THE FARMER'S MAGAZINE. 



255 



for the surface-water of the streets. Drains from houses 

 were not allowed to be connected with them ; and thus, 

 for the purposes of health, they were a mockery. The 

 Liverpool drains and sewers had increased in 1847 to 

 53 miles, ia 1858 to 201 miles, and house-drains con- 

 nected with them." I could multiply these proofs from 

 most of our towns and cities, but enough has been 

 shown to convince us that it is only within the last ten 

 or twelve years that the gigantic waste of our manurial 

 resources has taken place. In former times, the oldest 

 of us may well remember the night-carts emptying cess- 

 pools after midnight. The contents of thesCj mixed with 

 ashes and other refuse, found their way, by canal or 

 coaster, a hundred miles into the country. Even now, 

 many cargoes of London manure are brought down to 

 the coast. 100 to 150 miles, and paid for by the farmers 

 at about 7s. per ton. A large farmer-friend of mine, 

 ten miles from Reading in Berkshire, used to send his 

 carts four or five times a week to that town for night- 

 soil. Now, owing to the new sewer and sanitary arrange- 

 ment, he only sends bis carts once a week, and is thus 

 deprived of four-fifths of his manurial resources. Mul- 

 tiply his case by many thousands, and you may then 

 estimate the losses caused to agriculture by the new 

 system. 



The effect of steam- jioioer in multiplying our manu- 

 facturing, commercial, and trading greatness and 

 iwpulation is astounding. In 1700 Liverpool was a 

 place of mark, containing 4,240 inhabitants : now its 

 population is near 300,000. Manchester had 12,000 

 souls in 1700, and 400,000 in 1851. The same re- 

 mark applies to our other hives of industry. At that 

 period the population of London was mainly within its 

 old City walls, probably 150,000 ; now it approaches 

 three millions. Under our old cesspool system, in- 

 creased population brought us an increased amount of 

 manure and of food ; now it has an opposite effect. 

 Well, then, if all this be true, it is quite clear that our 

 demands upon the soil of Great Britain must have mul- 

 tiplied with its population, and that the frightful waste 

 of the manurial residuum of our food is too recent to 

 make us yet feel, in their full force, the disastrous re- 

 sults «jf such a ruinous system. It is generally admitted 

 by scientific men that the sewage manure is worth pre- 

 serving, and that its annual value must be very great; 

 "but," says the editor of the Times, "will Baron 

 Liebig and Alderman Mechi tell us how it can be 

 utilized ? 



The effect of a short supply of food in diminishing 

 population is sternly shown by the following statistics 

 of Irish population after the famine. In spite of Eng- 

 lish aid it rapidly declined, whilst that of England was 

 fast increasing. You cannot in an old country have food 

 without manure ; therefore to waste your manure is to 

 deprive your country of food and of population. The 

 population of Ireland in 1821 was 6,801,827, in 1831 

 7,767,401, in 1841 8,175,124, in 1851 6,551,970. 



The real difficulty of the question does not con- 

 sist in the conveyance of the sewage to the farmer's 

 fields, but in conveying to his mind, and to that of his 

 landlord, the conviction that it will be necessary and 

 profitable to him to avail of it. Farmers, as a body, 

 have no faith in liquid manure, and are not, probably, 

 aware, that twelve parts out of thirteen of their own 

 manure, and that of all their animals, are deposited as 

 urine. The sheep-folding, deprived of its liquid, would 

 be almost worthless. It appears to me that the only 

 way to remove or overcome this difficulty will be for any 

 company that may undertake this scheme to show the 

 effects of tlie town sewage on small plots of ground in 

 various parts of the country through which their pipes 

 may pass, or otherwise offer such inducements for trial 

 as may tend, by their results, gradually to remove this 



unprofitable prejudice. On sloping grounds below the 

 reservoirs it might flow over the surface, as in ordinary 

 irrigated msadows, thus saving the farmer the expense 

 of subterranean iron pipes. No one can reasonably 

 doubt that 



Tlie Great Want of British Agriculture is More 

 Manure. — Evidences of this are to be seen from every 

 road and every line of railway, and yet we are annually 

 multiplying our waste of what may be truly called the 

 life-blood of production. One class of reasoners con- 

 sole themselves with the new source of fertility deve- 

 loped by deeper, cheaper, and more perfect cultivation 

 by steam power; but is this to justify the waste of our 

 manures ? Would not these more deeply cultivated 

 soils gratefully absorb the contents of our sewers ? 

 Does not every farmer know that the poor (because un- 

 disturbed) subsoil demands immediate and abundant 

 supplies of manure ? I am a good deal amused at the 

 great change which is coming over the general agricul- 

 tural mind with regard to the subsoil. 1 have not for- 

 gotten how often I was censured, years ago, for intro- 

 ducing that nasty stuff to atmospheric influence. Drain- 

 age and steam cultivation are doing much to remove 

 this prejudice. But supposing that I shall, in the 

 course of this paper show that the sewage may be 

 brought to the aid of agriculture. 



Hero am I to convince agriculturists of the value 

 of the sewage ? How shall I present to their minds, 

 by illustration, the loss they suffer annually by its ab- 

 sence ? Assuming that the fifteen millions of popula- 

 tion who inhabit our towns and cities produce excrement, 

 and other elements of manure, equal to those of twenty 

 millions of sheep, what would farmers or their landlords 

 say, if farmers, having fed twenty millions of sheep and 

 lambs day by day, their manure was to be daily thrown 

 into the river, instead of being deposited on the fields ? 

 What would be the loss to agriculture of the folding of 

 twenty millions of sheep daily ? Would it not bring 

 poverty and ruin to British agriculture ? Every farmer 

 of the plainest capacity can understand this, but can he 

 not understand that the loss from twenty millions of 

 human beings is nearly equal to that from twenty mil- 

 lions of sheep ! Can he not imagine what would be the 

 result to British agriculture of this additional daily fold- 

 ing of twenty millions more sheep, or human beings, on 

 the fields of England ? Should he not picture to him- 

 self the deposits from twelve millions of quarters of 

 foreign corn which we import annually, and which ought 

 to add enormously to our manurial resources ? Where 

 would, then, be the residuum of the thousands of cargoes 

 of consumable articles which enter our harbours from 

 foreign ports, and from our colonial possessions ? Every 

 farmer should have, framed and glazed, the variety and 

 grand total of our consumable imports, and an estimate 

 of their manurial value. How much would this economy 

 save the British farmer, by rendering less necessary the 

 purchase of oilcake, bones, gnano, and feeding-stuffs, 

 which are heavy deductions from his farming profits, 

 but which he must purchase, to compensate in some de- 

 gree for what is wasted in our sewers? If the money 

 value of the contents of our sewers could be shown to 

 the British farmer in biight and glittering heaps of 

 sovereigns, he would grasp at the enormous wealth, and 

 make great efforts to obtain it. Our sewage, although 

 less perceptible a treasure, is not the less a real one. I 

 am bound, in truth, to say, that I have not seen any 

 practical desire or effort, on the part of British agricul- 

 ture, to obtain this treasure. If it is worth having, it 

 is worth asking for ; but it has not been asked for, and 

 the apathy and miscalculation on this subject must 

 amaze every unprejudiced man of calculation. Is human 

 excrement less valuable than that of animals ? In look- 

 ing over the balance-sheet of the London General Om- 



T 2 



