xlv 



£1,440 4 



7 



3,371 5 



10 



81 6 



8 



316 9 



2 



5 







239 15 



2 



3,726 10 



7 



3,338 



9 



12,448 13 







1,287 17 







10,726 15 



8 



36,981 18 



5 



5,392 6 



2 



31,589 12 



3 



36,981 18 



5 



The report of the superintendent of the Health department, Man- 

 chester, for the year 1878 contains the following night and day soil 

 account : — 



Dr. 



To wages paid, night carters 



Ditto, barrowmen ... 



Ditto, night yardmen 



Ditto, tipmen ... 



Rent of wharf, Bollington ... 



Commission ... 



Carriage 



Wages paid, day yardmen ... 



Ditto, vanmen and carriers... 



Ditto, receptacle cleaners ... 



General expenses 



Total 



Ce. 

 By sale of manure 

 Balance 



Total 



The population was 341,414 last census, and according to this 

 estimate of population the above outlay, equal to about Is. lOd. per 

 head, for not only pail collection and street-sweeping, but for the col- 

 lection of all refuse within the city for one year. Applying that rate 

 per head to the City of Hobart, with a population of 24,000, the total 

 annual cost for sweeping streets, pail collecting, and the removal of all 

 additional refuse, would amount to £2,200 per year, or £800 per year in 

 excess of the present cost, not one quarter of the probable cost as esti- 

 mated by Mr. Mault, viz., £9,000. 



In section 14 of the report the annual cost of scavenging Hobart is 

 stated as £2,000. The exact cost of this department is £1,347 10s. 

 lid. 



I have a small plan of sanitary works, at Warrington, on the wall 

 before you. Of this complete little work, W. Sedgewick Saunders, 

 M.D., F.S.A., in his report to the Committee of the Honorable the 

 Commissioners of Sewers of the city of London, 1884, and ordered 

 by them to be printed, says: — "I think it must be conceded that in 

 the new system we have tefore us a new line of departure of 

 singular promise, and that by waiting for its full development we 

 have been spared the risk and cost of failure, even if we cannot claim 

 the honour of being the pioneers of a system des ined in the opinion of 

 all competent and disinterested sanitarians, to supersede the present 

 vicious methods of disposing of house refuse ;" " not only did they see 

 a work consisting of poisonous and disgusting elements dealt with and 

 satisfactorily disposed of, without nuisance of any kiud, but learnt 

 that products having a marketable value can be, and are, produced 

 ■without any infraction of true hygienic principles, whilst at the same 

 time they may have the effect of materially reducing the expenses." _ 



I think that a similar system could be advantageously adopted in 

 Hobart for dealing with refuse. The evaporation to dryness of semi- 

 liquid excreta would afford excellent and portable manure, and the total 

 destruction by fire of all other noxious waste material would probably 

 be found to be cheaper and more efficient than any other process 

 of dealing with refuse matter. I am glad to say that Mr. George 

 Coppin, M.L.A., Victoria, and a member of the Victorian Central 



