Of the London Dustmen, Nightmen, Sweeps, and Scavengers.
These men constitute a large body, and are a class who, all things considered, do their work silently and efficiently. Almost without the cognisance of the mass of the people, the refuse is removed from our streets and houses; and London, as if in the care of a tidy housewife, is always being cleaned. Great as are the faults and absurdities of many parts of our system of public cleansing, nevertheless, when compared with the state of things in any continental capital, the superiority of the metropolis of Great Britain is indisputable.
In all this matter there is little merit to be attributed to the workmen, except that they may be well drilled; for the majority of them are as much machines, apart from their animation, as are the cane and whalebone made to cleanse the chimney, or the clumsy-looking machine which, in its progress, is a vehicular scavenger, sweeping as it goes.
These public cleansers are to be thus classified:—
1. Dustmen, or those who empty and remove the collection of ashes, bones, vegetables, &c., deposited in the dust-bins, or other refuse receptacles throughout the metropolis.
2. Nightmen, or those who remove the contents of the cesspools.
3. Sweeps, or those who remove the soot from the chimneys.
4. Scavengers, or those who remove the dirt from the streets, roads, and markets.
Let me, however, before proceeding further with the subject, lay before the reader the following important return as to the extent and contents of this prodigious city: for this document I am indebted to the Commissioners of Police, gentlemen from whom I have derived the most valuable information since the commencement of my inquiries, and to whose courtesy and consideration I am anxious to acknowledge my many obligations.
RETURN SHOWING THE EXTENT, POPULATION, AND POLICE FORCE IN THE METROPOLITAN POLICE DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF LONDON IN SEPTEMBER, 1850.
| Metropolitan Police District[6]. | City of London[8]. | Grand Total. | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inner District[7]. | Outer District. | Total. | |||
| Area (in square miles) | 91 | 609½ | 700½ | 1¾ | 702¼ |
| Parishes | 82 | 136 | 218 | 97 | 315 |
| Streets, Roads, &c. (length of, in miles) | 1,700 | 1,936 | 3,636 | 50 | 3,686 |
| Number of Houses inhabited | 289,912 | 59,995 | 349,907 | 15,613 | 365,520 |
| „ „ uninhabited | 11,868 | 1,437 | 13,305 | 387 | 13,692 |
| „ „ being built | 4,634 | 1,097 | 5,731 | 23 | 5,754 |
| Population | 1,986,629 | 350,331 | 2,336,960 | 125,000 | 2,461,960 |
| Police Force | 4,844 | 660 | 5,504 | 568 | 6,072 |
18th September, 1850.
The total here given can hardly be considered as the dimensions of the metropolis; though, where the capital begins and ends, it is difficult to say. If, however, London be regarded as concentring within the Inner Police District, then, adding the extent and contents of that district to those of the City, as above detailed, we have the subjoined statement as to the dimensions and inhabitants of the
Metropolis Proper.
| Area | 92¾ square miles. |
| Parishes | 179 |
| Length of street, roads, &c. | 1750 miles. |
| Number of inhabited houses | 305,525 |
| Ditto uninhabited | 12,255 |
| Ditto being built | 4657 |
| Population | 2,111,629 |
| Police force | 5412 |
But if the extent of even this “inner district” be so vast as almost to overpower the mind with its magnitude—if its population be greater than that of the entire kingdom of Hanover, and almost equal to that of the republic of Switzerland—if its houses be so numerous that placed side by side they would form one continuous line of dwellings from its centre to Moscow—if its streets and roads be nearly equal in length to one quarter of the diameter of the earth itself,—what a task must the cleansing of such a bricken wilderness be, and yet, assuredly, though it be by far the greatest, it is at the same time by far the cleanest city in the world.
The removal of the refuse of a large town is, perhaps, one of the most important of social operations. Not only is it necessary for the well-being of a vast aggregation of people that the ordure should be removed from both within and around their dwellings as soon as it is generated, but nature, ever working in a circle and reproducing in the same ratio as she destroys, has made this same ordure not only the cause of present disease when allowed to remain within the city, but the means of future health and sustenance when removed to the fields.
In a leading article in the Morning Chronicle, written about two years since, I said—
“That man gets his bones from the rocks and his muscles from the atmosphere, is beyond all doubt. The iron in his blood and the lime in his teeth were originally in the soil. But these could not be in his body unless they had previously formed part of his food. And yet we can neither live on air nor on stones. We cannot grow fat upon lime, and iron is positively indigestible in our stomachs. It is by means of the vegetable creation alone that we are enabled to convert the mineral into flesh and blood. The only apparent use of herbs and plants is to change the inorganic earth, air, and water, into organic substances fitted for the nutrition of animals. The little lichen, which, by means of the oxalic acid that it secretes, decomposes the rocks to which it clings, and fits their lime for ‘assimilation’ with higher organisms, is, as it were, but the primitive bone-maker of the world. By what subtle transmutation inorganic nature is changed into organic, and dead inert matter quickened with life, is far beyond us even to conjecture. Suffice it that an express apparatus is required for the process—a special mechanism to convert the ‘crust of the earth,’ as it is called, into food for man and beast.
“Now, in Nature everything moves in a circle—perpetually changing, and yet ever returning to the point whence it started. Our bodies are continually decomposing and recomposing—indeed, the very process of breathing is but one of decomposition. As animals live on vegetables, even so is the refuse of the animal the vegetable’s food. The carbonic acid which comes from our lungs, and which is poison for us to inhale, is not only the vital air of plants, but positively their nutriment. With the same wondrous economy that marks all creation, it has been ordained that what is unfitted for the support of the superior organisms, is of all substances the best adapted to give strength and vigour to the inferior. That which we excrete as pollution to our system, they secrete as nourishment to theirs. Plants are not only Nature’s scavengers but Nature’s purifiers. They remove the filth from the earth, as well as disinfect the atmosphere, and fit it to be breathed by a higher order of beings. Without the vegetable creation the animal could neither have been nor be. Plants not only fitted the earth originally for the residence of man and the brute, but to this day they continue to render it habitable to us. For this end their nature has been made the very antithesis to ours. The process by which we live is the process by which they are destroyed. That which supports respiration in us produces putrefaction in them. What our lungs throw off, their lungs absorb—what our bodies reject, their roots imbibe.
“Hence, in order that the balance of waste and supply should be maintained—that the principle of universal compensation should be kept up, and that what is rejected by us should go to the sustenance of plants, Nature has given us several instinctive motives to remove our refuse from us. She has not only constituted that which we egest the most loathsome of all things to our senses and imagination, but she has rendered its effluvium highly pernicious to our health—sulphuretted hydrogen being at once the most deleterious and offensive of all gases. Consequently, as in all other cases where the great law of Nature has to be enforced by special sanctions, a double motive has been given us to do that which it is necessary for us to do, and thus it has been made not only advantageous to us to remove our refuse to the fields, but positively detrimental to our health, and disgusting to our senses, to keep it in the neighbourhood of our houses.
“In every well-regulated State, therefore, an effective and rapid means for carrying off the ordure of the people to a locality where it may be fruitful instead of destructive, becomes a most important consideration. Both the health and the wealth of the nation depend upon it. If to make two blades of wheat grow where one grew before is to confer a benefit on the world, surely to remove that which will enable us at once to do this, and to purify the very air which we breathe, as well as the water which we drink, must be a still greater boon to society. It is, in fact, to give the community not only a double amount of food, but a double amount of health to enjoy it. We are now beginning to understand this. Up to the present time we have only thought of removing our refuse—the idea of using it never entered our minds. It was not until science taught us the dependence of one order of creation upon another, that we began to see that what appeared worse than worthless to us was Nature’s capital—wealth set aside for future production.”
In connection with this part of the subject, viz., the use of human refuse, I would here draw attention to those erroneous notions, as to the multiplication of the people, which teach us to look upon the increase of the population beyond certain limits as the greatest possible evil that can befall a community. Population, it is said, multiplies itself in a geometrical ratio, whereas the produce of the land is increased only in arithmetical proportion; that is to say, while the people are augmented after the rate of—
2 4 8 16 32 64
the quantity of food for them can be extended only in the following degrees:—
2 4 6 8 10 12
The cause of this is said to be that, after a certain stage in the cultivation of the soil, the increase of the produce from land is not in proportion to the increase of labour devoted to it; that is to say, doubling the labour does not double the crop; and hence it is asserted that the human race increasing at a quicker rate than the food, insufficient sustenance must be the necessary lot of a portion of the people in every densely-populated community.
That men of intelligence and education should have been persuaded by so plausible a doctrine at the time of its first promulgation may be readily conceived, for then the notions concerning organic chemistry were vague in the extreme, and the great universal law of Waste and Supply remained to be fully developed; but that men pretending to the least scientific knowledge should in these days be found advocating the Population Theory is only another of the many proofs of the indisposition of even the strongest minds to abandon their pet prejudices. Assuredly Malthus and Liebig are incompatible. If the new notions as to the chemistry of vegetation be true, then must the old notions as to population be utterly unfounded. If what we excrete plants secrete—if what we exhale they inspire—if our refuse is their food—then it follows that to increase the population is to increase the quantity of manure, while to increase the manure is to augment the food of plants, and consequently the plants themselves. If the plants nourish us, we at least nourish them. It seems never to have occurred to the economists that plants themselves required sustenance, and consequently they never troubled themselves to inquire whence they derived the elements of their growth. Had they done this they would never have even expected that a double quantity of mere labour upon the soil should have doubled the produce; but they would rather have seen that it was utterly impossible for the produce to be doubled without the food in the soil being doubled likewise; that is to say, they would have perceived that plants could not, whatever the labour exerted upon their cultivation, extract the elements of their organization from the earth and air, unless those elements previously existed in the land and atmosphere in which they grew, and that such elements, moreover, could not exist there without some organic being to egest them.
This doctrine of the universal Compensation extending throughout the material world, and more especially through the animal and vegetable kingdom, is, perhaps, one of the grandest and most consoling that science has yet revealed to us, making each mutually dependent on the other, and so contributing each to the other’s support. Moreover it is the more comforting, as enabling us almost to demonstrate the falsity of a creed which is opposed to every generous impulse of our nature, and which is utterly irreconcilable with the attributes of the Creator.
“Thanks to organic chemistry,” I said two years ago in the Morning Chronicle, “we are beginning to wake up. Science has taught us that the removal of the ordure of towns to the fields is a question that concerns not only our health, but, what is a far more important consideration with us, our breeches pockets. What we, in our ignorance, had mistaken for refuse of the vilest kind, we have now learned to regard as being, with reference to its fertilizing virtues, ‘a precious ore, running in rich veins beneath the surface of our streets.’ Whereas, if allowed to reek and seethe in cesspools within scent of our very hearths, or to pollute the water that we use to quench our thirst and cook our food, it becomes, like all wealth badly applied, converted into ‘poison:’ as Romeo says of gold to the apothecary—
‘Doing more murders in this loathsome world
Than those poor compounds which thou mayst not sell.’
“Formerly, in our eagerness to get rid of the pollution, we had literally not looked beyond our noses: hence our only care was to carry off the nuisance from the immediate vicinity of our own residences. It was no matter to us what became of it, so long as it did not taint the atmosphere around us. This the very instincts of our nature had made objectionable to us; so we laid down just as many drains and sewers as would carry our night-soil to the nearest stream; and thus, instead of poisoning the air that we breathed, we poisoned the water that we drank. Then, as the town extended—for cities, like mosaic work, are put together piecemeal—street being dovetailed to street, like county to county in our children’s geographical puzzles—each new row of houses tailed on its drains to those of its neighbours, without any inquiry being made as to whether they were on the same level or not. The consequence of this is, that the sewers in many parts of our metropolis are subject to an ebb and flood like their central stream, so that the pollution which they remove at low-water, they regularly bring back at high-water to the very doors of the houses whence they carried it.
“According to the average of the returns, from 1841 to 1846, we are paying two millions every year for guano, bone-dust, and other foreign fertilizers of our soil. In 1845, we employed no fewer than 683 ships to bring home 220,000 tons of animal manure from Ichaboe alone; and yet we are every day emptying into the Thames 115,000 tons of a substance which has been proved to be possessed of even greater fertilizing powers. With 200 tons of the sewage that we are wont to regard as refuse, applied to the irrigation of one acre of meadow land, seven crops, we are told, have been produced in the year, each of them worth from 6l. to 7l.; so that, considering the produce to have been doubled by these means, we have an increase of upwards of 20l. per acre per annum effected by the application of that refuse to the surface of our fields. This return is at the rate of 10l. for every 100 tons of sewage; and, since the total amount of refuse discharged into the Thames from the sewers of the metropolis is, in round numbers, 40,000,000 tons per annum, it follows that, according to such estimate, we are positively wasting 4,000,000l. of money every year; or, rather, it costs us that amount to poison the waters about us. Or, granting that the fertilizing power of the metropolitan refuse is—as it is said to be—as great for arable as for pasture-lands, then for every 200 tons of manure that we now cast away, we might have an increase of at least 20 bushels of corn per acre. Consequently the entire 40,000,000 tons of sewage, if applied to fatten the land instead of to poison the water, would, at such a rate of increase, swell our produce to the extent of 4,000,000 bushels of wheat per annum. Calculating then that each of these bushels would yield 16 quartern loaves, it would follow that we fling into the Thames no less than 246,000,000 lbs. of bread every year; or, still worse, by pouring into the river that which, if spread upon our fields, would enable thousands to live, we convert the elements of life and health into the germs of disease and death, changing into slow but certain poisons that which, in the subtle transmutation of organic nature, would become acres of life-sustaining grain.” I shall have more to say subsequently on this waste and its consequences.
These considerations show how vastly important it is that in the best of all possible ways we should collect, remove, and use the scavengery and excrementitious matter of our streets and houses.
Now the removal of the refuse of London is no slight task, consisting, as it does, of the cleansing of 1750 miles of streets and roads; of collecting the dust from 300,000 dust-bins; of emptying (according to the returns of the Board of Health) the same number of cesspools, and sweeping near upon 3,000,000 chimneys.
A task so vast it might naturally be imagined would give employment to a number of hands, and yet, if we trusted the returns of the Occupation Abstract of 1841, the whole of these stupendous operations are performed by a limited number of individuals.
RETURN OF THE NUMBER OF SWEEPS, DUSTMEN, AND NIGHTMEN IN THE METROPOLIS, ACCORDING TO THE CENSUS OF 1841.
| Total. | Males. | Females. | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20 years and upwards. | Under 20. | 20 years and upwards. | Under 20. | ||
| Chimney Sweepers | 1033 | 619 | 370 | 44 | |
| Scavengers and Nightmen | 254 | 227 | 10 | 17 | |
I am informed by persons in the trade that the “females” here mentioned as chimney-sweepers, and scavengers, and nightmen, must be such widows or daughters of sweeps and nightmen as have succeeded to their businesses, for that no women work at such trades; excepting, perhaps, in the management and care of the soot, in assisting to empty and fill the bags. Many females, however, are employed in sifting dust, but the calling of the dustman and dustwoman is not so much as noticed in the population returns.
According to the occupation abstract of the previous decennial period, the number of males of 20 years and upwards (for none others were mentioned) pursuing the same callings in the metropolis in 1831, were as follows:—
| Soot and chimney-sweepers | 421 |
| Nightmen and scavengers | 130 |
Hence the increase in the adult male operatives belonging to these trades, between 1831 and 1841, was, for Chimney-sweeps, 198; and Scavengers and Nightmen, 97.
But these returns are preposterously incorrect. In the first place it was not until 1842 that the parliamentary enactment prohibiting the further employment of climbing-boys for the purpose of sweeping chimneys came into operation. At that time the number of inhabited houses in the metropolis was in round numbers 250,000, and calculating these to have contained only eight rooms each, there would have been at the least 2,000,000 chimneys to sweep. Now, according to the government returns above cited—the London climbing-boys (for the masters did not and could not climb) in 1841 numbered only 370; at which rate there would have been but one boy to no less than 5400 chimneys! Pursuing the same mode of testing the validity of the “official” statements, we find, as the nightmen generally work in gangs of four, that each of the 63, or say 64, gangs comprised in the census returns, would have had 4000 cesspools to empty of their contents; while, working both as scavengers and nightmen (for, according to the census, they were the only individuals following those occupations in London), they would after their nocturnal labours have had about 27 miles of streets and roads to cleanse—a feat which would certainly have thrown the scavengering prowess of Hercules into the shade.
Under the respective heads of the dustmen, nightmen, sweeps, and scavengers, I shall give an account of the numbers, &c., employed, and a resumé of the whole. It will be sufficient here to mention that my investigations lead to the conclusion that, of men working as dustmen (a portion of whom are employed as nightmen and scavengers) there are at present about 1800 in the metropolis. The census of 1841, as I have pointed out, mentions no dustman whatever!
But I have so often had instances of the defects of this national numbering of the people that I have long since ceased to place much faith in its returns connected with the humbler grades of labour. The costermongers, for example, I estimate at about 10,000, whereas the government reports, as has been before mentioned, ignore the very existence of such a class of people, and make the entire hawkers, hucksters, and pedlars of the metropolis to amount to no more than 2045. Again, the London “coal labourers, heavers, and porters” are said, in the census of 1841, to be only 1700 in number; I find, however, that there are no less than 1800 “registered” coal-whippers, and as many coal porters; so that I am in no way inclined to give great credence to the “official enumerations.” The difficulties which beset the perfection of such a document are almost insuperable, and I have already heard of returns for the forthcoming document, made by ignorant people as to their occupations, which already go far to nullify the facts in connection with the employment of the ignorant and profligate classes of the metropolis.
Before quitting this part of the subject, viz., the extent of surface, the length of streets, and the number of houses throughout the metropolis requiring to be continually cleansed of their refuse, as well as the number of people as continually engaged in so cleansing them, let me here append the last returns of the Registrar General, copied from the census of 1851, as to the dimensions and contents of the metropolis according to that functionary, so that they may be compared with those of the metropolitan police before given.
In Weale’s “London Exhibited,” which is by far the most comprehensive description of the metropolis that I have seen, it is stated that it is “only possible to adopt a general idea of the giant city,” as its precise boundaries and extent cannot be defined. On the north of the Thames, we are told, London extends to Edmonton and Finchley; on the west it stretches to Acton and Hammersmith; on the east it reaches Leyton and Ham; while on the south of the Thames the metropolis is said to embrace Wandsworth, Streatham, Lewisham, Woolwich, and Plumstead. “To each of these points,” says Mr. Weale, but upon what authority he does not inform us, “continuous streets of houses reach; but the solid mass of houses lies within narrow bounds—with these several long arms extending from it. The greatest length of street, from east to west,” he adds, “is about fourteen miles, and from north to south about thirteen miles. The solid mass is about seven miles by four miles, so that the ground covered with houses is not less than 20 square miles.”
Mr. McCulloch, in his “London in 1850-51,” has a passage to the same effect. He says, “The continued and rapid increase of buildings renders it difficult to ascertain the extent of the metropolis at any particular period. If we include in it those parts only that present a solid mass of houses, its length from east to west may be taken at six miles, and its breadth from north to south at about three miles and a half. There is, however, a nearly continuous line of houses from Blackwall to Chelsea, a distance of about seven miles, and from Walworth to Holloway, of four and a half miles. The extent of surface covered by buildings is estimated at about sixteen square miles, or above 10,000 acres, so that M. Say, the celebrated French economist, did not really indulge in hyperbole when he said, ‘Londres n’est plus une ville: c’est une province couverte de maisons!’ (London is no longer a town: it is a province covered with houses).”
The Government authorities, however, appear to have very different notions from either of the above gentlemen as to the extent of the metropolis.
The limits of London, as at present laid down by the Registrar General, include 176 parishes, besides several precincts, liberties, and extra-parochial places, comprising altogether about 115 square miles. According to the old bills of mortality, London formerly included only 148 parishes, which were located as follows:—
| Parishes within the walls of the city | 97 |
| Parishes without the walls | 17 |
| Parishes in the city and liberties of Westminster | 10 |
| Out parishes in Middlesex and Surrey | 24 |
| 148 |
The parishes which have been annexed to the above at different periods since the commencement of the present century are:—
| Parishes added by the late Mr. Rickman (see Pop. Abstracts, 1801-31) (including Chelsea, Kensington, Paddington, St. Marylebone, and St. Pancras) | 5 |
| Parishes added by the Registrar General, 1838 (including Hammersmith, Fulham, Stoke Newington, Stratford-le-Bow, Bromley, Camberwell, Deptford, Greenwich, and Woolwich) | 10 |
| Parishes added by the Registrar General in 1844 (including Clapham, Battersea, Wandsworth, Putney, Lower Tooting, and Streatham) | 6 |
| Parishes added by the Registrar General in 1846 (comprising Hampstead, Charlton, Plumstead, Eltham, Lee, Kidbroke, and Lewisham) | 7 |
| Total number of parishes in the metropolis, as defined by the Registrar General | 176 |
The extent of London, according to the limits assigned to it at the several periods above mentioned, was—
| Stat. Acres. | Sq. miles. | |
|---|---|---|
| London within the old bills of mortality, from 1726 | 21,080 | 32 |
| London, within the limits adopted by the late Mr. Rickman, 1801-31 | 29,850 | 46 |
| London, within the limits adopted by the Registrar General, 1838-43 | 44,850 | 70 |
| London, within the limits adopted by the Registrar General, 1844-46 | 55,650 | 87 |
| London, within the limits adopted by the Registrar General in 1847-51 | 74,070 | 115 |
“London,” observes Mr. Weale, “has now swallowed up many cities, towns, villages, and separate jurisdictions. The four commonwealths, or kingdoms, of the Middle Saxons, East Saxons, the South Rick, and the Kentwaras, once ruled over its surface. It now embraces the episcopal cities of London and Westminster, the towns of Woolwich, Deptford, and Wandsworth, the watering places of Hampstead, Highgate, Islington, Acton, and Kilburn, the fishing town of Barking, the once secluded and ancient villages of Ham, Hornsey, Sydenham, Lee, Kensington, Fulham, Lambeth, Clapham, Paddington, Hackney, Chelsea, Stoke Newington, Newington Butts, Plumstead, and many others.”
The 176 parishes now included by the Registrar General within the boundaries of the metropolis, are arranged by him into five districts, of which the areas, population, and number of inhabited houses were on the 31st of March, 1851, as undermentioned:—
TABLE SHOWING THE AREA, NUMBER OF INHABITED HOUSES, AND POPULATION OF THE DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE METROPOLIS, 1841-51.
| Divisions of Metropolis. | Statute Acres. | Population. | Inhabited Houses. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1841. | 1851. | 1841. | 1851. | ||
| West Districts. | |||||
| Kensington | 7,860 | 74,898 | 119,990 | 10,962 | 17,292 |
| Chelsea | 780 | 40,243 | 56,543 | 5,648 | 7,629 |
| St. George’s, Hanover-square | 1,090 | 66,657 | 73,207 | 7,630 | 8,795 |
| Westminster | 840 | 56,802 | 65,609 | 6,439 | 6,647 |
| St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields | 260 | 25,132 | 24,557 | 2,439 | 2,323 |
| St. James’s, Westminster | 165 | 37,457 | 36,426 | 3,590 | 3,460 |
| North Districts. | |||||
| Marylebone | 1,490 | 138,383 | 157,679 | 14,169 | 15,955 |
| Hampstead (added 1846) | 2,070 | 10,109 | 11,986 | 1,411 | 1,719 |
| Pancras | 2,600 | 129,969 | 167,198 | 14,766 | 18,731 |
| Islington | 3,050 | 55,779 | 95,154 | 8,508 | 13,558 |
| Hackney | 3,950 | 42,328 | 58,424 | 7,192 | 9,861 |
| Central Districts. | |||||
| St Giles’s | 250 | 54,378 | 54,062 | 4,959 | 4,778 |
| Strand | 163 | 43,667 | 44,446 | 4,327 | 3,938 |
| Holborn | 188 | 44,532 | 46,571 | 4,603 | 4,517 |
| Clerkenwell | 320 | 56,799 | 64,705 | 6,946 | 7,259 |
| St. Luke’s | 240 | 49,908 | 54,058 | 6,385 | 6,421 |
| East London | [9]230 | 39,718 | 44,407 | 4,796 | 4,785 |
| West London | 29,188 | 28,829 | 3,010 | 2,745 | |
| London, City of | [10]370 | 56,009 | 55,908 | 7,921 | 7,329 |
| East Districts. | |||||
| Shoreditch | 620 | 83,564 | 109,209 | 12,642 | 15,433 |
| Bethnal Green | 760 | 74,206 | 90,170 | 11,782 | 13,370 |
| Whitechapel | 316 | 71,879 | 79,756 | 8,834 | 8,832 |
| St George’s in the East | 230 | 41,416 | 48,375 | 5,985 | 6,151 |
| Stepney | 2,518 | 90,831 | 110,669 | 14,364 | 16,346 |
| Poplar | 1,250 | 31,171 | 47,157 | 5,066 | 6,882 |
| South Districts. | |||||
| St. Saviour’s, Southwark | [11] | 33,027 | 35,729 | 4,659 | 4,613 |
| St. Olave’s, Southwark | [11] | 19,869 | 19,367 | 2,523 | 2,365 |
| Bermondsey | 620 | 35,002 | 48,128 | 5,674 | 7,095 |
| St. George’s, Southwark | [11]590 | 46,718 | 51,825 | 6,663 | 7,005 |
| Newington | 630 | 54,693 | 64,805 | 9,370 | 10,468 |
| Lambeth | 3,640 | 116,072 | 139,240 | 17,791 | 20,520 |
| Wandsworth (added 1843) | 10,800 | 39,918 | 50,770 | 6,459 | 8,290 |
| Camberwell | 4,570 | 39,931 | 54,668 | 6,843 | 9,417 |
| Rotherhithe | 690 | 13,940 | 17,778 | 2,420 | 2,834 |
| Greenwich | 4,570 | 81,125 | 99,404 | 11,995 | 14,423 |
| Lewisham (added 1846) | 16,350 | 23,051 | 34,831 | 3,966 | 5,936 |
| Total London Division | 74,070 | 1,948,369 | 2,361,640 | 262,737 | 307,722 |
In order to be able to compare the average density of the population in the various parts of London, I have made a calculation as to the number of persons and houses to the acre, as well as the number of inhabitants to each house. I have also computed the annual rate of increase of the population from 1841-51, in the several localities here mentioned, and append the result. It will be seen that, while what are popularly known as the suburbs have increased, both in houses and population, at a considerable rate, some of the more central parts of London, on the contrary, have decreased not only in the number of people, but in the number of dwellings as well. This has been the case in St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields, St. James’s, Westminster, St. Giles’s, and the City of London.
TABLE SHOWING THE INCREASE OF THE POPULATION AND INHABITED HOUSES, AS WELL AS THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE AND HOUSES TO EACH ACRE, AND THE NUMBER OF PERSONS TO EACH HOUSE IN THE DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE METROPOLIS IN 1841-51.
| Yearly Increase of Population per annum, from 1841-51. | Yearly Increase of Inhabited Houses, from 1841-51. | Number of People to the Acre, 1851. | Number of Inhabited Houses to the Acre, 1851. | Number of Persons to each House, 1851. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| West Districts. | |||||
| Kensington | 4,509·2 | 633·0 | 15·2 | 2·2 | 6·9 |
| Chelsea | 1,630·0 | 198·1 | 72·4 | 9·7 | 7·4 |
| St. George’s, Hanover-square | 655·0 | 11·6 | 67·1 | 8·0 | 8·3 |
| Westminster | 880·7 | 20·8 | 80·4 | 8·2 | 9·8 |
| St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields | decr. 57·5[12] | decr. 11·6[12] | 94·3 | 8·9 | 10·5 |
| St. James’s, Westminster | 103·1[12] | 13·0[12] | 220·7 | 20·9 | 10·5 |
| North Districts. | |||||
| Marylebone | 1,926·6 | 178·6 | 105·8 | 10·3 | 9·8 |
| Hampstead | 187·7 | 30·8 | 5·7 | ·8 | 6·9 |
| St. Pancras | 3,722·9 | 396·5 | 64·3 | 7·2 | 8·9 |
| Islington | 3,937·5 | 505·0 | 31·5 | 4·4 | 7·0 |
| Hackney | 1,609·6 | 719·2 | 14·7 | 2·3 | 5·9 |
| Central Districts. | |||||
| St. Giles’s | decr. 31·6[12] | decr. 18·1[12] | 216·2 | 19·1 | 11·3 |
| Strand | 77·9 | decr. 38·9[12] | 272·2 | 24·1 | 11·2 |
| Holborn | 203·9 | decr. 8·6[12] | 247·7 | 24·0 | 10·3 |
| Clerkenwell | 790·6 | 31·3 | 202·2 | 22·6 | 8·9 |
| St. Luke’s | 415·0 | 3·6 | 225·2 | 26·7 | 8·4 |
| East and West London | 433·0 | decr. 27·6[12] | 318·4 | 32·7 | 9·7 |
| London City | decr. 10·1[12] | decr. 59·2[12] | 151·0 | 19·8 | 7·6 |
| East Districts. | |||||
| Shoreditch | 2,564·5 | 279·1 | 176·1 | 24·8 | 7·0 |
| Bethnal-green | 1,596·4 | 158·8 | 118·6 | 17·5 | 6·7 |
| Whitechapel | 787·7 | decr. ·2[12] | 252·3 | 27·9 | 9·0 |
| St. George’s-in-the-East | 695·9 | 16·6 | 210·3 | 26·7 | 7·8 |
| Stepney | 1,983·8 | 198·2 | 43·9 | 6·4 | 6·7 |
| Poplar | 1,598·6 | 181·6 | 37·7 | 5·5 | 6·8 |
| South Districts. | |||||
| St. Saviour’s, St. Olave’s, and St. George’s, Southwark | 730·7 | 13·8 | 181·2 | 23·7 | 7·6 |
| Bermondsey | 1,312·6 | 142·1 | 77·6 | 11·2 | 6·7 |
| Newington | 1,011·2 | 109·8 | 102·8 | 16·6 | 6·1 |
| Lambeth | 2,316·8 | 272·9 | 38·2 | 5·6 | 6·7 |
| Wandsworth | 1,085·2 | 183·1 | 4·7 | ·7 | 6·1 |
| Camberwell | 1,473·7 | 257·4 | 12·4 | 2·0 | 5·8 |
| Rotherhithe | 383·8 | 41·4 | 25·7 | 4·1 | 6·2 |
| Greenwich | 1,827·9 | 242·8 | 21·7 | 3·1 | 6·8 |
| Lewisham | 1,178·0 | 197·0 | 2·1 | ·3 | 5·6 |
| Total for all London | 41,327·1 | 4,498·5 | 31·8 | 4·1 | 7·6 |
By the above table we perceive that St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields, St. James’s, Westminster, St. Giles’s, the Strand, and the City have all decreased both in population and houses since 1841. The population has diminished most of all in St. James’s, and the houses the most in the City. The suburban districts, however, such as Chelsea, Marylebone, St. Pancras, Islington, Hackney, Shoreditch, Bethnal-green, Stepney, Poplar, Bermondsey, Newington, Lambeth, Wandsworth, Camberwell, Greenwich, and Lewisham, have all increased greatly within the last ten years, both in dwellings and people. The greatest increase of the population, as well as houses, has been in Kensington, where the yearly addition has been 4500 people, and 630 houses.
The more densely-populated districts are, St. James’s, Westminster, St. Giles’s, the Strand, Holborn, Clerkenwell, St. Luke, Whitechapel, and St. George’s-in-the-East, in all of which places there are upwards of 200 people to the acre, while in East and West London, in which the population is the most dense of all, the number of people exceeds 300 to the acre. The least densely populated districts are Hampstead, Wandsworth, and Lewisham, where the people are not more than six, and as few as two to the acre.
The districts in which there are the greatest number of houses to a given space, are St. James’s, Westminster, the Strand, Holborn, Clerkenwell, St. Luke’s, Shoreditch, and St. George’s-in-the-East, in all of which localities there are upwards of 20 dwellings to each acre of ground, while in East and West London, which is the most closely built over of all, the number of houses to each acre are as many as 32. Hampstead and Lewisham appear to be the most open districts; for there the houses are not more than eight and three to every ten acres of ground.
The localities in which the houses are the most crowded with inmates are the Strand and St. Giles’s, where there are more than eleven people to each house, and St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields, and St. James’s, Westminster, and Holborn, where each house has on an average ten inmates, while in Lewisham and Wandsworth the houses are the least crowded, for there we find only five people to every house.
Now, comparing this return with that of the metropolitan police, we have the following results as to the extent and contents of the Metropolis Proper:—
| According to Registrar General. | According to Metropolitan Police. | |
|---|---|---|
| Area (in statute acres) | 74,070 | 58,880 |
| Parishes | 176 | 179 |
| Number of inhabited houses | 307,722 | 305,525 |
| Population | 2,361,640 | 2,111,629 |
Hence it will be seen that both the extent and contents of these two returns differ most materially.
1st. The superficies of the Registrar General’s metropolis is very nearly 13 square miles, or 15,190 statute acres, greater than the metropolis of the police commissioners.
2nd. The number of inhabited houses is 2197 more in the one than in the other.
3rd. The population of London, according to the Registrar General’s limits, is 250,011, or a quarter of a million, more than it is according to the limits of the metropolitan police.
It were much to be desired that some more definite and scientific mode, not only of limiting, but of dividing the metropolis, were to be adopted. At present there are, perhaps, as many different metropolises, so to speak, and as many different modes of apportioning the several parts of the whole into districts, as there are public bodies whose operations are specially confined to the capital. The Registrar General has, as we have seen, one metropolis divided into western, northern, central, eastern, and southern districts. The metropolitan police commissioners have another metropolis apportioned into its A divisions, B divisions, and so forth; and the Post Office has a third metropolis parcelled out in a totally different manner; while the London City Mission, the Scripture Readers, the Ragged Schools, and the many other similar metropolitan institutions, all seem to delight in creating a distinct metropolis for themselves, thus tending to make the statistical “confusion worse confounded.”