This shows a mean gain of 26 per cent. in favour of the van, and the following tables, made by an inspector in 1873, showing the actual occupation of the ordinary carts and Bayley’s vans during a day’s work, are extremely interesting, as showing that while the van is engaged in spreading the water the time of the cart is wasted in travelling to and from the stand posts, and when it is borne in mind also that the van spreads water more widely than the cart, there can be no doubt that a saving of at least 30 per cent. can be effected by the substitution of these vans for the old-fashioned cart.
| CARTS | ||||||||||
| Filling. | Travelling Full. | Travelling Empty. | Waiting, &c. | Spreading. | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H. | M. | H. | M. | H. | M. | H. | M. | H. | M. | |
| Paddington | 1 | 45 | 2 | 9 | 1 | 58 | 0 | 20 | 1 | 30 |
| St. Saviour’s | 1 | 29 | 2 | 16 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 26 | 1 | 29 |
| Strand | 1 | 11 | 2 | 30 | 2 | 18 | 0 | 17 | 1 | 3 |
| Kensington | 4 | 40 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 57 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 54 |
| Chelsea | 2 | 44 | 1 | 15 | 2 | 14 | 0 | 35 | 1 | 6 |
| VANS. | ||||||||||
| Paddington | 3 | 33 | 1 | 9 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
| St. Saviour’s | 2 | 20 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 21 | 0 | 23 | 2 | 58 |
| Strand | 2 | 30 | 1 | 25 | 1 | 14 | 0 | 20 | 2 | 23 |
In the year 1856, Mr. Scott, C.E., the Chief Surveyor of the parish of St. Pancras, kept an account of the daily round of an ordinary water cart, when he found that through an average working day of 10¹⁄₄ hours, exclusive of the breakfast and dinner hours, the cart took one hour and twenty minutes filling, fifty minutes only in distributing the water on the roads, and eight hours and seven minutes in travelling to spread the water and back to the stand posts. It was obvious that these were placed too far apart, and by the subsequent introduction of additional standposts Mr. Scott found, in the year 1867, that the filling occupied two hours, the distribution one hour and thirty minutes, and the travelling to and fro six hours and thirty minutes; so that it may be assumed, with an ordinary two-wheeled water cart, that two-thirds of the day is spent in travelling, one fifth in filling, and about one-seventh in the actual spreading. But a watch should be kept upon the man who is engaged in this work, otherwise he will idle away his time and the streets remain unwatered. A good check upon this is Mr. Bayley’s Tell-Tale, which registers automatically on a dial at the side of the van the number of rounds a man goes each day.
Watering the streets with sea water should be adopted whenever it is feasible, as it not only gives a delightful freshness to the air and dispels iodine, but it also causes the surface of the street to maintain its humidity for a longer period than when fresh water is used, as it impregnates the soil with hygrometric matter. This has been often attempted artificially, by adding common salt to the water used for watering, but it is rather too expensive for the benefit derived.[172]
Watering the roads with a largely diluted disinfectant such as “Sanitas” in the liquid form, is frequently of great benefit, and where it can be afforded, it should be occasionally done, especially in the narrower streets and more crowded districts of a city or town, or when an epidemic has broken out.
With reference to the very important question as to the cost of scavenging, street-cleansing and watering. It is, of course, not possible to lay down any hard and fast lines, as it must necessarily vary considerably according to circumstances; much depends upon whether the district is an urban one, consisting of houses closely packed together, or whether it is suburban, with scattered villas and mansions standing in their own grounds; the question, also, of the distance of the depôts to which the material has to be carted, considerably affects the result of any estimate, as also does the cost of horse hire, the rate of wages, and whether the district is of a hilly or flat nature, and, as I have before shown, the manner in which the streets are formed and paved, the habits of the people, the requirements as to cleansing streets and watering, and last, but not least, the manner of the eventual disposal of the rubbish after removal; all these points must bear with great weight upon any question of cost, and make the results widely different.
On referring to the returns to which I have more than once alluded, it is found that the cost of removing the house refuse and cleansing and sweeping the streets combined, varies considerably in different localities. In one case the sum amounts only to the rate of one half-penny per annum per head of the population of the town, whereas in another case the amount is at the rate of three shillings and sixpence per head. On calculating the average cost per head of population per annum of the ninety towns from which I received replies on this point, I find that it amounts to about tenpence half-penny, after giving credit for any sum of money realised by the sale of the refuse to farmers and others; so that if this work is costing the ratepayers of a town or city anything under a shilling per head of the whole population every year, they have no cause to grumble.
Before closing this chapter I will make a few observations upon the subject of contracts for work of this description.
There is no doubt that the “dust and slopping” contractor is fast going out of fashion,[173] as it has been found that the work is far more carefully and systematically carried out without the intervention of a contractor; for if we turn to the articles of agreement or contract usually drawn up between a sanitary authority and a contractor for scavenging, we find that they must be very binding in their phraseology, and enter fully into the details of the work; they should state very clearly the number of times in every week that the contractor shall cause all the ashpits in the districts enumerated to be emptied and cleansed, the manner in which this work shall be performed, and how the materials thus removed shall be disposed of and the place of their ultimate destination. The conditions should further specify what amount of manual, team labour, and carts, are necessary for the work, and also what plant the contractor must keep in the way of ladders, baskets, shovels, and brooms, &c. The conditions should also contain a carefully prepared list of the streets to be swept, and the manner and number of times this work must be executed, and arrange for the disposal of the materials thus removed.
In many such contracts it is found necessary to insert clauses binding the contractor, under all sorts of penalties, to be always at the disposal of and under the commands of the inspector of nuisances, or such other officer or officers as the sanitary authority may appoint. The contractor’s men also are forbidden to accept gratuities, and are directed on no account to remove either trade or garden refuse, and they are also enjoined to be “careful to consult the convenience of the householders in their visits, and to thoroughly clean up all dirt and litter that they may cause in the discharge of their duties. If they fail in any or either of these injunctions and commands, or for any other dereliction of duty, the inspector of nuisances, or such other officer as the sanitary authority shall appoint, may summarily dismiss them, without any reference being made on the subject to their employer the contractor, and in fact the conditions have necessarily to be made so stringent and binding as to be either totally inoperative or open to grave abuses, or, on the other hand, the work can be carelessly and improperly executed by the contractor.