The model Bye-laws of the Local Government Board recommend a capacity for the privy not exceeding 8 cubic-feet, the provision of means for the frequent application of ashes, dust, or dry refuse; they forbid any connection between the privy and the drain; insist on its being at least 6 feet from a dwelling-house (too low a limit); and require a flagged or asphalted floor at least 3 inches above the level of the surrounding ground.
The Nottingham tub-closet forms a link between the pail and midden system. It is really a small movable middenstead, used for receiving excreta, vegetables and ashes.
Even when carefully supervised, middens are almost certain to be productive of evil. They possess two great disadvantages as compared with pails or dry closets. (1) The time between collections of excreta by the scavengers is much longer; and (2) the receptacle for the refuse is part of the structure of the building, and cannot easily be renewed when it has become saturated with excreta.
The use of pails or dry-earth closets is a great improvement on the old middens, but even these compare very unfavourably with water-closets in two respects. (1) The excreta require to be retained about the house for a longer or shorter period, whereas with an efficient water-carriage system, they are at once projected into the sewer. (2) In removing the excreta, the weight of the receptacle has to be added to that of the excreta, while in the water-carriage system, the water serves as the means of transport.
In villages and isolated houses, where no drains are provided for waste water, and the dry system of closets is adopted, the disposal of waste water requires special provision. Very commonly the slops are thrown out of the door, and soak into the ground about the house. They should be carried by means of a waste-pipe into a water-tight cesspool, remote from the house, whence they can be pumped into a field, or carried away by special conduits.
Relative Merits of Dry and Wet Methods. No absolute answer can be given in exclusive favour of either plan. Each is the best under different circumstances; the dry method being chiefly suitable for small villages, and for temporary collections of people, as in camps; and the wet method for towns. The question of value of manure does not enter into the problem, as it seldom repays for carriage.
The objections to the water-carriage system are really due to its not being carried out in an efficient manner. When sewers are properly laid; when they, as well as house-drains, are freely ventilated; when house-drains are efficiently trapped and ventilated near their junction with the sewer; when the drains are efficiently flushed, and the outflow from the sewer is unimpeded, the objections disappear.
These objections are that—(1) the sewers, as underground channels, transfer effluvia and the germs of disease from one place to another; (2) pipes become disjointed owing to being badly laid, and the ground is contaminated; (3) the water supply is in danger of receiving impurities from the sewers. These objections do not hold good in practice. The contamination of water-mains or of wells from sewers implies gross carelessness in the method of laying of sewers or pipes.
The only objections which are of any force, are (4) that water-closets require a large amount of water, and the sewage obtained is greatly diluted, and consequently diminished in value; while (5) the disposal of such an amount of water, in the case of a large inland town, is a problem of the utmost difficulty. Modern engineering enterprise by bringing water from a greater distance, and by aiding the discharge of sewage when necessary by pumping, has overcome these difficulties.
There are many objections to the dry methods of removing excreta. (1) Whatever dry method be adopted, the excreta are retained for some time in or about the house, instead of being immediately removed.