506 



♦ KNOWLEDGE ♦ 



[Dec. 19, 1884. 



CHAPTERS ON MODERN DOMESTIC 

 ECONOMY. 



VII.— THE FEAMEWOEK OF THE DWELLING-HOUSE 

 {continued) . 



GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CONSTEUCTION. 



WE have hitherto taken it for granted that the entire 

 household arrangements are included within the 

 principal j^hell or framework of the building, and such may 

 possibly happen to obtain within the more centrally 

 situated portions of this metropolis ; they may also be 

 found in the larger suburban tenements, and in a few 

 country mansions. In this respect, however, the two last- 

 named types compare unfavourably, and yet favourably, 

 with their humbler neighbours. Unfavourably, because 

 the most unwholesome refuse of the abode may be said to 

 be included within the building, whereas in the smaller 

 houses it is consigned to the garden or back yard. Favour- 

 ably, because the form of apparatus used is more expensive 

 and, ergo, in most cases, more efficient than that provided 

 in the aforesaid backyard ; in other words, what is gained 

 in location by the latter is lost in practical utility through 

 a cutting down of expenditure. It may therefore be 

 allowed that, provided all other things are equal, the out- 

 house system, although not quite so convenient, is un- 

 deniably the healthiest and best. 



In rural districts, and even in moderately large-sized 

 towns, out-bouses are almost universally the rule ; this may 

 be said more with regard to the midland and northern 

 counties of England than elsewhere. Unfortunately, how- 

 ever, it is the sewage system that is applied, in most of 

 these cases, to the removal of excrementitious waste pro- 

 ducts from the house. There are, however, a few note- 

 worthy exceptions to this rule, and to them we shall refer 

 in the course of our remarks upon this all-important 

 subject. 



The principles to be observed in the erection of out- 

 houses, may be briefly formulated thus :— 1°. The water- 

 closets ought to be situated in as convenient a situation as 

 possible ; freed from damp by a suitable floor of concrete, 

 asphalte, or other impervious material, raised somewhat 

 above the level of the ground, and sheltered from the wind, 

 rain, or open-air discharge water pipes. The water-supply 

 ought to be conducted thereto, by pipes from a specially- 

 isolated cistern, and the entire arrangements so disposed as 

 to prevent the escape of deleterious products, and especially 

 of sewer-gas. 2°. Receptacles for other waste products 

 ought to admit of a rational subdivision ; e.g., house- 

 sweepings, ashes, and garbage may be placed in one, and 

 such things as broken glass and crockery-ware, old tins, 

 &c , in another compartment of the dust-bin. The dust- 

 bin itself ought to be of moderate size, and of such a shape 

 as to permit of being readily cleared. The best kind of bin is 

 one which can be emptied about once a week, and that by 

 being simply turned over into the dustman's coUectiug-pan. 

 A non-corrodible metal bin may be used with advantage. 

 One caution of importance is here necessary, and that is 

 with regard to the kind of dust-bin now most generally 

 employed. It is usually furnished by the builder, and con- 

 sists of an immovable structure after the shape of an 

 imperfect dog's kennel, with a lid above, and a small door 

 at one side, below. It is very often made to fit into the 

 corner of a building, presumably to save the trifling cost of 

 extra wooden boards for one or two of its sides. Its size 

 is comparatively enormous, as if intended to store the ofikl 

 of a large community rather than that of a single house- 

 bold. ^ What, indeed, would kitchen-midden-hunting 

 geologists of a future age say of such heaps as these ! 



From a sanitary point of view such a dust-bin ought to be 

 condemned, because it gives rise to what we might aptly 

 term contamiuatcd damp of the adjacent wall of the house, 

 and to a mass of putrefying filth which is both disagreeable 

 and harmful. 



This leads us naturally to a question of amendment. 

 There can be no doubt that the sewage system of London, 

 and other similarly-constructed towns, coupled with the 

 prevalent and very defective provisions for the removal of 

 household rubbish, is one of the problems of the present 

 day which calls most urgently for attention. It has been 

 repeatedly stated that the evil has become so widespread 

 that extensive reformation cannot be effected without an 

 immense outlay. In its earlier days London suffered even 

 more than it does now from an unwLolesome condition of 

 things ; the house refuse was allowed to collect and fester 

 in cesspools, and, indeed, anywhere, or rather everywhere, 

 so that at length it became a question in which the authori- 

 ties of the nation itself were obliged to interfere and to 

 act with promptitude. Irrespective of expense, they sought 

 to remedy the evil, and their efforts were crowned with 

 partial success in 1871 — the year of the completion of the 

 present hydraulic system of sewerage, at a cost of from four 

 to five million of pounds sterling. It has been shown that 

 12,000 lives have been annuallysaved throigh this provision. 

 The marked mitigation of evil which followed directly upon 

 the innovation, naturally tended to satisfy the promoters o' 

 the sewage scheme, and they little expected to find that 

 the disinterested advance they had made for the welfare of 

 the people was not only far from p"rfect, but, in reality, 

 very defective, and but tran.sitorily beneficial. The bulk 

 of the sewage — about 150 million gallons — is daily dis- 

 charged into the river Thames from large reservoir?, twelve 

 miles below London. Not only does this seething mass of 

 pollution move onwards to the sea, but, in virtue of the 

 tides, it flows backwards towards the city itself, where the 

 water is further contaminated from sundry minor outlets. 

 The danger that is liable to arise from the persistence of 

 such a state of aflfairs, more particularly during the warmer 

 periods of the year, has been commented upon by almost all 

 of our daily contemporaries. Commissions, even, have been 

 appointed to inquire into the actual condition of things, 

 and, if possible, to institute adequate and speedy remedies. 



So far as we are able to judge, there is but one practi- 

 cable way out of the difficulty ; it is founded on the surest 

 and best principle, viz., prevention. In a former number* 

 we pointed out how the sewage questicn might be solved 

 satisfactorily. The well-known proverb of the " old man 

 and the bundle of sticks " is peculiarly applicable here. If 

 the entrusted committee wish to attain to a happy and 

 speedy issue without being forced to seek extraneous aid 

 from the public funds, and a consequent increase of the 

 rates, why do they not begin at once by taking the initia- 

 tive step in the promotion of the "dry earth" and "ash" 

 systems? Whilst they recognise the efficacy of the last- 

 named processes, no progress whatever in relation to those 

 systems has been made, on the score of the overwhelming 

 introductory expense that would be incurred by its uni- 

 versal application. It has been estimated that 10,000 carts, 

 horses, and dustmen would about suffice to carry out the 

 details of such a plan for London alone. We observed before, 

 and, by way of emphasis, we repeat again, that it is quite 

 possible to substitute the reform we have alluded to in the 

 course of time. New suburban houses ought to be erected 

 with the necessary fittings ; and, as the resources of each 

 parish stand, old ones may be cut off from the existing 

 sewage ducts. We have reason to believe that, on this 



• See th^s journal, Oct. 31, 1884, p. 363. 



