 Section 30 of London Labour and the London Poor Volume 2 by Henry Mayhew. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain. Recording by Gillian Henry. Of the London dustmen, nightmen, sweeps and scavengers. These men constitute a large body and are a class who, all things considered, do their work silently and efficiently. Almost without the cognisance of the mass of the people, the refuse is removed from our streets and houses. And London, as if in the care of a tidy housewife, is always being cleaned. Great as are the faults and absurdities of many parts of our system of public cleansing. Nevertheless, when compared with the state of things in any continental capital, the superiority of the metropolis of Great Britain is indisputable. In all this matter there is little merit to be attributed to the workmen, except that they may be well drilled. For the majority of them are as much machines, apart from their animation, as are the cane and whale bone made to cleanse the chimney, or the clumsy looking machine which in its progress is a vehicular scavenger, sweeping as it goes. These public cleansers are to be thus classified. One, dustmen, or those who empty and remove the collection of ashes, bones, vegetables and so on, deposited in the dustbins, or other refuse receptacles throughout the metropolis. Two, nightmen, or those who remove the contents of the cesspools. Three, sweeps, or those who remove the soot from the chimneys. Four, scavengers, or those who remove the dirt from the streets, roads and markets. Let me however, before proceeding further with the subject, lay before the reader the following important return as to the extent and contents of this prodigious city. For this document I am indebted to the commissioners of police, gentlemen from whom I have derived the most valuable information since the commencement of my inquiries, and to whose courtesy and consideration I am anxious to acknowledge my many obligations. Return showing the extent, population and police force in the Metropolitan Police District and the City of London in September 1850. Readers note, there follows a table giving details of the City of London and the Metropolitan Police District. Note, the Metropolitan Police District comprises a circle, the radius of which is 15 miles from Charing Cross. The extreme boundary on the north includes the parish of Cheshunt and South Mims, on the south Epsom, on the east Dagenham and Crafford, and on the west Uxbridge and Staines. The inner district includes the parish of St John Hampstead on the north, Tutting and Stretham on the south, Ealing and Brentford on the west, and Greenwich on the east. The Registrar General's District is equal, or nearly so, to the inner Metropolitan Police District. The City of London is bounded on the south by the river, on the east by Whitechapel, on the west by Chancery Lane, and north by Finsbury. Area, in square miles, Metropolitan Police District, Inner District, 91, Outer District, 609.5, Total, 700 and a half. City of London, 1 and 3 quarters. Grand Total, 702 and a quarter, square miles. Parishes, Inner District, 82, Outer District, 136. Total, Metropolitan Police District, 218. City of London, 97, Grand Total, 315. Streets, roads and so on, length off in miles. Inner District, 1,700. Outer District, 1,936. Total, Metropolitan Police District, 3,636. City of London, 50, Grand Total, 3,686. Number of houses, inhabited. Inner District, 289,912. Outer District, 59,995. Total, Metropolitan Police District, 349,907. City of London, 15,613. Grand Total, 365,520. Number of houses, uninhabited. Inner District, 11,868. Outer District, 1,437. Total, Metropolitan Police District, 13,305. City of London, 387. Grand Total, 13,692. Number of houses being built. Inner District, 4,634. Outer District, 1097. Total, Metropolitan Police District, 5,731. City of London, 23. Grand Total, 5,754. Population, Inner District, 1,986,629. Outer District, 350,331. Total, Metropolitan Police District, 2,336,960. City of London, 125,000. Grand Total, 2,461,960. Police Force, Inner District, 4,844. Outer District, 660. Total, Metropolitan Police District, 5,504. City of London, 568. Grand Total, 6072. The total here given can hardly be considered as the dimensions of the metropolis, though where the capital begins and ends it is difficult to say. If, however, London be regarded as concentrating within the Inner Police District, then adding the extent and contents of that district to those of the city as above detailed, we have the sub-joint statement as to the dimensions and inhabitants of the metropolis proper. Area, 92 and ¾ square miles. Parishes, 179. Length of street, roads and so on, 1,750 miles. Number of inhabited houses, 305,525. Ditto uninhabited, 12,255. Ditto being built, 4,657. Population, 2,111,629. Police force, 5,412. But if the extent of even this inner district be so vast as almost to overpower the mind with its magnitude, if its population be greater than that of the entire kingdom of Hanover and almost equal to that of the Republic of Switzerland, if its houses be so numerous that placed side by side they would form one continuous line of dwellings from its centre to Moscow. If its streets and roads be nearly equal in length to ¼ of the diameter of the earth itself, what a task must the cleansing of such a brick and wilderness be, and yet assuredly, though it be by far the greatest, it is at the same time by far the cleanest city in the world. The removal of the refuse of a large town is perhaps one of the most important of social operations. Not only is it necessary for the well-being of a vast aggregation of people, that the order should be removed from both within and around their dwellings as soon as it is generated, but nature, ever working in a circle and reproducing in the same ratio as she destroys, has made this same order not only the cause of present disease when allowed to remain within the city, but the means of future health and sustenance when removed to the fields. In a leading article in The Morning Chronicle, written about two years since, I said, quote, that man gets his bones from the rocks and his muscles from the atmosphere is beyond all doubt. The iron in his blood and the lime in his teeth were originally in the soil, but these could not be in his body unless they had previously formed part of his food, and yet we can neither live on air nor on stones. We cannot grow fat upon lime, and iron is positively indigestible in our stomachs. It is by means of the vegetable creation alone that we are enabled to convert the mineral into flesh and blood. The only apparent use of herbs and plants is to change the inorganic earth, air and water into organic substances fitted for the nutrition of animals. The little lichen, which by means of the oxalic acid that it secretes, decomposes the rocks to which it clings and fits their lime for assimilation with higher organisms, is as it were but the primitive bone maker of the world. By what subtle transmutation inorganic nature is changed into organic and dead inert matter quickened with life is far beyond us even to conjecture. Suffice it that an express apparatus is required for the process, a special mechanism to convert the crust of the earth, as it is called, into food for man and beast. Now in nature everything moves in a circle, perpetually changing, and yet ever returning to the point whence it started. Our bodies are continually decomposing and recomposing, indeed the very process of breathing is but one of decomposition. As animals live on vegetables, even so is the refuse of the animal, the vegetables food. The carbonic acid which comes from our lungs and which is poison for us to inhale is not only the vital air of plants but positively their nutriment. With the same wondrous economy that marks all creation, it has been ordained that what is unfitted for the support of the superior organisms is of all substances the best adapted to give strength and vigor to the inferior. That which we excrete as pollution to our system, they secrete as nourishment to theirs. Plants are not only nature's scavengers but nature's purifiers. They remove the filth from the earth as well as disinfect the atmosphere and fit it to be breathed by a higher order of beings. Without the vegetable creation the animal could neither have been nor be. Plants not only fitted the earth originally for the residence of man and the brute, but to this day they continue to render it habitable to us. For this end their nature has been made the very antithesis to ours. The process by which we live is the process by which they are destroyed. That which supports respiration in us produces putrefaction in them. What our lungs throw off, their lungs absorb. What our bodies reject, their roots imbibe. Hence in order that the balance of waste and supply should be maintained, that the principle of universal compensation should be kept up and that what is rejected by us should go to the sustenance of plants. Nature has given us several instinctive motives to remove our refuse from us. She has not only constituted that which we adjust, the most loathsome of all things to our senses and imagination, but she has rendered its effluvium highly pernicious to our health. Sulfurated hydrogen being at once the most deleterious and offensive of all gases. Consequently as in all other cases where the great law of nature has to be enforced by special sanctions, a double motive has been given us to do that which it is necessary for us to do and thus it has been made not only advantageous to us to remove our refuse to the fields, but positively detrimental to our health and disgusting to our senses to keep it in the neighbourhood of our houses. In every well regulated state, therefore, an effective and rapid means for carrying off the order of the people to a locality where it may be fruitful instead of destructive becomes a most important consideration. Both the health and the wealth of the nation depend upon it. If to make two blades of wheat grow where one grew before is to confer a benefit on the world, surely to remove that which will enable us at once to do this and to purify the very air which we breathe as well as the water which we drink must be a still greater boon to society. It is in fact to give the community not only a double amount of food but a double amount of health to enjoy it. We are now beginning to understand this. Up to the present time we have only thought of removing our refuse. The idea of using it never entered our minds. It was not until science taught us the dependence of one order of creation upon another that we began to see that what appeared worse than worthless to us was nature's capital, wealth set aside for future production." In connection with this part of the subject, namely the use of human refuse, I would here draw attention to those erroneous notions as to the multiplication of the people which teach us to look upon the increase of the population beyond certain limits as the greatest possible evil that can befall a community. Population, it is said, multiplies itself in a geometrical ratio whereas the produce of the land is increased only in arithmetical proportion. That is to say, while the people are augmented after the rate of 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, the quantity of food for them can be extended only in the following degrees 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12. The cause of this is said to be that after a certain stage in the cultivation of the soil, the increase of the produce from land is not in proportion to the increase of labour devoted to it. That is to say, doubling the labour does not double the crop. And hence it is asserted that the human race increasing at a quicker rate than the food insufficient sustenance must be the necessary lot of a portion of the people in every densely populated community. That men of intelligence and education should have been persuaded by so plausible a doctrine at the time of its first promulgation may be readily conceived. For then the notions concerning organic chemistry were vague in the extreme and the great universal law of waste and supply remained to be fully developed. But that men pretending to the least scientific knowledge should in these days be found advocating the population theory is only another of the many proofs of the indisposition of even the strongest minds to abandon their pet prejudices. Assuredly, Malthus and Liebig are incompatible. If the new notions as to the chemistry of vegetation be true then must the old notions as to the population be utterly unfounded. If what we excrete plants secrete. If what we exhale they inspire. If our refuse is their food then it follows that to increase the population is to increase the quantity of manure while to increase the manure is to augment the food of plants and consequently the plants themselves. If the plants nourish us we at least nourish them. It seems never to have occurred to the economists that plants themselves required sustenance and consequently they never troubled themselves to inquire whence they derived the elements of their growth. Had they done this they would never have even expected that a double quantity of mere labour upon the soil should have doubled the produce. But they would rather have seen that it was utterly impossible for the produce to be doubled without the food in the soil being doubled likewise. That is to say they would have perceived that plants could not whatever the labour exerted upon their cultivation extract the elements of their organisation from the earth and air unless those elements previously existed in the land and atmosphere in which they grew and that such elements moreover could not exist there without some organic being to ingest them. This doctrine of the universal compensation extending throughout the material world and more especially through the animal and vegetable kingdom is perhaps one of the grandest and most consoling that science has yet revealed to us making each mutually dependent on the other and so contributing each to the other's support. Moreover it is the more comforting as enabling us almost to demonstrate the falsity of a creed which is opposed to every generous impulse of our nature and which is utterly irreconcilable with the attributes of the Creator. Thanks to organic chemistry I said two years ago in the morning chronicle we are beginning to wake up. Science has taught us that the removal of the order of towns to the fields is a question that concerns not only our health but what is a far more important consideration with us our riches pockets. What we in our ignorance had mistaken for refuse of the vilest kind we have now learned to regard as being with reference to its fertilising virtues a precious ore running in rich veins beneath the surface of our streets whereas if allowed to reek and sieve in cesspools with incentive our very hearths or to pollute the water that we use to quench our thirst and cook our food it becomes like all wealth badly applied converted into poison as Romeo says of gold to the apothecary quote doing more murders in this loathsome world than those poor compounds which thou mayest not sell end quote formerly in our eagerness to get rid of the pollution we had literally not looked beyond our noses hence our only care was to carry off the nuisance from the immediate vicinity of our own residences it was no matter to us what became of it so long as it did not taint the atmosphere around us this the very instincts of our nature had made objectionable to us so we laid down just as many drains and sewers as would carry our night soil to the nearest stream and thus instead of poisoning the air that we breathed we poisoned the water that we drank then as the town extended for cities like mosaic work are put together piecemeal street being dovetailed to street like county to county in our children's geographical puzzles each new row of houses tailed on its drains to those of its neighbours without any inquiry being made as to whether they were on the same level or not the consequence of this is that the sewers in many parts of our metropolis are subject to an ebb and flood like their central stream so that the pollution which they remove at low water they regularly bring back at high water to the very doors of the houses once they carried it according to the average of the returns from 1841 to 1846 we are paying two millions every year for guano, bone dust and other foreign fertilisers of our soil in 1845 we employed no fewer than 683 ships to bring home 220,000 tonnes of animal manure from Ichibo alone and yet we are every day emptying into the Thames 115,000 tonnes of a substance which has been proved to be possessed of even greater fertilising powers with 200 tonnes of the sewage that we are want to regard as refuse applied to the irrigation of one acre of meadowland seven crops we are told have been produced in the year each of them worth from six pounds to seven pounds so that considering the produce to have been doubled by these means we have an increase of upwards of 20 pounds per acre per annum effected by the application of that refuse to the surface of our fields this return is at the rate of 10 pounds for every 100 tonnes of sewage and since the total amount of refuse discharged into the Thames from the sewers of the metropolis is in round numbers 40 million tonnes per annum it follows that according to such estimate we are positively wasting 4 million pounds of money every year or rather it costs us that amount to poison the waters about us or granting that the fertilising power of the metropolitan refuse is, as it is said to be, as great for arable as for pasture lands then for every 200 tonnes of manure that we now cast away we might have an increase of at least 20 bushels of corn per acre consequently the entire 40 million tonnes of sewage if applied to fatten the land instead of to poison the water would at such a rate of increase swell our produce to the extent of 4 million bushels of wheat per annum calculating then that each of these bushels would yield 16 quarter loaves it would follow that we fling into the Thames no less than 246 million pounds of bread every year or still worse by pouring into the river that which if spread upon our fields would enable thousands to live we convert the elements of life and health into the germs of disease and death changing into slow but certain poisons that which in the subtle transmutation of organic nature would become acres of life sustaining grain end quote I shall have more to say subsequently on this waste and its consequences these considerations show how vastly important it is that in the best of all possible ways we should collect, remove and use the scavengery and experimentationist matter of our streets and houses now the removal of the refuse of London is no slight task consisting as it does of the cleansing of 1,750 miles of streets and roads of collecting the dust from 300,000 dustbins of emptying according to the returns of the Board of Health the same number of cesspools and sweeping near upon 3 million chimneys a task so vast it might naturally be imagined would give employment to a number of hands and yet if we trusted the returns of the occupation abstract of 1841 the whole of these dupendous operations are performed by a limited number of individuals return of the number of sweeps dustmen and nightmen in the metropolis according to the senses of 1841 chimney sweepers total 1,033 males 20 years and upwards 619 under 20 370 females 20 years and upwards 44 scavengers and nightmen total 254 males 20 years and upwards 227 under 2010 females 20 years and upwards 17 I am informed by persons in the trade that the females here mentioned as chimney sweepers and scavengers and nightmen must be such widows or daughters of sweeps and nightmen as have succeeded to their businesses for that no women work at such trades accepting perhaps in the management and care of the suit in assisting to empty and fill the bags many females however are employed in sifting dust but the calling of the dustmen and dust women is not so much as noticed in the population returns according to the occupation abstract of the previous decennial period the number of males of 20 years and upwards for none others were mentioned pursuing the same callings in the metropolis in 1831 where as follows suit and chimney sweepers 421 nightmen and scavengers 130 hence the increase in the adult male operatives belonging to these trades between 1831 and 1841 was for chimney sweeps 198 and scavengers and nightmen 97 but these returns are preposterously incorrect in the first place it was not until 1842 that the parliamentary enactment prohibiting the further employment of climbing boys for the purpose of sweeping chimneys came into operation at that time the number of inhabited houses in the metropolis was in round numbers 250,000 and calculating these to have contained only 8 rooms each there would have been at the least 2 million chimneys to sweep now according to the government returns above sighted the London climbing boys for the masters did not and could not climb in 1841 numbered only 370 at which rate there would have been but one boy to no less than 5,400 chimneys pursuing the same mode of testing the validity of the official statements we find as the nightmen generally work in gangs of 4 that each of the 63 or say 64 gangs comprised in the census returns would have had 4,000 cesspools to empty of their contents while working both as scavengers and nightmen for according to the census they were the only individuals following those occupations in London they would after their nocturnal labours have had about 27 miles of streets and roads to cleanse a feat which would certainly have thrown the scavenging prowess of Hercules into the shade under the respective heads of the dustmen, nightmen, sweeps and scavengers I shall give an account of the numbers and so on employed and a resume of the whole it will be sufficient here to mention that my investigations lead to the conclusion that of men working as dustmen a portion of whom are employed as nightmen and scavengers there are at present about 1,800 in the metropolis the census of 1841 as I have pointed out mentions no dustmen whatever but I have so often had instances of the defects of this national numbering of the people that I have long since ceased to place much faith in its returns connected with the humbler grades of labour the costar mongers for example I estimate at about 10,000 whereas the government reports as has been before mentioned ignore the very existence of such a class of people and make the entire hawkers, hucksters and peddlers of the metropolis to amount to no more than 2045 again the London coal labourers, heavers and porters are said in the census of 1841 to be only 1,700 in number I find however that there are no less than 1,800 registered coal whippers and as many coal porters so that I am in no way inclined to give great credence to the official enumerations the difficulties which beset the perfection of such a document are almost insuperable and I have already heard of returns for the forthcoming document made by ignorant people as to their occupations which already go far to nullify the facts and connection with the employment of the ignorant and profligate classes of the metropolis before quitting this part of the subject namely the extent of surface, the length of streets and the number of houses throughout the metropolis requiring to be continually cleansed of their refuse as well as the number of people as continually engaged in so cleansing them let me here append the last returns of the registrar general copied from the census of 1851 as to the dimensions and contents of the metropolis according to that functionary so that they may be compared with those of the metropolitan police before given in Wales London exhibited which is by far the most comprehensive description of the metropolis that I have seen it is stated that it is quote only possible to adopt a general idea of the giant city end quote as its precise boundaries and extent cannot be defined on the north of the Thames we are told London extends to Edmundston and Finchley on the west it stretches to Acton and Hammersmith on the east it reaches Leighton and Hamm while on the south of the Thames the metropolis is said to embrace Wandsworth Stratum, Luysham, Woolwich and Plumstead to each of these points says Mr. Wheel but upon what authority he does not inform us continuous streets of houses reach but the solid mass of house lies within narrow bounds with these several long arms extending from it the greatest length of street from east to west he adds is about 14 miles and from north to south about 13 miles the solid mass is about 7 miles by 4 miles so that the ground covered with houses is not less than 20 square miles Mr. McAlloch in his London in 1850 to 1851 has a passage to the same effect he says quote the continued and rapid increase of buildings rendered it difficult to ascertain the extent of the metropolis at any particular period if we include in it those parts only that present a solid mass of houses its length from east to west may be taken at 6 miles and its breadth from north to south at about 3 miles and a half there is however a nearly continuous line of houses from Blackwell to Chelsea a distance of about 7 miles and from Woolworth to Holloway of 4 and a half miles the extent of surface covered by buildings is estimated at about 16 square miles or above 10,000 acres so that Mr. Say the celebrated French economist did not really indulge in hyperbole when he said quote London is no longer a town it is a province covered with houses end quote the government authorities however appear to have very different notions from either of the above gentlemen as to the extent of the metropolis the limits of London as at present laid down by the registrar general include 176 parishes besides several precincts, liberties and extra parochial places comprising altogether about 115 square miles according to the old bills of mortality London formerly included only 148 parishes which were located as follows parishes within the walls of the city 97 parishes without the walls of the city 97 parishes without the walls 17 parishes in the city and liberties of Westminster 10 out parishes in Middlesex and Surrey 24 total 148 the parishes which have been annexed to the above at different periods since the commencement of the present century are parishes added by the late Mr. Rickman see population abstracts 1801 to 1831 including Chelsea, Kensington, Paddington, St. Merlebone and St. Pancras 5 parishes added by the registrar general 1838 including Hammersmith, Fulham, Stoke Newington, Stratford-Libault Bromley, Camberwell, Detford, Greenwich and Willich 10 parishes added by the registrar general in 1844 including Clapham, Battersea, Wandsworth, Putney Lower Tooting and Stratham 6 parishes added by the registrar general in 1846 comprising Hampstead, Charlton, Plumstead, Elfam Lee, Kidbroke and Lewisham 7 total number of parishes in the metropolis as defined by the registrar general 176 The extent of London, according to the limits assigned to it at the several periods above mentioned was London within the old bills of mortality from 1726 Statute Acres 21,080 Square Miles 32 London within the limits adopted by the late Mr. Rickman 1801 to 1831 29,850 Acres 46 Square Miles London within the limits adopted by the registrar general 1838 to 43 44,850 Acres 70 Square Miles London within the limits adopted by the registrar general 1844 to 46 55,650 Acres 87 Square Miles London within the limits adopted by the registrar general in 1847 to 1851 74,070 Acres 115 Square Miles London, observes Mr. Whale has now swallowed up many cities, towns, villages and separate jurisdictions The four commonwealths, or kingdoms, of the Middle Saxons East Saxons The South Rick and the Kentwarns once ruled over its surface It now embraces the Episcopal cities of London and Westminster The towns of Willich, Detford and Wandsworth The watering places of Hampstead, Highgate, Islington Acton and Kilburn The fishing town of Barking Excluded and ancient villages of Ham, Hornsey Sydenham, Lee, Kensington Fulham, Lambeth, Clapham, Paddington Hackney, Chelsea, Stoke Newington Newington Bats, Plumstead and many others End of Section 30 Section 31 of London Labour and the London Poor Volume 2 by Henry Mayhew This LibriVox recording is in the public domain Recording by Gillian Henry The 176 parishes now included by the Registrar General within the boundaries of the Metropolis are arranged by him into five districts of which the areas, population and number of inhabited houses were on the 31st of March 1851 as under mentioned Table showing the area, number of inhabited houses and population of the different parts of the Metropolis 1841 to 1851 Readers note there follows a table with different divisions of the Metropolis giving details of Statute Acres, Population and inhabited houses West Districts, Kensington 7,860 Statute Acres Population in 1841 74,898 Population in 1851 119,990 Inhabited houses in 1841 10,962 In 1851 17,292 Chelsea 780 Statute Acres Population in 1841 40,243 Population in 1851 56,543 Inhabited houses in 1841 5,648 In 1851 7,629 St George's Hanover Square 1090 Statute Acres Population in 1841 66,657 In 1851 73,207 Inhabited houses in 1841 7,630 In 1851 8,795 Westminster 840 Statute Acres Population in 1841 56,802 In 1851 65,609 Inhabited houses in 1841 6439 In 1851 6,647 St Martin's in the Fields 260 Statute Acres Population in 1841 25,132 In 1851 24,557 Inhabited houses in 1841 2439 In 1851 2323 St James's Westminster 165 Statute Acres Population in 1841 37,457 In 1851 36,426 Inhabited houses in 1841 3590 In 1851 3460 North Districts Marlebone 1490 Statute Acres Population in 1841 138,383 In 1851 157,679 Inhabited houses in 1841 14,169 In 1851 15,955 Hampstead added 1846 2070 Statute Acres Population in 1841 10,109 In 1851 11,986 Inhabited houses in 1841 1411 In 1851 1719 Pancras 2600 Statute Acres Population in 1841 129,969 In 1851 167,198 Inhabited houses in 1841 14,766 In 1851 18,731 Islington 3050 Statute Acres Population in 1841 55,779 In 1851 35,154 Inhabited houses in 1841 8,508 In 1851 13,558 Hackney 3950 Statute Acres Population in 1841 42,328 In 1851 58,424 Inhabited houses in 1841 7,192 In 1851 9,861 Central Districts St Giles 250 Statute Acres Population in 1841 54,378 In 1851 54,062 Inhabited houses in 1841 4959 In 1851 4778 Strand 163 Statute Acres Population in 1841 43,667 In 1851 44,446 Inhabited houses in 1841 4327 In 1851 3938 Holburn 1888 Statute Acres Population in 1841 44,532 In 1851 46,571 Inhabited houses in 1841 4603 In 1851 4517 Clarkinwell 320 Statute Acres Population in 1841 56,799 In 1851 64,705 Inhabited houses in 1841 6946 In 1851 7259 St. Luke's 240 Statute Acres Population in 1841 49908 In 1851 54,058 Inhabited houses in 1841 6385 In 1851 6421 East London and West London Note, the area here stated is that of the city without the walls and includes white friars, precinct and Holy Trinity minarees both belonging to other districts End note 230 Statute Acres East London Population in 1841 39,718 In 1851 44,407 Inhabited houses in 1841 4796 In 1851 4785 West London population in 1841 29,188 In 1851 28,829 Inhabited houses in 1841 3010 In 1851 2745 City of London 370 Statute Acres Note, this area is that of the city within the walls and does not include white friars which belongs to the district End note Population in 1841 56,009 In 1851 55908 Inhabited houses in 1841 7921 In 1851 7329 East districts Shore Ditch 620 Statute Acres Population in 1841 83,564 In 1851 109209 Inhabited houses in 1841 12642 In 1851 15433 Bethnal Green 760 Statute Acres Population in 1841 74206 In 1851 90170 Inhabited houses in 1841 11782 In 1851 13370 White Chapel 316 Statute Acres Population in 1841 71879 In 1851 79756 Inhabited houses in 1841 8834 In 1851 8832 St. George's in the East 230 Statute Acres Population in 1841 41416 In 1851 48375 Inhabited houses in 1841 5985 In 1851 6151 Stepney 2518 Statute Acres Population in 1841 90831 In 1851 110669 Inhabited houses in 1841 14364 In 1851 16346 Poplar 1250 Statute Acres Population in 1841 31171 In 1851 47157 Inhabited houses in 1841 5066 In 1851 6882 South Districts Note, the area of the Districts of St. Saviour and St. Olive is included in that return for St. George's Southerk. End Note St. Saviour's Southerk Population in 1841 33207 In 1851 35729 Inhabited houses in 1841 4659 In 1851 4613 St. Olive's Southerk Population in 1841 19869 In 1851 19367 Inhabited houses in 1841 2523 In 1851 2365 Berman's E 620 Statute Acres Population in 1841 35002 In 1851 48128 Inhabited houses in 1841 5674 In 1851 7095 St. George's Southerk 590 Statute Acres Population in 1841 46718 In 1851 51825 Inhabited houses in 1841 6663 In 1851 7005 Newington 630 Statute Acres Population in 1841 54693 In 1851 64805 Inhabited houses in 1841 9370 In 1851 10468 Lambeth 3640 Statute Acres Population in 1841 116072 In 1851 139240 Inhabited houses in 1841 17791 In 1851 20520 Onesworth 1843 10800 Statute Acres Population in 1841 39918 In 1851 50770 Inhabited houses in 1841 6459 In 1851 8290 Camberwell 4570 Statute Acres Population in 1841 39931 In 1851 54668 Inhabited houses in 1841 6843 In 1851 9417 Rotherith 690 Statute Acres Population in 1841 13940 In 1851 17778 Inhabited houses in 1841 2420 In 1851 2834 Greenwich 4570 Statute Acres Population in 1841 81125 In 1851 99404 Inhabited houses in 1841 11995 In 1851 14423 Lewisham 1846 16350 Statute Acres Population in 1841 23051 In 1851 34831 Inhabited houses in 1841 3966 In 1851 5936 Total London Division 74070 Statute Acres Population in 1841 1,948,369 In 1851 2,361,640 Inhabited houses in 1841 262,737 In 1851 307,722 In order to be able to compare the average density of the population in the various parts of London I have made a calculation as to the number of persons and houses to the acre As well as the number of inhabitants to each house I have also computed the annual rate of increase of the population from 1841 to 51 In the several localities here mentioned and append the result It will be seen that while what are popularly known as the suburbs have increased Both in houses and population at a considerable rate Some of the more central parts of London, on the contrary, have decreased Not only in the number of people, but in the number of dwellings as well This has been the case in St Martins and the Fields, St James's, Westminster, St Giles and the City of London Tables showing the increase of the population and inhabited houses As well as the rate of the number of people and houses to each acre And the number of persons to each house in the different parts of the metropolis in 1841 to 1851 Readers note There follows a table giving the yearly increase of population per annum from 1841 to 51 And the yearly increase of inhabited houses from 1841 to 51 After which is given The number of people to the acre The number of inhabited houses to the acre And the number of persons to each house, all detailed from 1851 End of readers note West districts Kensington Yearly increase of population 4,509.2 Yearly increase of inhabited houses 633.0 Number of people to the acre 15.2 Number of inhabited houses to the acre 2.2 Number of persons to each house 6.9 Chelsea Yearly increase of population 1,630.0 Yearly increase of inhabited houses 198.1 Number of people to the acre 72.4 Number of inhabited houses to the acre 9.7 Number of persons to each house 7.4 St. George's Hanover Square Yearly increase of population 655.0 Yearly increase of inhabited houses 11.6 Number of people to the acre 67.1 Number of inhabited houses to the acre 8.0 Number of persons to each house 8.3 Westminster Yearly increase of population 880.7 Yearly increase of inhabited houses 20.8 Number of people to the acre 80.4 Number of inhabited houses to the acre 8.2 Number of persons to each house 9.8 St. Martins and the Fields Yearly decrease of population 57.5 Yearly decrease of inhabited houses 11.6 Number of people to the acre 94.3 Number of inhabited houses to the acre 8.9 Number of persons to each house 10.5 St. James's Westminster Yearly decrease of population 103.1 Yearly decrease of inhabited houses 13.0 Number of people to the acre 220.7 Number of inhabited houses to the acre 20.9 Number of persons to each house 10.5 North Districts Marleybone Yearly increase of population 1926.6 Yearly increase of inhabited houses 178.6 Number of people to the acre 105.8 Number of inhabited houses to the acre 10.3 Number of persons to each house 9.8 Hampstead Yearly increase of population 187.7 Yearly increase of inhabited houses 30.8 Number of people to the acre 5.7 Number of inhabited houses to the acre 0.8 Number of persons to each house 6.9 St. Pancras Yearly increase of population 3722.9 Yearly increase of inhabited houses 396.5 Number of people to the acre 64.3 Number of inhabited houses to the acre 7.2 Number of persons to each house 8.9 Islington Yearly increase of population 3937.5 Yearly increase of inhabited houses 505.0 Number of people to the acre 31.5 Number of inhabited houses to the acre 4.4 Number of persons to each house 7.0 Hackney Yearly increase of population 1609.6 Yearly increase of inhabited houses 719.2 Number of people to the acre 14.7 Number of inhabited houses to the acre 2.3 Number of persons to each house 5.9 Central Districts St. Giles Yearly decrease of population 31.6 Yearly increase of inhabited houses 18.1 Number of people to the acre 216.2 Number of inhabited houses to the acre 19.1 Number of persons to each house 11.3 Strand Yearly increase of population 77.9 Yearly decrease of inhabited houses 38.9 Number of people to the acre 272.2 Number of inhabited houses to the acre 24.1 Number of persons to each house 11.2 Holburn Yearly increase of population 203.9 Yearly decrease of inhabited houses 8.6 Number of people to the acre 247.7 Number of inhabited houses to the acre 24.0 Number of persons to each house 10.3 Clarkinwell Yearly increase of population 190.6 Yearly increase of inhabited houses 31.3 Number of people to the acre 202.2 Number of inhabited houses to the acre 22.6 Number of persons to each house 8.9 St. Luke's Yearly increase of population 415.0 Yearly increase of inhabited houses 3.6 Number of people to the acre 225.2 Number of inhabited houses 26.7 Number of persons to each house 8.4 East and West London Yearly increase of population 433.0 Yearly decrease of inhabited houses 27.6 Number of people to the acre 318.4 Number of inhabited houses to the acre 32.7 Number of persons to each house 9.7 London City Yearly increase of population 10.1 Yearly decrease of inhabited houses 59.2 Number of people to the acre 151.0 Number of inhabited houses to the acre 19.8 Number of persons to each house 7.6 East District's Shore Ditch Yearly increase of population 2564.5 Yearly increase of inhabited houses 279.1 Number of people to the acre 176.1 Number of inhabited houses to the acre 24.8 Number of persons to each house 7.0 Bethnal Green Yearly increase of population 1596.4 Yearly increase of inhabited houses 158.8 Number of people to the acre 118.6 Number of inhabited houses to the acre 17.5 Number of persons to each house 6.7 Yearly increase of population 787.7 Yearly decrease of inhabited houses 0.2 Number of people to the acre 252.3 Number of inhabited houses to the acre 27.9 Number of persons to each house 9.0 St George's in the East Yearly increase of population 695.9 Yearly increase of inhabited houses 16.6 Number of people to the acre 210.3 Number of inhabited houses to the acre 26.7 Number of persons to each house 7.8 Stepney Yearly increase of population 1,983.8 Yearly increase of inhabited houses 198.2 Number of people to the acre 43.9 Number of inhabited houses to the acre 6.4 Number of persons to each house 6.7 Poplar Yearly increase of population 1,598.6 Yearly increase of inhabited houses 181.6 Number of people to the acre 37.7 Number of inhabited houses to the acre 5.5 Number of persons to each house 6.8 South districts St Saviours, St Olives and St George's Southern Yearly increase of population 730.7 Yearly increase of inhabited houses 13.8 Number of people to the acre 181.2 Number of inhabited houses to the acre 23.7 Number of persons to each house 7.6 Bermondsy Yearly increase of population 1,312.6 Yearly increase of inhabited houses 142.1 Number of people to the acre 77.6 Number of inhabited houses to the acre 11.2 Number of persons to each house 6.7 Newington Yearly increase of population 1011.2 Yearly increase of inhabited houses 109.8 Number of people to the acre 102.8 Number of inhabited houses to the acre 16.6 Number of persons to each house 6.1 Lambeth Yearly increase of population 2316.8 Yearly increase of inhabited houses 272.9 Number of people to the acre 38.2 Number of inhabited houses to the acre 5.6 Number of persons to each house 6.7 Onesworth Yearly increase of population 1085.2 Yearly increase of inhabited houses 183.1 Number of people to the acre 4.7 Number of inhabited houses to the acre 0.7 Number of persons to each house 6.1 Camberwell Yearly increase of population 1473.7 Yearly increase of inhabited houses 257.4 Number of people to the acre 12.4 Number of inhabited houses to the acre 2.0 Number of persons to each house 5.8 Rutherith Yearly increase of population 383.8 Yearly increase of inhabited houses 41.4 Number of people to the acre 25.7 Number of inhabited houses to the acre 4.1 Number of persons to each house 6.2 Greenwich Yearly increase of population 1827.9 Yearly increase of inhabited houses 242.8 Number of people to the acre 21.7 Number of inhabited houses to the acre 3.1 Number of persons to each house 6.8 Luciam Yearly increase of population 1178.0 Yearly increase of inhabited houses 197.0 Number of people to the acre 2.1 Number of inhabited houses to the acre 0.3 Number of persons to each house 5.6 Total for all London Yearly increase of population per annum Population from 1841 to 1851 41.327.1 Yearly increase of inhabited houses from 1841 to 1851 4498.5 Number of people to the acre in 1851 31.8 Number of inhabited houses to the acre in 1851 4.1 Number of persons to each house in 1851 7.6 By the above table we perceive that St Martin's in the fields St James's, Westminster St Giles, the Strand and the City have all decreased both in population and houses since 1841 The population has diminished most of all in St James's and the houses the most in the city. The suburban districts however such as Chelsea Marlebone, St Pancras Islington, Hackney, Shoreditch Bethnal Green, Stepney Poplar, Bermondsey Newington, Lambeth, Wandsworth Camberwell, Greenwich and Lewisham have all increased greatly within the last 10 years both in dwellings and people. The greatest increase of the population as well as houses has been in Kensington where the yearly addition has been 4,500 people and 630 houses The more densely populated districts are St James's, Westminster St Giles, the Strand Holburn, Clarkinwell St Luke, Whitechapel and St George's in the East in all of which places there are upwards of 200 people to the acre while in East and West London in which the population is the most dense of all the number of people exceeds 300 to the acre. The least densely populated districts are Hampstead Wandsworth and Lewisham where the people are not more than 6 and as few as 2 to the acre. The district in which there are the greatest number of houses to a given space are St James's Westminster, the Strand Holburn, Clarkinwell St Luke's, Shoreditch and St George's in the East in all of which localities there are upwards of 20 dwellings to each acre of ground while in East and West London which is the most closely built over of all the number of houses to each acre are as many as 32. Hampstead and Lewisham appear to be the most open districts for there the houses are not more than 8 and 3 to every 10 acres of ground. The localities in which the houses are the most crowded with inmates are the Strand St Giles where there are more than 11 people to each house and St Martins in the fields and St James's Westminster and Holburn where each house has on an average 10 inmates while in Lewisham and Wandsworth the houses are the least crowded for there we find only 5 people to every house. Now comparing this return with that of the Metropolitan Police we have the following results as to the extent and contents of the metropolis proper area in statute acres according to the Registrar General 74,070 according to the Metropolitan Police 58,880 parishes according to the Registrar General 176 according to the Metropolitan Police 179 number of inhabited houses according to the Registrar General 307,722 according to the Metropolitan Police 305,525 population according to the Registrar General 2,361,640 according to the Metropolitan Police 2,111,629 hence it will be seen that both the extent and contents of these two returns differ most materially first the superficies of the Registrar General's metropolis is very nearly 13 square miles or 15,190 statute acres greater than the metropolis of the police commissioners second the number of inhabited houses is 2,197 more in the one than in the other third the population of London according to the Registrar General's limits is 250,011 or a quarter of a million more than it is according to the limits of the Metropolitan Police it were much to be desired that some more definite and scientific mode not only of limiting but of dividing the metropolis where to be adopted at present there are perhaps as many different metropolises so to speak as many different modes of apportioning the several parts of the whole into districts as there are public bodies whose operations are specially confined to the capital the Registrar General has as we have seen one metropolis divided into western northern, central, eastern and southern districts the Metropolitan Police commissioners have another metropolis apportioned into its A divisions B divisions and so forth and the post office has a third metropolis parceled out in a totally different manner while the London city mission the scripture readers, the ragged schools and the many other similar metropolitan institutions all seem to delight in creating a distinct metropolis for themselves thus tending to make the statistical confusion worse confounded End of section 31