| Dr. | £ | s. | d. |
| To subscriptions and donations from the 29th September, 1846, to 29th September, 1849 | 1393 | 16 | 7 |
| Balance due to president, 29th September, 1849 | 5739 | 19 | 9 |
| 7133 | 16 | 4 |
| Cr. | £ | s. | d. |
| By balance due to president, as per Balance Sheet, Sept. 29, 1846 | 2935 | 17 | 9 |
| Secretary’s salary | 300 | 0 | 0 |
| Rent of offices, &c. | 248 | 10 | 0 |
| Salaries to clerks, messengers, &c. | 371 | 19 | 4 |
| Do. to collectors | 312 | 18 | 1 |
| Commission to do. | 130 | 5 | 6 |
| Printing and stationery | 556 | 17 | 0 |
| Hire of rooms for public meetings | 60 | 10 | 0 |
| Advertisements and newspapers | 244 | 5 | 3 |
| Bill posting | 8 | 12 | 6 |
| Salaries to persons in charge of free lavatories in Ham-yard, Great Windmill-st., St. James’s | 10 | 18 | 2 |
| Brooms, barrows, and shovels, for the use of street-orderlies | 86 | 8 | 0 |
| Charges of contractors and others for removal of street slop, &c. | 58 | 9 | 6 |
| Food, lodging, and wages to street-orderlies, domiciled in Ham-yard, Great Windmill-street, St. James’s | 980 | 11 | 4 |
| Clothing for the street-orderlies | 13 | 3 | 2 |
| Baths provided for do. | 5 | 15 | 10 |
| Sundry expenses for offices, including postage-stamps, &c. | 92 | 7 | 11 |
| Law expenses | 8 | 10 | 10 |
| Builder’s charges for free lavatories in Ham-yard | 95 | 13 | 10 |
| Amount advanced to the late secretary for improving the dwellings of the poor | 20 | 0 | 0 |
| Farther advances made by president on various occasions for the general purposes of the Association | 592 | 2 | 4 |
| 7133 | 16 | 4 |
Audited by us, Oct. 19th, 1849, Charles Shepherd Lenton, 33, Leicester-square; and Joseph Child, 43, Leicester-square.”
Street-Orderlies.—City Surveyor’s Report.
I have been favoured with a Report “upon street-cleansing and in reference to the Street-Orderly System,” by the author, Mr. W. Haywood, the Surveyor to the City Commission of Sewers, who has invited my attention to the matter, in consequence of the statements which have appeared on the subject in “London Labour and the London Poor.”
Mr. Haywood, whose tone of argument is courteous and moderate, and who does not scruple to do justice to what he accounts the good points of the street-orderly system, although he condemns it as a whole, gives an account of the earlier scavaging of the city, not differing in any material respect from that which I have already printed. He represents the public ways of the City, which I have stated to be about 50 miles, as “about 51 miles lineal, about 770,157 superficial yards in area.” This area, it appears, comprehends 1000 different places.
In 1845 the area of the carriage-way of the City was estimated at 418,000 square yards, and the footway at 316,000, making a total of 734,000; but since that period new streets have been made and others extensively widened. The precincts of Bridewell, St. Bartholomew, St. James’s, Duke’s-place, Aldgate, and others, have been added to the jurisdiction of the Sewers Commission by Act of Parliament, so that the Surveyor now estimates the area of the carriage-way of the City of London at 441,250 square yards, and the footway at 328,907, making a total of 770,157 square yards.
“I am fully impressed,” observes Mr. Haywood, “with the great importance to a densely-populated city of an efficient cleansing of the public ways. Probably after a perfect system of sewage and drainage (which implies an adequate water supply), and a well-paved surface (which I have always considered to be little inferior in its importance to the former, and which is indispensable to obtaining clean sweeping), good surface cleansing ranks next in its beneficial sanitary influence; and most certainly the comfort gained by all through having public thoroughfares in a high degree of cleanliness is exceedingly great.”
Mr. Haywood expresses his opinion that streets “ordure soddened”—smelling like “stable yards,”—dangerous to the health of the inhabitants—impassable from mud in winter and from dust in summer—and inflicting constant pecuniary loss, “can only exist in an appreciable degree in thoroughfares swept much less frequently” than the streets within the jurisdiction of the City Commissioners of Sewers. In this opinion, however, Mr. Haywood comes into direct collision with the statements put forth by the Board of Health, who have insisted upon the insanitary state of the metropolitan streets, more strongly, perhaps, in their several Reports, than has Mr. Cochrane.