Volume 2
First-[second] report of the Royal Sanitary Commission.
- Great Britain. Royal Sanitary Commission
- Date:
- 1869-1874
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: First-[second] report of the Royal Sanitary Commission. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service. The original may be consulted at London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service.
184/418 (page 176)
![C. J. Blagg, there is any great complaint, or any appreciable com- plaint, with regard to the impurity of the water. I ; _ asked him to write down in pencil some of his views ^ °' upon a copy of the printed questions [B], and I see that he says, In small towns where there is a sufficient supply [of water] each householder should be com- pelled to take it. All cottages should be built Avith more rooms and more lofty than at present, as the breaLiing space in small houses is not nearly sufficient. A free admission of light is also re- quisite. There ought to be a door in front and at the back of each house, so as to ensure a thorough «' ventilation. I did not tell him my opinion with regard to the inspection system, but I see that he says of his own accord, A sanitary inspector ought to be appointed by each union district, to see that these things are carried out, also to have the power to remove nuisances, and to fumigate and cleanse houses where people neglect to do so themselves. If these views were carried out epidemic diseases would be less prevalent and much less severe. I see that in answer to the 41st question as to the existing powers for the abatement and removal of nuisances having been found sufficient, he says : They have not been found sufficient in all cases. A public district officer ought to be appointed. I read this because I think it may be of some little weight. I did not tell him at all what my own views were, although I had formed them before 1 put those questions to him. It shows at all events that two individuals, both possessing some knowledge and experience of the district and of its requirements, and who see something of the working of the local system, consider it unsatisfactory. 11.850. You proposed that the sewage should be carried away in several directions, did you intend to have a complete sewerage system and to discharge in several directions ?—It is important always in talking of sewerage in our own place (of which alone I was speaking) to remember that the sewage is not of a large or important character, from the fact that there are so very few waterclosets. The sewage principally consists, I take it, of surface, slops, and that kind of thing, which are thrown into the nearest point of the drain to each house, so that unless when ex- ceptional rains occur there is really very little sewage to dispose of at all ; in exceptional rains, however, the sewers, such as they are, are swept. 11.851. Then you do not contemplate doing away with cesspits?—I do not think that in rural places the Avatercloset system is a desirable system. To begin with, it is not a healthy thing unless the water supply is very good, and to continue, it always in- creases the amount of smells fi'om the drains, and makes the drainage question a much more serious question than it is otherwise. I think that if there was a resident sanitary inspector who could see that the privies were properly cleansed out from time to time, and were properly constructed and dealt with, so as to cover up all the impurities and prevent them from escaping, to the nuisance of the neighbours and the pollution of the air, there would not be any very great practical evil in that respect in our place. 11.852. Then those drains which you speak of are merely intended to caiiy away the foul water of the houses, and the urine, and so forth ?—Yes, and such watercloset drainage as there may be in communica- tion with them. I daresay there may be perhaps 20 houses supplied with waterclosets whose waterclosets empty into the town drains. 11.853. What do you contemplate would become of the sewage that you would carry away in those several directions ?—Arrangements would no doubt have to be made with the owners and occupiers of the lands where the outlets were fixed upon and settled to be, in order that the proper tanks, and so on, should be made there, and I take it that at stated intervals the tank would have to be emptied by a pump, and the authorities who had the disposal of the sewage would have to deal with it in the best way they could by sale to farmers or market gardeners, or others who require it, and who would pay what it was worth. As I stated before, I do not think that it would be a suf- ficiently large question to require the application of the machinery of the Sewage Utilization Act to, and to be taken in hand under the control of any local authority. 11.854. {Mr. Clive.) You are a Staffordshire gentleman, I think ?—I am. 11.855. Your plan evidently embraces a totally new staff, beginning with London and going down to local inspectors ?—It does. 11.856. And you think that the general inspector's districts, as I will call them, might be as large as the present poor law inspectors'' districts ?—I do. 11.857. And as numerous ?—I think so. 11.858. And that the local inspectors' district ought to be confined to the union ?—Yes, I do not attach any extreme importance to those limits. I merely fix them because they occur to me as a definite existing boundary, and one which is con- venient. 11.859. Have you made any calculation of the cost of such an establishment as that ?—No, I have not gone into it in that detail. I am quite aware that one great objection that would be raised to this plan Avould be the cost of it, but I think that the cost upon the consolidated fund need not be very large. I do not think you need have a very numerous board in London. I do not know how those things practically work, but I should fancy that you might do very fairly with a president and secretary without a number of commissioners to cause an increase of salaries, and so on. I have not any statistics before me which Avoukl enable me to say how many poor law inspectors' districts there are, and I could not very well work out a calculation without such statistics. But I do not think that in a question of this imperial magnitude the expense ought to be a drawback. I believe there is a certain considerable surplus now Avhich has to be dealt Avith. 11.860. But supposing the economical question to be apart, Avould it not be better if possible to have it done to hit upon some middle term, such as the utili- zation of an existing establishment, sooner than go en as Ave do nOAV ?—I have a very strong feeling from practical knowledge of these things that it has been the error of modern legislation that it has tried too much to be economical, and not enough to be effective. 11.861. But assuming the economical objections at head quarters to be insuperable, Avould it not be better to utilize the existing machinery in the shape of the poor law inspectors and the medical officers than to go on as Ave are ?—I think that possibly that might be a little better than going on as we are, but I do not think that it would be much better, or that it Avould make any appreciable difference in the working of the system. 11.862. Do you know any instance in which a central authority, assisted by general inspectors and local inspectors, has been enabled to establish and enforce parochial taxation in this country ?—I am not sure that I can give you any instance of that at the present moment Avithout time to consider, and I am not sure that there is any instance of it, but I take it that there is no particular reason in theory why it should not be Avorked out. You have the taxation of the country carried on on very much the same system, and although it is true that that is considered imperial taxation, yet it is local taxation also, because the taxes in Schedule A,, for instance, in Cheadle, are really and truly quite as much local taxation as rates that would be applied under the parochial system. 11.863. You are probably acquainted Avith the system of the inspection of mines ?—Yes. 11.864. Are you aware that that is paid entirely from the consolidated fund ?—I belieA'e it is. 11.865. But are you aAvare also that any expendi- ture ordered by inspectors of mines does not fall upon the local taxation but upon the individual?—That would be a somcAvhat analogous case. 11.866. But with the great difference that it falls](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b21366081_0002_0184.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
