any one cottage, made or to be made or created, upon pain that every owner or occupier of such cottage, placing or wilfully suffering any such inmate or other family than one, should forfeit 10s. for every month that such inmate or other family than one should dwell in it. The statute provided that no cottage should for the future be built without four acres at the least of land attached to it. But this provision did not extend to cottages in towns, or for mineral works, navigation, sheep cotes, &.c. From the number of decisions in the books, it would appear that the provisions of the statute were extensively enforced against the overcrowding of the tenements, but the obligation for attaching the four acres of land impeded the erection of new tenements, and occasioned inconvenience and led to the repeal of the whole statute, by the 15th Geo. III. cap. 32.
In a temporary Act passed in the 35th of Eliz. cap. c., for the reforming of the great mischiefs and inconveniences that “daily grow and increase by reason of the pestering of houses with divers families harbouring of inmates,” that occurred in the city of London and Westminster, it is recited that the practice had been productive of “great infection of sickness.” This effect could scarcely have failed to be perceived when the plague was so frequent and dreadful in its visitations. The exemption from it is ascribed to such widening of the streets and improvements of the houses as took place after the Fire of London.
But we apprehend that the common-law remedy still remains in force as against the owners of tenements which are a nuisance. It was decided in the case of the King v. Pedley, temp. 1834, 1st Adolphus and Ellis, 822:—
“That if the owner of land erect a building which is a nuisance, or of which the occupation is likely to produce a nuisance, and let the land, he is liable to an indictment for such nuisance being continued or created during the term.
“So he is if he let a building which requires particular care to prevent the occupation from being a nuisance, and the nuisance occur for want of such care on the part of the tenant.
“That if a party buy the reversion during a tenancy, and the tenant afterwards during his term erect a nuisance, the reversioner is not liable for it; but if such reversioner relet, or having an opportunity to determine the tenancy omit to do so, allowing the nuisance to continue, he is liable for such continuance. Per Littledale, J.
“And such purchaser is liable to be indicted for the continuing of the nuisance if the original reversioner would have been liable, though the purchaser has had no opportunity of putting an end to the tenant’s interest or abating the nuisance.”
The stopping of wholesome air is held to be a nuisance as well as the stopping of the light. Co. 9 Will., Aldred, 57. In the case of Lewes v. Keene, Trin. Term. Jac. Rex, it was held by the court—“that the light which cometh in by the windowes, being an essential part of the house, by which he hath three great commodities, that is to say, air for his health, light for his profit, prospect for his pleasure, may not be taken away no more than a part of his house may be pulled down, whereby to erect the next house adjoining. And with this resolution agreeth the case of Eldred, reported by Sir Edw. Coke, in his Ninth Report, fol. 58, where he showeth the ancient form of the action upon the case to be quod messuagium horrida tenebritate obscuratum facit; but if there be hinderance only of the prospect by the new erected house, and not of the air, not of the light, then an action of the case will not lye, insomuch that the prospect is only a matter of delight, and not of necessity.”
The corruption of the water is an offence at common law, and was early the subject of a statutory provision. In the earlier periods the power of the legislature was directly exercised for the abatement of nuisances. I am favoured by the following illustrations from a collection of records upon the subject made by Mr. T. D. Hardy, of the Record Office in the Tower:—
The first extract shows that sea-coal was in use in London much earlier than is commonly supposed:—
“Patent Roll, 16 Edw. 1.—The king to his beloved and faithful Thomas de Weylaund, John de Luvetot, John de Cobeham, and Ralph de Sandwico, custos of his city of London, greeting: From the complaint of many persons, we understand that many people are dangerously aggrieved by the furnaces of lime which are built in the said city and its suburbs, and in Southwark; because the lime which formerly used to be burnt with wood, is now burnt with sea coal, by which the air there is affected and corrupted, to the great danger of persons frequenting those parts and dwelling around them: we, therefore, being willing to afford a fitting remedy for this, have appointed you to see those furnaces, and remove the danger and nuisances which threaten from them in these days, and to order further concerning them according to your discretion, as you shall see most expedient for the common use and safety; and therefore we command you, that taking with you our sheriffs of London and our bailiffs of Southwark, you perform the premises with diligence. We have also commanded the same sheriffs and bailiffs that at a certain day, which you shall make known to them, they attend to this with you, in form aforesaid. Witness, Edmund Earl of Cornwall, at Westminster, on the 26th day of May.”
“A.D. 1290, 18 Edw. I.—The Carmelite Friars of London, the Friars-preachers, the Bishop of Salisbury, and others, petition Parliament to abate a nuisance (viz. a great stench) near them which they cannot endure, and which prevents them from performing their religious duties, and from which several of the monks had died. (Petit, in Parl. 18 Edw. I.)
“35 Edw. I.—The mayor of London is commanded to prevent persons from lighting furnaces near the Tower of London during the stay of the Queen and the nobles at the tower, because the air is corrupted and infection generated by the insalubrity of the air on account of the said furnaces. (Rot. claus. 35 Edw. I.)
“A.D. 1320, 14 Edw. II.—The inhabitants of the neighbourhood of Smithfield complain to Parliament that wells and ditches are dug there without the king’s license, to the annoyance of the inhabitants and passengers. The mayor and corporation of London are thereupon ordered to see that such nuisances are abated. (Petit, in Parl. 14 Edw. II.)
“A.D. 1330, 4 Edw. III.—The chancellor and University of Cambridge petition Parliament that the mayor and corporation of Cambridge may be constrained to scour the ditch of the town, which is injurious to the health of the inhabitants of the town. (Petit, in Parl. 4 Edw. III.)
“44 Edw. III.—The butchers of London are forbidden to slaughter cattle within that city, or throw entrails into the river Thames, on forfeiture of the carcase and imprisonment. (Rot. claus. 44 Edw. III.)
“A.D. 1370, 3 Rich. II.—The inhabitants of Smithfield and Holborn complain of the infection of the air from butchers slaughtering cattle, &c., and casting entrails into the ditches. (Petit, in Parl. 3 Rich. II.)
“By stat. 12th Rich. II. c. 13.—None shall cast any garbage or dung or filth into ditches, waters, or other places within or near any city or town, on pain of punishment by the Lord Chancellor at his discretion.
“Butchers of London shall erect a slaughter-house on the banks of the Thames, and thither carry off their offals, which, when cut into pieces, shall be carried in boats, and at the commencement of the ebb cast into the river. (Rot. Parl. 16 Rich. II.)
“A.D. 1392, 16 Rich. II.—It is enacted that the butchers of London shall not slaughter therein any swine or other beasts for sale. (Rot. Parl. 16 Rich. II.)
“Same date.—All filth, &c. ordered by Parliament to be removed from both banks of the Thames between the palace of Westminster and the power of London; and butchers or others are prohibited from casting entrails, &c. into the river on penalty of 40l. (Ibid.)
“Parliament forbids all persons from throwing dung, garbage, or entrails of slaughtered beasts into rivers or waters near cities or towns to corrupt the air and cause infection. (Rot. claus. 4 Hen. IV.)
“The Chancellor is authorized to treat touching the non-rebuilding of two forges in Fleet-street, London, demolished in a riot, as straitening the said street.” (Rot. Parl. 18 Hen. VI.)
We find the authority of Parliament exercised in the reign of Henry VII. to restrain a nuisance. In the 4th of his reign, c. 3.
“Item, it was shewed by a petition put to the king, our said sovereign lord, in the said Parliament, by his subjects and parishioners of the parish of St. Faith’s and St. Gregory’s in London, near adjoining unto the cathedral church of St. Paul’s, that whereas great concourse of people as well of his royal person as of other great lords and states with other his true subjects, oftentimes was had unto the said cathedral church, and that for the most part throughout the parishes aforesaid the which oftentimes been greatly annoyed and distempered by corrupt airs engendered in the said parishes, by occasion of blood and other foulis things by reason of the slaughter of beasts and scalding of swine, had and done in the butchery of St. Nicholas’s flesh shambles, whose corruption and foul ordure by violence of unclean, corrupt, and putrefied waters is borne down through the said parishes, &c., complaint whereof at many and divers seasons also by the space of sixteen years continually, as well by canons and petty canons of the said cathedral church, landlords there, as also by many other of the king’s subjects, of right honest behaviour, hath been made unto divers mayors and aldermen of the City of London and no remedy had ne found; that it may please our said sovereign lord of his abundant grace, to provide for the conservation as well of his most royal person, as to succour his poor subjects and suppliants in this behalf, considering that in few noble cities and towns, or none within Christendon, whereat travelling men have laboured, the common slaughter-house of beasts should be kept in any special part within the walls of the same, lest it might engender sickness unto the destruction of the people.”
Therefore it is enacted that butchers shall not slay beasts within the walls of London; and that this law be observed in every walled town “except Berwick and Carlisle.”
The courts, however, have always had regard to the convenience of trade: thus it was held,—
“Si homme fait candells deins un vill, per qui il cause un noysom sent al inhabitants, uncore ceo nest ascun nusans car le needfulness de eux dispensera ove le noisomness del smell.” (2 Roll’s Abr. 139.)
But this decision has been doubted, “Because,” says Serjeant Hawkins, Pl. Cor. 190, c. 75, “whatever necessity there may be that candles be made, it cannot be pretended to be necessary to make them in a town, and that the trade of a brewer is as necessary as that of a chandler; and yet it seems to be agreed that a brewhouse erected in such an inconvenient place where the business cannot be carried on without incommoding greatly the neighbourhood may be indicted as a common nuisance. A presentment was made to a Leet for erecting a glass-house; and Twisden, J., said he had known an information adjudged against one for erecting a brewhouse near Serjeants’ Inn; but it was insisted that a man ought not to be punished for erecting anything necessary for the exercise of his lawful trade; and it being answered that it ought to be in convenient places where it may not be a nuisance, the other justices doubted, and agreed that it was unlawful only to erect such things near the King’s palace.” Vent. 26, Pasch. 21, Car. 2. Recently, however, when some architects and medical gentlemen went to the top of Buckingham Palace to examine it preparatory to its occupation by Her Majesty, they were assailed by a cloud of smoke from the chimney of the furnace of a neighbouring brewery; and the nuisance remains to the present time in full force, notwithstanding the statutory provisions against it.
Where the defendant in his business as a printer employed a steam-engine, which produced a continued noise and vibration in the plaintiff’s apartment which adjoined the premises of the defendant, this was held to be a nuisance. The Duke of Northumberland v. Clowes, C. P., at Westminster, A.D., 1824.
The earlier sanitary regulations were frequently set forth in the provisions of the local Acts for the regulation of the streets. From the early street regulations of the city of London, we find that the purity of the river and of the contributary streams was zealously regarded; the ward inquests were specially charged to inquire:—
“If any manner of person cast or lay dung, ordure, rubbish, sea-coal dust, rushes, or any other noiant, in the river of Thames, Walbrook, Fleet, or other ditches of this city, or in the open streets, ways, or lanes within this city.
“Also, if any person in or after a great rain falleth, or at any other time, sweep any dung, ordure, rubbish, rushes, sea-coal dust, or any other thing noiant down into the channel of any street or lane, whereby the common course there is let, and the same things noiant driven down into the said water of Thames.”
But when it is considered how few of the streets were paved, or sewered, or drained, the following regulation indicates what must have been their condition and the habits of the inhabitants:—
“No man shall cast any urine-boles or ordure-boles into the street by day or night, afore the hour of nine in the night: and also he shall not cast it out, but bring it down, and lay it in the channel, under the pain of three shillings and four-pence; and if he do cast it upon any person’s head, the party to have a lawful recompense, if he have hurt thereby.”
The state in which the streets were under such regulations is indicated in the proclamations issued at the time of the Plague, 1569, to “warne all inhabitants against their houses to keep channels clear from filth, (by onlie turning yt) aside, that the water may have passage.”
The prominent provisions of the modern Sewers’ and Street Acts are those which contain penalties against the most effectual means of street-cleansing,—that by discharging the street refuse through the sewers; but whilst the local legislation was deficient in principle in the main provisions, it is distinguished by a multitude of particular provisions against nuisances and obstructions, which would argue the most extensive foresight. The nature of the provisions habitually resorted to are illustrated in the statute of 4th Geo. IV. c. 50, s. l, for building the new London Bridge.[42]
“Every man may abate a common nuisance.” Br. Nuisance. “The nuisance may be abated, that is, taken away or removed by the aggrieved thereby, so as he commits no riot in doing of it.” “And the reason,” says Blackstone, “why the law allows this private and summary method of doing one’s-self justice, is because injuries of this kind which obstruct or annoy such things as are of daily convenience and use require an immediate remedy, and cannot wait for the slow progress of the ordinary forms of justice.” Com. B. iii. 6. And the annotator adds, “The security of the lives and property may sometimes require so speedy a remedy as not to allow time to call on the person on whose property the mischief has arisen to remedy it. Pardon for a nuisance is void as for the continuance thereof.” 3 Cro. Jac. 492, Dewell v. Saunders.
The most important, perhaps, because the most cheap and accessible authority for reclaiming the execution of the law for the protection of the subject against nuisances, for punishing particular violations of it, was vested in the Courts Leet. The statute of the view of Frankpledge, 13 Edw. II., directs inquiry to be made of waters turned, or stopped, or brought from their right course, and obstructions in ditches were presentable at the Leet; but the stopping up a watering-place for cattle was held not to be presentible as a common nuisance. (40 Lit. 56 a.) The juries, commonly called “annoyance juries,” impanelled to serve on Courts Leet in towns, are accustomed to perambulate their districts to judge of nuisances upon the view. But the state of this machinery will be seen in the state of the evils which come within its jurisdiction.
With all this legal strength, however, there is scarcely one town in England which we have found in a low sanitary condition, nor scarcely one village marked as the abode of fever, that does not present an example of standing violations of the law, and of the infliction of public and common as well as of private injuries, the tenements overcrowded, streets replete with injurious nuisances, the streams of pure water polluted, and the air rendered noisome.
The chimneys of the furnaces which darken the atmospheres, and pour out volumes of smoke and soot upon the inhabitants of populous towns, afford most frequent examples of the inefficiency of the local administration, and the contempt of the law for the protection of the public against nuisances which are specially provided for.
Most modern private Acts contain penalties on gas-companies permitting their washings to contaminate streams, or using for steam-engines furnaces which do not consume their own smoke. The general statute, 1 and 2 Geo. IV. c. 41, empowers the court to award costs to the prosecutor of those who use such furnaces. Where the grievance may be remedied by altering the construction of the furnace employed in the working of engines by steam, the court may make an order for preventing the nuisance in future.
The specific effects of an excess of smoke on the general health of a town population has not been distinguished, but from the comparatively high average of mortality amongst the middle classes in situations undistinguished by confined residences, or defective drainage, or anything but an excessively smoky atmosphere; from the comparatively rapid improvement of convalescents on removal to purer atmospheres, there is strong reason to believe that the prejudicial effect is much more considerable than is commonly apprehended even by medical practitioners. As the smoke in Manchester and other towns becomes more dense, the vegetation declines; and even in the suburbs the more delicate species die. Dr. Baker, in his report on the sanitary condition of the town of Derby, after adverting to the state of the places of work as affecting the health of the operations, proceeds to notice the effects of the smoke:—
“The next general cause of injury to public health, and connected with the foregoing, is the corruption of the air caused by the torrents of black smoke that issue from the manufactory chimneys, the nuisance from which is much augmented in heavy and moist states of the atmosphere. There is a law by which those who most offend, as regards their chimneys, can be punished; but of course the magistrates are not also prosecutors, whilst, private individuals, being unwilling to become informers, little is done to check this nuisance; and such is the state of the air, that in gardens in the town none but deciduous shrubs can be kept alive.”
Besides the prejudicial effects on the health of the population by the deterioration of the quality of the air that is breathed, a serious effect is created by its operation as an impediment to the formation and maintenance of habits of personal and household cleanliness amongst the working classes. Even upon the middle and higher classes the nuisance of an excess of smoke, occasioned by ignorance and culpable carelessness, operates as a tax increasing the wear and tear of linen and the expense of washing, to all who live within the range of the mismanaged chimneys. In the suburbs of Manchester, for example, linen will be as dirty in two or three days as it would be even in the suburbs of London in a week. One person stated that, on the Isle of Arran, a shirt was cleaner at the end of a week’s wear than at Manchester at the end of a day’s.
Nor is this the only oppressive tax occasioned by the carelessness; Mr. Thomas Cubitt, the eminent builder, when examined before the Committee of the House of Commons, was asked,—
“Suppose it were intended to build a row of houses, would you not suffer them to be built unless there was a sewer provided?—I would not allow a house to be built anywhere unless it could be shown that there was a good drainage, and a good way to get rid of water. I think that there should be some public officer responsible for that; that there should be surveys of every district, so that the officer should be aware whether the sewers were provided or not. I think there should be an officer paid at the public expense, who should be responsible for that. I think they should not be appointed by the district; there should be no favouritism of that kind; but public officers, changed from point to point, to take care of all public nuisances. With respect to manufactories, here are a great number driven by competition to work in the cheapest way they can. A man puts up a steam-engine, and sends out an immense quantity of smoke; perhaps he creates a great deal of foul and bad gas; that is all let loose. Where his returns are 1000l. a-month, if he would spend 5l. a-month more he would make that completely harmless; but he says, ‘I am not bound to do that,’ and therefore he works as cheaply as he can, and the public suffer to an extent beyond all calculation. I look upon it it has this effect: a gentleman comes to London, and lives in London; I will suppose he fits up his house in the best style he can; he has a taste for good pictures and upholstery, and so on. After a time the smoke has destroyed them, and he is disappointed and annoyed, and the effect is he is brought down in his feelings in a degree from the state in which he was accustomed to have things.”
The appearance of the towns on the Sunday, when nearly all the furnaces are stopped, when there is little more than the smoke from the dwelling-houses, when everything is comparatively bright, and the distant hills and surrounding country that are never visible though the atmosphere of the town in the week-days may be seen across it, presents nearly the appearance which such towns would assume on the working days, if the laws were duly executed, and the excessive smoke of the furnaces prevented. On inquiry of a peace-officer acting where redress is provided for under a local Act, how it was that the dereliction of duty occurred that was visible in the dense black clouds that darkened the town, he replied that the chief members of the Board were the persons whose furnace-chimneys were most in fault, and he appealed whether a man in his condition was to be expected to prosecute his patrons?
The greater part, if not the whole, of the excess of smoke and of unconsumed gas by which the metropolis and the neighbourhoods of manufactories are oppressed, is preventible by the exercise of care in the management of the fires of the furnaces. And here also the measures for the prevention of the nuisance are measures of economy.
Many witnesses whose opinions are enforced by practical examples, state confidently that such nuisances are generally the result of ignorance or carelessness. Amongst others we may cite the authority of Mr. Ewart, the inspector of machinery to the Admiralty, residing at Her Majesty’s Dock-yard at Woolwich, where the chimney of the manufactory under his immediate superintendence, regulated according to his directions, offers an example of the little smoke that need be occasioned from steam-engine furnaces if care be exercised. He states that no peculiar machinery is used; the stoker or fire-keeper is only required to exercise care in not throwing on too much coal at once, and to open the furnace door in such slight degree as to admit occasionally the small proportion of atmospheric air requisite to effect complete combustion. Mr. Ewart also states that if the fire be properly managed, there will be a saving of fuel. The extent of smoke denotes the extent to which the combustion is incomplete. The chimney belonging to the manufactory of Mr. Peter Fairbairn, engineer at Leeds, also presents an example and a contrast to the chimneys of nearly all the other manufactories which overcast that town. On each side of it is a chimney belonging to another manufactory, pouring out dense clouds of smoke; whilst the chimney at Mr. Fairbairn’s manufactory presents the appearance of no greater quantity of smoke than of some private houses. Mr. Fairbairn stated, in answer to inquiries upon this subject, that he uses what is called Stanley’s feeding machinery, which graduates the supply of coal so as to produce nearly complete combustion. After the fire is once lighted, little remains to the ignorance or the carelessness of the stoker. Mr. Fairbairn also states that his consumption of fuel in his steam-engine furnaces, in comparison with that of his immediate neighbours, is proportionately less. The engine belonging to the cotton-mills of Mr. Thomas Ashton, of Hyde, near Stockport, affords to the people of that town an example of the extent to which, by a little care, they might be relieved of the thick cloud of smoke by which the district is oppressed.
At a meeting of manufacturers and others, held at Leeds, for the suppression of the nuisance of the smoke of furnaces, and to discuss the various plans for abating it, the resolution was unanimously adopted, “that in the opinion of this meeting the smoke arising from steam-engine fires and furnaces can be consumed, and that, too, without injury to the boilers, and with a saving of fuel.” Notice of legal proceedings being given against Messrs. Meux, the brewers in London, for a nuisance arising from the chimneys of two furnaces, they found that by using anthracite coal they abated the nuisance to the neighbourhood, and saved 200l. per annum. The West Middlesex Water Company, by diminishing the smoke of their furnaces saved 1000l. per annum.
The gas-companies in the city of London were indicted for throwing their refuse into the Thames, and compelled to dispose of it otherwise; and they found out that they had been guilty of waste as well as of nuisance; and it is stated that the whole of what was formerly cast away has now become an important article of commerce.
In the rural districts the Courts Leet have generally fallen into desuetude. In illustration of the feeble tenure on which they were held, I may mention that in some instances, where it has been necessary to disallow payments of fees paid to the officers of those courts from the poor’s rates, the stewards have stated that they should hereafter discontinue the courts; and it is probable that they did so. In the towns, Courts Leet are sometimes held, and inquest juries appointed; but it is objected to these bodies, and frequently to the bodies constituted under local acts, that they are usually composed of tradesmen who attend unwillingly and at an inconvenient sacrifice of time; who can have little or no information in respect to the evils in question; who have no arrangements to bring the evils in question before them; no time to master such information as may be brought before them casually; little interest and scarcely any real responsibility imposed for ensuring any mastery of it; and neither time nor adequate means at their disposal for the removal of such evils as those in question when they are presented to them, and proved to exist. Thus: two persons of respectability who were unexpectedly called upon to serve on a jury of this description in the metropolis, state that, as they had no properly qualified officer to instruct them, they were only directed to the performance of their duties by the accidental presence of a builder.
“When we were sworn in, we went over the district: we went through many places which were disgustingly filthy, that I have since learned were places where there is always fever, but we were not told about it; the afflicted knew nothing of our coming, and we had no medical officer, or means to enable us to detect the presence of any nuisances which would endanger the public health.
“The number of persons sworn in was twenty-four, of whom I can remember six were publicans (at one or other of whose houses we dined on the days of meeting), one or two cheesemongers, three or four tailors or drapers, one builder, and one bricklayer; the trades or occupations of the remainder I cannot remember. Of the twenty-four sworn in, twelve only served, and the duties were performed in rotation. An allowance of 2s. 6d. was given to each juryman for his expenses on the days of acting, with the exception of the foreman and the secretary, who had been unfortunate enough, or who, for some purpose of their own, managed to be sworn in on three or four previous occasions. None of the jury knew the nature of the duties further than that they were to examine weights and measures; that part of their duty respecting the removal of nuisances, or of things affecting the health or the lives of the inhabitants of the district which we perambulated, was entirely neglected or lost sight of; the only instance that I remember of any attention being paid to the subject, was that of the condemnation of an old house in a disgusting neighbourhood of houses; and in this case, although the house certainly looked in a bad condition, the jury were quite unable to come to a decision until the bricklayer and builder pronounced its condemnation, when the jury at once became unanimous, and condemned the house forthwith. My own impression was, that the house was not in a safe condition, but I felt, in common with others, (the tailors, drapers, and cheesemongers,) that however anxious we might be to discharge our duties faithfully, that the nature of our occupations did not at all qualify us to express an opinion upon the subject, and hence we were all guided and determined by the opinion of the bricklayer and builder who happened to be present. Had they not been present, we should probably have done nothing. It is only necessary for any sensible person to serve on such a body in a town to be convinced of its entire inefficiency.”
The district over which this jury perambulated was one in which contagious disease often prevails in its worst forms; and it is quite clear that, without appropriate arrangements, such a body would continue to walk over the ground, equally unconscious of the evil and impotent to effect its removal.
A civil engineer and surveyor of very high acquirements in the metropolis thus describes the qualification of persons serving on these inquests:—
“I speak from experience, having personally attended one of these inquests, with a view to give them the benefit of my practical knowledge; I did not find one of them amongst the twelve competent to perform usefully to the parish or the public the duties imposed upon them. I have known repeated instances in these united parishes, where ruinous houses have been permitted to remain for years without receiving any attention from the authorities, to the great danger of the occupiers and also to the public. I would instance two houses that to my certain knowledge have for ten or a dozen years inclined over in the street from the pavement upwards of eighteen inches, without being noticed by an Inquest Jury. My attention was lately directed professionally by the owner of the houses in question to their state and condition; upon a careful examination I found them so dangerous that I immediately gave directions to have them shored up, and recommended the tenant to vacate them in the meanwhile: to my great surprise, at the expiration of three or four days after the houses had been properly secured, the freeholders were served with a notice from the Inquest Jury to do what had already been done, viz., secure the houses from danger.”
A gentleman who has acted as one of the Commissioners under the Act for Bolton, thus describes the operation of its provisions:—
“We have an Act in Little Bolton with extensive powers for the preservation of the public health.
“I was appointed in 1837 one of the Trustees or Commissioners under this Act; they are elected by the ratepayers, and one-third go out annually; party political feeling has created a strife as to whether Whigs or Tories shall expend the public funds (the same is the case in Manchester), and hence a strife as to the economy of management. The streets are badly lighted, and sometimes not at all, to save the expense of gas. A surveyor is appointed in Little Bolton, whose duties are to see after the lighting, paving, cleansing, sewering, fire-engines, and firemen, the prevention of nuisances, encroachments, &c., &c.; to hiring and paying all the workmen, and buying the materials for repairing the roads and streets over a district containing about 15,000 inhabitants, for all of which service he receives 80l. a-year.
“With such talent as 80l. a-year will command, and such duties to perform, it may readily be supposed that sewerages and nuisances are liable to be overlooked.
“I once called the surveyor before a Board of about twenty Trustees, to draw attention to a pool of stagnant water lying in front of or betwixt two rows of cottages about 60 feet apart from each other, and about 150 feet long, covering nearly the whole of this vacant space of around from one to two feet deep; dead dogs, kittens, and other impurities in the height of summer were floating in it, yet I was unable to obtain an order for the surveyor to expend a few pounds in draining it off, or to compel the owner to do it, although situate in the centre of a very populous district; and it continued in the same state till built over by cottages the following year.”
The nuisances which favoured the introduction and spread of the cholera were for the most part evils within the cognizance of the Leets, and could not have existed had their powers been properly exercised, yet so complete was the desuetude of the machinery of these Courts that it appeared nowhere to be thought of as applicable, and the new and special machinery of the Boards of Health were created for the purpose of meeting the pestilence. There are no funds provided by which the common remedy by indictment could now be prosecuted: and since the most offensive and injurious nuisances are those supported by large capital, redress for the private injury is practically available only to persons who can afford to risk large sums in litigation. In one instance in Scotland, where the stream which supplied a village was discoloured and rendered disagreeable to the taste by some dye-works, a gentleman who took up the defence of the villagers, who were mostly his tenants, stated to me that the litigation incurred by an obstinate defence involved an expenditure of no less a sum than 4,000l., the whole of which he did not recover, and that from his own experience he was clearly of opinion no one who had not most inflexible determination, as well as ample means, would be warranted in entering upon such a contest. Powerful influence was used to induce him to stay the suit, and he was by persons of his own class regarded as the persecutor of the author of the nuisance.
The complication of various nuisances in some of the larger manufacturing districts has frequently become so great as to put them beyond any existing legal remedy, whether private or public, by placing out of the apparent possibility of distinct technical proof any injury or particular effect arising from any one. An instance of this is stated by Messrs. Paris and Fonblanque, where two indictments were preferred; the one preferred against the proprietor of a Prussian-blue manufactory; the other against a black-ash manufacturer; both of these works were situated in Seward-street, Goswell-street, London. The counsel for the defendant, in his cross-examination of the witnesses for the prosecution of the Prussian-blue maker, drew from them an account of the noisome vapours of the black-ash manufactury; while in the latter trial the same barrister made the witnesses declare the extreme stench of the Prussian-blue manufactory; so that in both cases the defendants obtained a verdict, because in neither case could the witnesses for the Crown unequivocally prove from which of the manufactories the nuisance complained of arose.