George Longworth of No 122 Riley Street, Blackburn, Mill Overlooker, says:
The house in which I reside is within about 300 yards of the Defendants works and close to Pringle Street. I have resided in my present house 6 years. During that time, I have never detected any unpleasant odours or offensive smells arising from the Defendants works. No complaints have ever been made to me from my neighbours or any other persons of any nuisance arising from the smells. I did not consider the Small Pox hospital was any nuisance to one.
The(re) are about 60 houses in Riley Street and they fetch 4/6 per week each. There are no houses empty at the present time. I do not consider that the works of the Defendant Corporation prejudicially affect the property in the neighbourhood.
I should not take such works into consideration if I were in search of a house in the neighbourhood.
Call George Longworth
John Hayes of No 100 Lower Audley Street, Blackburn, Clerk, says:
I have resided in my present house six months and upwards. I have never detected any bad smell or odour arising from the Destructor or the Defendants my house is situate within a ¼ of a Mile of the Defendants works.
No complaints have ever been made to me from any of my neighbours or any other persons
There are about 200 houses in the street in which I reside the average rents are 5/- per week and only one house is vacant.
I do not consider the Defendants works in anyway prejudicially affect the property in the neighbourhood
Call John Hayes
Edward Haworth of 27 Baines Street, Lower Audley, Blackburn, Assistant Brewer, says:
I have resided 7 years in my present house which is situate within 50 to 100 yards of the Defendants Works and is the nearest street to the Works. During my residence there I have occasionally detected slight odours but whether the(y) arose from the Destructor or the Works of the Defendants I do not know, but the faint odours that I have so detected in my opinion were never at any time sufficient to cause a nuisance. I have heard occasional remarks from my neighbours with reference to the smell but those remarks which have been made were made since the Agitation for the removal of the Destructor took place.
I never heard any complaints before then. None of my neighbours who spoke about the smell considered them bad enough to constitute a nuisance.
There are about 60 houses in my street and they are all let at rents averaging 4s/6d and 4s/9d per week. Since I have lived there none of the houses have ever been unlet for more than a week at a time. I do not consider the Defendants works or the Hospital in anyway a detriment to the property in the Neighbourhood.
Call Edward Haworth
George Halliwell of 163 Higher Audley Street, Blackburn, Weaver says:
I have resided in my present house nine years and upwards. my house is situate within 350 yards of the defendants Works. During my residence there I have never detected any bad smell or other offensive odour, arising from the Defendants Works. If there at any time existed any such odour it must have been so imperceptible as to escape my notice. No complaints have ever been made to me from any of my neighbours or any other persons. I do not consider the Defendants Works or the Hospital in any way a nuisance to me or the inhabitants in the neighbourhood or to prejudicially affect the property there.
Call George Halliwell
Joseph Edward Waddington of No 6 Audley Range, Herb Beer Manufacturer says:
I have resided in my present house about 15 Months before then I lived 164 Lower Audley Street where I resided about 4 years.
During the above periods I have never detected any unpleasant smells or odours arising from the Defendants works or Sanitary Depot.
The Hospital also has never been a nuisance to me. No complaints have been made to me by anyone of the alleged Nuisances.
There are about 400 houses in Audley Range and there is not one house empty.
I pay for rent £19 per annum.
Call Joseph Edward Waddington
Joseph Pollard 33 Victoria Street, Blackburn, House and Estate Agent and have been a member of the Town Council for 3 years, says:
I am an extensive owner of Cottage property in Blackburn and am also Agent for 22 houses in Alker Street which is within 250 yards or thereabouts from the Deft's works in Billinge Street within 350 yards of the works, 7 in Audley Range within 100 yards of the said works, 8 in Dewhurst Street within 250 yards of the said works, 8 in Ashton Street within 300 yards of the works, 9 in Higher Audley Street and Cicely Street within 350 yards of the works, 18 in Ashton Street within 100 yards of the works, 5 in Thorrock and Friday Streets within 150 yards of the works, 4 in Lower Audley Street within 100 yards of the works and about 35 houses in Haslingden Road and Grimshaw Park and 4 houses in Walker Street which is within 250 yards of the works, 35 houses in Bolton Road, within 400 yards of the works, 13 houses in Kay Street within 400 yards of the works, 24 houses in Shackleton Street, Cooke Street and Dock Street within 500 yards of the works, 13 houses in Higher Eanam, 8 houses in St Thomas' Terrace within 500 yards of the works, 15 houses in Withers Street, Snape Street, Chester Street and Audley Lane making altogether 235 houses under my management in the immediate vicinity of the Defendants works.
I have never detected any offensive smell or odour from the Destructor or Sanitary Depot belonging to the Defendant Corporation and I have never received any complaints from any tenants of the house under my management -
All the houses are now let and have been for some time there are very seldom any vacant – the rents range from 3/6 to 4/9 per house and the houses fetching 4/9 are nearest the works - From my own experience I say that the works of the Corporation and the Hospital do not prejudicially affect the property under my Management in the slightest degree, nor do I consider that such Works affect the Plaintiff's property or any other property in the neighbourhood.
From my experience I say that the rents realized by the property in the vicinity of the Destructor and Works of the Defendant Corporation are fully equal to the rents of similar houses in other parts of the Town.
have carefully inspected the Plaintiffs' property in Pringle Street and Bennington Street – there are 54 houses in Pringle Street – 52 of which are let and only 2 are empty those that are let fetch the following rents:
|No. Pringle St.||Per Week||No Pringle Street||Per week|
|56||4s 6d||114||4s 3d|
|58||4s 9d||116||4s 3d|
|60||4s 9d||118||4s 3d|
|62||4s 9d||120||4s 3d|
|64||4s 9d||122||4s 3d|
|66||4s 9d||124||4s 3d|
|68||4s 9d||126||4s 3d|
|70||4s 9d||128||4s 3d|
|72||4s 9d||130||4s 3d|
|74||4s 9d||132||4s 3d|
|100||4s 6d||134||4s 3d|
|102||4s 1d||136||4s 3d|
|104||4s 1d||138||4s 3d|
|106||4s 1d||140||4s 3d|
|108||4s 1d||142||7s 0d|
|110||4s 1d||156||4s 6d|
|112||4s 3d||158||4s 6d|
|160||4s 6d||188||4s 6d|
|162||4s 6d||190||4s 6d|
|164||4s 6d||192||4s 6d|
|166||4s 6d||194||4s 6d|
|168||4s 6d||196||4s 6d|
|170||4s 6d||198||4s 6d|
|172||4s 6d||200||5s 6d|
|174||4s 6d||*76||5s 3d|
|182||4s 6d||*98|| |
|184||4s 6d|| || |
|186||4s 6d|| || |
No 76 is an empty Shop
No 98 is empty butt used as a workshop by Booth.
The rents received from the Plaintiff's houses are higher than what similar houses are fetching in the same District but further off from the
works complained of.
The vacant land in Bennington Street is much below the level of the Street and it would entail a large expense in filling up the hollows before the houses could be built upon – this fact would render practically useless the land for building purposes.
Call Joseph Pollard
Ainsworth of 11 Oldham Street, Blackburn, Broker and House Agent says:
I have lived in my present house 6 years and my house is between 150 and 200
yards from the Defendants’ works. I am
Agent and manage 12 houses and shops in the immediate vicinity of the
Defendants’ works. I have never observed
any unpleasant smells or odours arising from the Destructor or the Defenders’
works and I have never received any complaints either from the tenants of the
houses which I manage or from any other persons.
All the houses under my charge are let and have always been
so – In case of any about becoming empty they are always bespoke before they
are vacated. I do not consider that the Destructor and the Sanitary Depôt and
the Hospital have been or are the least nuisance to the inhabitants of the
neighbourhood or in any way prejudicially affect the letting or selling value of
property in the vicinity of the said works – the rents I get range from 4s 3d
to 7s each.
of Primrose Terrace, Langho near Blackburn in the County of Lancaster, widow
I am the owner of 6 houses in Baynes Street which is situate within 50 to 100
yards from the Destructor and the Defendants works and is the nearest Street to
such works and I also own 14 houses in Lord Derby Street which is within 150 to
200 yards of the said works. I have
owned the Baynes Street property about 8 years and the Lord Derby Street
property about 15 or 16 years. During
the whole time I have been in possession of the above properties I have never
received any complaints from any of my tenants in respect to any smell or other
nuisance arising from the Defendants works or the Hospital. The rents I receive from the houses average
4s/6d per week. None of the houses are empty now and in fact during the whole
time I possessed them they have never been empty. I do not consider that the
Defendants works in any way prejudicially affect my or the adjoining property.
Call Ann Croston
Pearson of 35 Park Road, Blackburn Weavers Collector says:
I have resided in my present house over 3 years. During my residence there I
have never detected any bad smell or other offensive odour arising from the
Defendants works. My house is within 200 or 300 yards of the works. I and 14 other men rent a strip of ground
alongside the Defendants works between the wall of the works and the
Canal. I am accustomed to go to this
garden in my leisure time and on Sundays for the purpose of gardening. I have
never detected the slightest smell or offensive odour at any time that I have
been so engaged. In the course of my
duties I have to visit very nearly all the houses in the neighbourhood of the
works. No complaints have ever been made
to me of the alleged nuisance by any one. here are about 60 houses in my
Street. There are never any houses empty. The rents average 5s 6d per week –
The works in my opinion are no detriment to the property in the neighbourhood.
Call James Pearson
Brooks of 47 Ingham Street, Audley, Blackburn, Joiner and Builder and
House Agent say:
I have resided in my present house 12 months and I have known the locality for
a large number of years and in the course of my business I have acquired an
intimate knowledge of it and of the letting and selling value of the houses – I
collect and manage about 16 houses in the immediate vicinity to the Defendants
works – I have personally never detected the slightest smell or unpleasant
odour in the neighbourhood and I have never received any complaints from any of
the tenants of the houses I manage or from any other persons.
There are very few if any houses vacant in the neighbourhood
– The rents obtained in this district are equal to the rents obtained for
similar houses in other parts of the Borough.
In fact, I have increased some of the rents of my houses under my charge
and the tenants have stayed on even with such increased rents – I do not consider
that the Defendants works or the Hospital in any way prejudicially affect the
letting or selling value of the houses in the neighbourhood.
Call Benjamin Brooks
Marsden of No 71 Haslingden Road, Blackburn, Weaver, says:
I have lived in the above house and other houses in the above road over 20
I own 9 houses in Haslingden Road and they are within 150
yards of the Destructor and Sanitary Depot and Hospital belonging to the
Defendants – I have occasionally detected a slight odour from the Destructor
but not sufficient in my opinion to cause a nuisance or to in any way prejudice
the health of the inhabitants in the vicinity.
There is however a very unpleasant smell which comes from the tip
belonging to the Corporation on a piece of land in Haslingden Road. I have never received any complaints from the
tenants of my houses or from any other person as to the Destructor Sanitary
Depot or Hospital but I have received many complaints with reference to the
nuisance arising from the tip. - The rents I get from my houses are 4s/ a week
– They are all let and they are never empty. The works of the Defendants do not
in any way prejudicially affect the letting or selling value of my or any other
property in the neighbourhood.
Call Grimshaw Marsden
Almond of 84 Haslingden Road, Blackburn, says:
I own two houses in Haslingden Road being Nos 80 and 84 and I have lived in No
84 since I purchased the Houses in 1881 – I have lived in the same Street 18
years – The above houses are within 200 yards from the Defendants works – I
have never detected any smell or bad odour arising from the Destructor or the
Defendants works – but when passing a tip belonging to the Defendants I have
discerned a very offensive smell – the tip is placed on a piece of ground
adjoining Haslingden Road – I have never heard any complaints regarding the
Destructor or the Defendants works but I have heard many complaints regarding
No 80 has never been empty and in fact no houses are ever to
let in Haslingden Road. I get 4s/6d a week from it.
I do not consider that the Destructor or the Defendants
Works and Hospital any nuisance or to prejudicially affect the letting or
selling value of property in the neighbourhood.
Call William Almond
of Salford says:
I am a Civil Engineer and a Member of the Institute of Civil Engineers and am
the Sanitary Engineer to the Borough of Salford.
I superintended the laying out of the Scavenging Depot for
the Highway Committee of the Broughton District of the Borough of Salford and
which contains a population of nearly 39,000.
I caused to be erected one of Fryer’s latest form of
Destructors and which has been in use for several months and which contains a
Since the Destructor came into use on the tenth of May last
2400 tons of house refuse have been burnt –
No complaint has ever been made of nuisance from this
Destructor within my knowledge –
There is a second Destructor, also one of Fryer’s design
which was erected by the Salford District Scavenging Department-
There is an excellent Destructor, but it contains no Fume
No complaint of nuisance of any kind from this Destructor
which has been in operation for nearly 6 years – has ever been made to me and I
am not aware that any complaint has been made to any other person or persons.
Both Destructors are situate in closely inhabited
localities, but although apprehension s were entertained by owners of property
in the neighbourhood of both Destructors before the works were erected no
complaint has within my knowledge ever been made of any nuisance or Smell
arising from the Destructors.
I have inspected the Destructor at Blackburn and am not
surprised that there should be complaints of its causing smoke and some smell –
The Chimney Shaft is not in my opinion sufficiently tall and could hardly
produce a sufficiently strong draught to completely decompose the volatile
matters of the refuse.
If the Destructor is to be reconstructed I would strongly
recommend that a Fume Cremator should be added to the Destructor and that the
Chimney Shaft should be raised to a height of not less than 60 yards. This will
greatly improve the draught both through the Fume Cremator and through the
Destructor Furnaces and unless the draught is sufficient to cause a very high
temperature I believe that during the consumption of the refuse much of the
volatile matter escapes into the air in an unchanged condition giving rise to
the nuisances complained of. I have visited Ealing and Leeds to see the Gormand
Destructors at these towns and at both places they appeared to be doing their
work well – At Ealing the Destructor was working so perfectly (although
consuming a quantity of half dried sewage mud from the precipitating Tanks)
that I could hardly see any smoke issuing from the Chimney Shaft and could not
perceive the least odour.
At the Salford Sewage Works I have erected Six Kilns by way
of experiment to burn the sludge from the Tanks – These Kilns consume the mud very
perfectly but they cause an unpleasant smell in the neighbourhood of the Works,
because the Shafts are not sufficiently tall to cause a brisk draught –
I am now engaged in preparing designs of new Kilns which
will either have a tall shaft or will pass the Fumes into the Boiler Chimney.
Call Arthur Jacob
Billington of 126 Whalley New Road, Blackburn says:
I am a member of the Town Council of the Borough of Blackburn and am Chairman
of the Health Committee of the Defendant Corporation.
I have been a member of the said Health Committee for
between 7 and 8 years and during the last two years I have occupied the
position of Chairman. I know the Sanitary Depot at Audley and the small pox
hospital complained of in this action and I have a full and accurate knowledge
of the method adopted by the Defendants for the collection and dealing with the
Pails in the Pail Closets in the Town with the emptying and dealing with the
contents of the ashpits and the Ashes Tubs and generally with the work of this
Sanitary Depot and I say that the work of scavenging is performed by the
Corporation on the above system in the best possible manner and so to create
the least possible nuisance.
It has been the practice of the Health Committee for a
number of years to require systematically the conversion of the Old Ashpit
Closets to Water Closets and it is within my knowledge that the Scavenging
Committee of the Corporation determined early in the present year to proceed to
the conversion by degrees of the pail closets to Water Closets.
When the Ashpit and Pail Closets have respectively been
converted to Water Closets the Corporation will be relieved of the most
offensive and difficult part of the Refuse with which they have to deal.
With regard to the small pox hospital the following number
of patients have been treated in the hospital each year for the 7 years namely;
In the year 1883, 4; 1884, none; 1885, 4; 1886, 28; 1887,
42; 1888, 82.
The hospital is situate in one of the outskirts of the Town
and in a sparsely populated district.
If a hospital of this kind has to be placed anywhere within
the borough I can conceive no better place for it than where it is. During the time I have occupied the position
of Chairman of the Health Committee I have from time to time made careful enquiries
into the origin of the cases of Small Pox
dealt with in the hospital and I say that in no instance so far as the
Health Committee or its officers could ascertain has the Small Pox been
traceable directly or indirectly to the Hospital –
I have full knowledge of the manner in which the Hospital
has been conducted.
Whenever an outbreak of Small Pox has occurred the nuisance
or Sanitary Inspector has at once received my directions and obtained one or
two nurses as the case might require from the nursing institute in Manchester
A special doctor is appointed by the Committee to attend the
patients in the Hospital and the Committee have given the strictest possible
orders that no person except the Doctor and convalescent patients shall be allowed
to leave the Hospital and no person other than the patients and the Doctor
shall be allowed to enter the Hospital.
In addition to this precaution the Committee have given
strict orders that in the cases of convalescent patients their clothes should
be thoroughly disinfected by heat and a system has been adopted by which the
Doctor and every person leaving the Hospital is required to enter a special box
provided at the door and there to be thoroughly disinfected before passing into
the open air.
I am satisfied that the Hospital has been conducted with the
greatest possible care and efficiency.
Call Edward Billington
William Whalley says:
I am the superintendent of the Scavenging Department of the Corporation of Blackburn and have held that office for a period of 16 years.
The canal at Audley was acquired by the Defendants for the purposes of a Sanitary Depot sometime in the year 1878 - It is upwards of 3 acres in extent and is bounded on the northerly side by the Leeds and Liverpool Canal on the Easterly side by Bennington Street and on the westerly and Southerly sides by unoccupied land.
It is situate in a sparsely populated part of the Town on the outskirts.
As soon as the land was acquired the Corporation proceeded to the construction of a wharf on the Canal, a stone and concrete tank for storing the contents of pails collected a shed for storing Street sweepings and ashpit manure and a 4 cell Fryer's Destructor for the purpose of burning the refuse which has no manurial value.
The Town of Blackburn is scavenged partly on what is known as the pail system, partly on the water closet system and partly on the old ashpit system:
The pail system
There are upwards of 11,000 pail closets in use in the Town—These pails have to be collected weekly— For the collection of the pails I have under my superintendence 29 men and 9 horses and carts and one foreman.
The Town is divided into Districts and every night the men and carts go out to the several districts and collect a certain proportion of full tubs replacing them with clear tubs—Two carts go together accompanied by three men—cart is a covered in Tank into which the contents of the pails are emptied—The other cart starts with clean pails to be exchanged for the dirty pails.
Depending upon the orders I may have for excreta from Farmers I give directions for the carts containing excreta so collected to proceed to the Store Yard depot, which is on the Railway or to the Audley Depot on the Canal.
About one third of the excreta collected in the pails is during the year taken to the Audley Depot, the contents are turned into a covered Canal boat, which Canal boat is required to start for its destination before 5 o'clock in the morning.
In the event of orders being insufficient to fill a Canal boat the contents of the pails taken to Audley are turned into the Tank there. This Tank is covered in and no smell can proceed from it— The Tank will hold about 40 or 50 tons of excreta, and it is very rarely the case that it is full, or that it remains waiting for orders for any length of time.
There are about 11,000 houses scavenged on the old ashpit system still remaining in use in Blackburn but a sustained effort is being made by the Corporation to gradually do away with these ashpits.
I have under my charge for the collection of the contents of ashpits 29 men and 9 horses and carts and one foreman – The men start from the Store Yard Depot nightly to empty the ashpits. In each case two men go first to empty the ashpit and their duty is to dig out the contents of the ashpit and divide it into two heaps – One heap contains ashes and refuse having no manurial value to be taken either to the tips or the Destructor, and the other being so much of the contents of the ashpit as does possess manurial value. These men are followed in about two hours by two carts, one to collect the rubbish which has to be tipped or destroyed and the other to collect the manure.
Depending on the orders which I may have received from the Farmers, the Foreman directs the carts containing the manure contents of ashpits to go either to the Store Yard Depot or to the Audley Depot—That is to say—If the manure has to be sent by Railway it is sent to the Store Yard Depot, if by Canal to the Audley Depot.
In the event of orders being scarce, which is unusual, the manure from the ashpits is stored in the Shed at Audley—Carbolic powder and other disinfectants are used which prevent any smell or nuisance arising outside the walls of the Depot what smell that may arise being quite localised by the shed and walls.
With regards to the contents of ashpits having no manurial value, as much is taken to the Audley Depot for the Destructor, as the Destructor is capable of destroying and the remainder is taken to four tips in the Town. These tips are however rapidly becoming exhausted. Others it is almost impossible to find and therefore an enlargement of the existing Destructor or the construction of other Destructors will, in a short time, be absolutely essential for the disposal of the refuse.
There are 2,850 water closets in use in Blackburn, but these do not come under my charge—The sewers converge upon settling Tanks at the
low level of Blackburn and the effluent from these tanks is conveyed by an aqueduct to the Sewage Irrigation Farms about 6 miles from the Borough—The Corporation have about 500 acres of land under Irrigation.
I have under my charge in addition to the pails and ashpits about 12,000 dry ashes tubs—These are collected fortnightly and the contents are taken partly to the Destructor and partly to the tips, about one third go to the Destructor.
I have under my charge for this purpose 27 men and 12 horses and carts.
I am also charged with the sweeping of the Streets and I collect yearly 8,001 tons.
These Street sweepings are wholly used for manure—About one fourth of the quantity is taken to the Audley Depot and shipped by boat to the Farmers, and the remainder is taken to the Store Yard Depot, and sent off to the Farmers by Railway.
I have under my charge in connection with the sweeping of the Streets 45 men and one foreman and 8 horses and carts.
I have also under my charge in connection with the clearing of the gullies, and for other work 21 more men making a total under my charge of 156 men and 39 horses and carts.
I collect and deal with yearly 576,108 pails and I empty and deal with yearly 9,372 ashpits and 312,000 ashes tubs and pits.
The weight of material which I have yearly to deal with amounts to 52,147 tons.
With regards to the Destructor, I have visited the Destructors in Leeds (2), Bradford, Bolton and other places and I say that the Destructor in use in Blackburn is as efficient as any of these I have seen in other Towns. The Destructor in Blackburn is a 4 cell Fryer Destructor with a Chimney 105 feet high—The amount of refuse burnt in the Destructor averages about 27 tons per cell per week.
I am satisfied that no serious nuisance has been caused by the use of the Destructor—very complaints have been made to me, although I am
aware that recently an agitation has been got up in the district for the removal of the Destructor.
With careful firing and proper attention there need be no nuisance from the Destructor but it is possible that under certain atmospheric conditions, and with bad firing some amount of smell may proceed from the chimney.
John Harrison and another man are the men in charge at the Destructor and it is their duty to see that the printed rules are strictly adhered to. It is a part of my duties to superintend the management of the Destructor and it is my custom to visit it once or twice every day when in the locality—at the times of my visits I have never found the men in charge breaking the rules hung up for their guidance and as far as my
personal knowledge extends I say that the rules with regard to the firing have been strictly adhered to.
The Corporation in 1886 constructed a Fume Cremator but it was found to reduce the destroying capacity of the Destructor by more than one third and to materially lessen the draught, and as a consequence the Corporation removed it for the time being.
I think the Destructor could be improved by the construction of a larger chimney, with a Fume Cremator, and with the addition of more cells—If these things were done I do not think any smell or nuisance from the Destructor would be possible.
Whilst the Fume Cremator was at work which was for over 3 months I had no complaints and there was no smell whatever from the Destructor.
The Corporation have by resolution determined to gradually abolish the pail system in favour of the water closet system, to construct two additional Destructors, and to put up a new chimney for the Destructor complained of.
They are also carrying out a system for the gradual conversion of the old ashpit closets to water closets, so soon as this arrangement can be carried out, that is, so soon as the old ashpit closets and pail closets can be done away with in favour of water closets, I shall be relieved of the most difficult and offensive part of the refuse with which I have to deal.
I am satisfied that the refuse in Blackburn under the pail and ashpit system is collected in the best possible manner and so as to create the least possible nuisance and under the water closet system it is not possible for any nuisance to arise—In my opinion the best method of getting rid of the refuse that has no manurial value is by fire and if properly done cannot be injurious to health whereas the disposal of it by placing the same on tips is in my opinion very prejudicial to health.
With regard to the complaint made in the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim with reference to the passage of carts along Pringle and Bennington Street, I say that all the carts proceeding to the Audley Depot pass along Bennington Street, and none pass along Pringle Street except such as may require to go there for the purpose of collecting the refuse from the houses in that street—There are no houses in Bennington Street it is impossible therefore that any person can suffer from the passage of carts along that Street.
Call William Whalley
William Henry Stephenson of Blackburn, Doctor of Medicine Edinburgh says:
I am the Medical Officer of Health for the Borough of Blackburn and have occupied that position for the past 10 years.I know the Sanitary Depot and Destructor and Small Pox Hospital at Audley which are complained of in this action.
With regard to the Sanitary Depot in the course of my duties as Medical Officer of Health I have made frequent inspections of the Audley District and have never found any offensive odour or nuisance outside the Depot arising from the collection of refuse on the wharf waiting to be shipped in the barges or otherwise disposed of and no complaint has ever been made to me by any of the residents in the locality by reason of any such alleged smell or nuisance.
With regard to the Destructor when the wind was in the South or South West I have occasionally detected a slight odour from the chimney but nothing to rise to serious complaint.
I believe that even this slight objection can be done away with by the construction of a higher chimney, as the fumes passing up the chimney will then be carried to a greater height and spread over a greater area.
I have never detected any fumes from the chimney which I should consider detrimental to health.
I believe that the burning of the refuse of Towns is the only safe way of disposing of it, and that Fryers Destructors can be worked without causing any nuisance whatever.
By the addition to the Audley Destructor of 4 more cells, a tall chimney and a Fume Cremator I am satisfied that no nuisance whatever would result from the burning of refuse in the Destructor.
The Destructor is situated in a Ward called Park Ward and this Ward is largely composed of the Districts surrounding the Destructor.
I have carefully considered the health statistics of this Ward especially for the last 3 years namely 1885, 1886, 1887 and I find that the comparison of the mean general and zymotic death rates between Park Ward and the remaining wards of the Town is as follows:
| ||St Mary's||St Paul's||St John's||St Peter's||Trinity||Park||St Mark's|
The general death rate during these 3 years in question was lowest in Park Ward and the zymotic death rate was lowest but one in that Ward.
I am fully conversant with the practice in vogue in Blackburn for the collection and disposition of the pails from the pail closets and the contents of the ashpit closets and I am satisfied that the work is performed by the Defendant Corporation in the best possible manner and so as to create the least possible nuisance.
I am aware that the Defendant Corporation have determined to gradually convert the pail and ashpit closets to water closets, and I find that this process of conversion is rapidly proceeding. So soon as the conversion is complete the Corporation will be relieved of the most offensive and most difficult part of the refuse with which they have to deal.
With regard to the Small Pox Hospital;
I have given the subject of the Small Pox Hospital in Audley my careful consideration for some years past –
It is situated in a sparsely populated district and is in every way suitable for the purpose intended.
It is well constructed and isolated by high walls – In the year 1883, 4 cases of Small Pox were treated there - There was no Small Pox in the Borough in 1884, 4 cases were treated in the Hospital in 1885, 28 in 1886, 42 in 1887 and 82 up to the 22nd of May this year when the Hospital was closed.
The Hospital in Audley is constructed to contain 30 beds and during the existence of the Small Pox epidemic in Blackburn during the earlier months of this year it was found that the beds were rapidly filling and in consequence an incumbent duty was put upon the Corporation to provide additional accommodation. In considering as to the best means of doing this the question arose whether additional accommodation should be provided by additions to the existing Hospital or by the construction of a new Hospital elsewhere.
Additions to the existing Hospital would have been very dangerous as the men would have had to work under conditions which would have rendered them subject to the infection from the Hospital, and the Corporation therefore determined to erect an additional Hospital elsewhere.
They possessed a piece of land with some disused buildings upon it at a place called Finnington and they accordingly rapidly turned these buildings into a commodious hospital.
As this new Hospital is larger and more commodious and capable of containing more beds the Corporation decided to use the Finnington Hospital in future to the Audley Hospital.
In the several Small Pox epidemics which have occurred in Blackburn the disease has each time been successfully arrested by means of the efficient isolation afforded by the Hospital, and I believe that if a suitable Hospital had not been provided the disease on each occasion would have spread through the Borough and become uncontrollable.
The Hospital complained of has been at all times under my very careful management and control and all known safeguards have been adopted to prevent the spread of infection. No noxious or disagreeable fumes are or can be at any time emitted.
When the Hospital was occupied in 1883 to 1885 inclusive no cases of Small Pox occurred in the Audley District. Of the 28 cases which were treated in the hospital in 1886 only one patient resided within a quarter of a mile radius of the Hospital. In the year 1887 of the 42 cases of Small Pox treated in the Hospital only 2 patients resided within a quarter of a mile of the Hospital.
In the year 1886 the Hospital was open for 7 months and in 1887 for 6 months only.
At the beginning of this year (1888) early in January several cases of Small Pox broke out in the workhouse.
On the 6th March 2 cases were removed from Haslingden Road a distance of about 400 yards from the Hospital.
The infection in these cases was traced as far as it was capable of being traced to the Town of Haslingden.
The disease spread in this locality and 26 patients were removed from their homes to the Hospital.
During the whole period from 1883 to the present time only 4 cases of Small Pox have occurred in the portion of the Borough situate to the East of the Hospital (Travelling over East of the Hospital via Bennington and Pringle Streets)
In all the cases of Small Pox that have occurred in Blackburn previous to this year with few exceptions all the cases originated in other districts of the Borough and in 1886 particularly the seat of the epidemic was chiefly in St Paul's Ward which is situate on the other side of the Borough.
I am fully cognisant with the method adopted for removing the Small Pox patients to the Hospital and for the disinfection of convalescents and persons leaving the Hospital, and I say that removal and disinfection is carried out according to the best-known scientific means, and I have never been able to trace a case of Small Pox to any convalescent or other person leaving the Hospital.
Call William Henry Stephenson
Note on Dr Stephenson's Evidence
This witness's opinion is that the local epidemic of this year has arisen entirely from the Hospital. Counsel will observe from the plan which accompanies that very few houses exist within the ¼ mile radius measured from the Hospital and those that exist are principally situate in the South West of the building. During the prevalence of the epidemic in the beginning of this year the wind was principally in the North and North East consequently the wind blew straight from the Hospital over to the district in the South West and in the latter district the epidemic become most violent and as a matter of fact was there localized.
A special Sub-Committee was appointed by the Health Committee to deal with the epidemic.
In the month of March of this year Dr Stephenson called a special meeting of the Health Committee and he reported the increase of the epidemic and in his opinion it was caused through the prevalent winds driving the germs of the disease over the district. This statement was made by Dr Stephenson to the Committee when sitting and it is quite possible the Plaintiff's advisers may have obtained information of it from some of the Committee and if so it will no doubt be made use of on cross-examination -
This information is given to Counsel to enable him to deal with the matter if it arises -
If Dr Stephenson is cross-examined on the point he will have to admit the above fact.
Incomplete 'Title page' is missing for Thomas Higson
…past that the Destructor would be improved by the construction of a tall chimney.
I consider that the existing chimney is too low and has an inefficient draught.
I believe that by the addition of 4 more cells the construction of a new chimney already ordered by the Committee 100 yards high and the erection of a Fume Cremator the Destructor can be carried on without the creation of any nuisance whatever.
I am a large Cottage property owner in Blackburn and for myself and others have probably built as many cottages in Blackburn as any other individual builder – I have never received any complaints from any of the tenants.
I own myself 33 Cottages and shops in Audley the nearest of which are less than a ¼ of a mile from the Destructor and the farthest of which are less than ½ a mile from the Destructor.
These Cottages and shops always let well the worst of them to deal with are 15 which I own in Cumberland Street and which are the furthest from the Destructor.
The rents of the houses vary from 4s–5sper week.
The Houses I am referring to are situate in Maudsley Street, Audley Range, Riley Street and Cumberland Street. They were not built by me but were taken over by me prior to their completion and finished by me.
The houses in Maudsley Street, Audley Street and Riley Street are well built good cottage houses and I have no difficulty in obtaining tenants. Those in Cumberland Street the farthest away from the Destructor are not so well built and tenants are more difficult to obtain.
The rents of the houses vary from 4s–5s per week.
I have visited and inspected the houses built by the Plaintiff in Pringle Street. They are badly built out of repair and damp and I am surprised to find that they are so well let as they are.
There are 51 houses and 3 shops of this number when I last visited the houses namely on the 20th of July there were only one house and one shop empty.
The rents I find from enquiry amongst the tenants vary from 4s/–4s/9d per week for the houses—These rents I consider high rents for the class of property and the district and compare very favourably with the rents obtained for similar class property in other parts of the Town.
The vacant land in Pringle Street and Bennington Street is in my opinion very unsuitable for building—the ground slopes towards Pringle Street on its Southerly side and on the Northerly side of Pringle Street and Easterly side of Bennington Street. It will be very expensive to build upon owing to the enormous amount of filling up that will be required.
I find that in most parts the depth from the surface of the roadways is about 12 feet the cost of building Cottage Houses on this land therefore will be most materially increased
I consider that this land is undesirable as building land and has in my judgment very little building value.
I am of the opinion therefore that apart altogether from the Works of the Defendant Corporation in question which I do not consider at all affect the selling or letting value of the Plaintiff's property the Plaintiff would have great difficulty in letting or building on this land.
With regard to the land on the Southerly side of Pringle Street considerable cost will be incurred in excavations before it can be properly laid out for building.
All this vacant land in my opinion is eminently undesirable for building purposes.
Call Thomas Higson
|Wellington Street|| || || || || || || || || || || || |
|Deaths under 5||2||Nil||1||3||1||1||2||1||2||1||2||3|
|Deaths over 5||4||2||1||1||1||3||2||2||1||1||1||1|
| ||Mean age at death of persons above 5 years = 49 years||||||||||Mean age of death of persons above 5 years = 40 years|||||||||||||
|Milton Street|| || || || || || || || || || || || |
|Deaths under 5||Nil||Nil||1||2||Nil||Nil||1||1||Nil||1||2||nil|
|Deaths over 5||1||2||Nil||Nil||Nil||Nil||2||1||Nil||1||1||1|
| ||The mean age of death of persons above 5 years of age in Bolton is from 45 to 46 years|||||||||||||||||||||||
The mean age of death of persons above 5 years of age in Bolton is from 45 to 46 years
(This is the last page of Edward Sergeant's statement but I think these stats may be incomplete)
Zymotic disease and Mortality of Wellington Street and Milton Street, two streets adjoining the Bolton Scavenging Yard
| || Six years after erection of Fryer's Destructor|||||||||||| Six years before erection of Fryer's Destructor|||||||||||
|Wellington Street 53 houses|
Scarlet fever (death)
1 Scarlet Fever
1 Scarlet Fever
1 Scarlet fever
No informn as
1 Whoopy Cough
1 Scarlet fever
5 Scarlet fever
1 Scarlet fever
3 scarlet fever
as to disease
Edward Sergeant Licentiate of the Royal College of
Physicians London, Member of the Royal College of Surgeons, Medical Officer of
Health and Public Analyst to the Borough of Bolton and President of the North
Western Society of Medical Officers of Health says:
I have held my appointments for over 14 years and have had specially to
consider the subject of disposal of Towns’ Refuse and have a practical
knowledge of the working of Destructors.
I am informed that the scavenging of the Borough of Blackburn
is principally done under the pail and ashpit closet system and I am of the
opinion that the scavenging so carried out is performed in the best possible
manner and so as to create the least possible nuisance and I am unable to
suggest any improvement in the method in vogue in carrying out such system. The
water closet system is no doubt the most perfect and by the adoption no
possible nuisance can arise.
I have visited the Destructor working at Blackburn. It consists of 4 compartments or cells formed
of brick work lined with fire bricks and is provided with a chimney. It is arranged so that the top is a little
below the level of the road which the Refuse is carried upon to be treated. At the top of the Destructor are openings for
feeding the furnace with Refuse. Each
cell has an opening for the heat and flame to pass on its way to the main flue
after completely burning the waste Gases and odours given off from refuse which
may be in an imperfect state of combustion.
If the Destructor is in active operation night and day every 24 hours is
capable of consuming 30 tons of objectionable Refuse composed of day material
taken from the Ashpits, the contents of Ashbins and dry rubbish of all kinds -
If the furnaces are fired with regularity the intense heat
being thereby kept up complete combustion of refuse is thereby attained and no
gas of an offensive nature can escape.
On the occasions when I have visited the Destructor there has been a
remarkable freedom from smell and no odour from the chimney has been capable of
detection in the neighbourhood. From
observations taken frequently since the construction of the Destructor in
Bolton I am able to state that the smoke seen issuing from the chimney as a
rule resembles a little steamy vapour, occasionally brownish in colour but very
Any odour from this smoky vapour is dissipated before
reaching the ground - From examination of the gases from the chimney flue it
appears that carbonic acid and carbonic oxide are present from 4 to 25 per cent
of the former and from 1 to 8 or 9 per cent of the latter the proportions
varying according to the state of combustion the gases being found in greatest
quantity when the fire is burning most fiercely, on first lighting up the fires
steamy vapour is given off and most of the sulphuretted hydrogen the two
products are decomposed in passing through the highly heated fire the former in
part and the latter completely - A small quantity of sulphurous acid is formed
at times and little is found in the chimney flue. During the combustion of organic matter as
bones, old boots and substances of a vegetable origin a slight empyreumatic
odour may be noticed. If any smell or
odour is produced it is quite harmless and is no way prejudicial or dangerous
to public health.
From an intimate knowledge of the neighbourhood of the
Blackburn Destructor and the working of the Destructor I am of the opinion that
the system of burning is an excellent one for speedily disposing of Refuse and
preventing the same from causing a nuisance and I am satisfied that the yard is
convenient and well situated in a district sparsely populated.
I am informed that the defendant corporation propose to
erect a new chimney 100 yards high together with 4 new cells and a fume
cremator. When these improvements are carried out there cannot possibly arise
any odour whatever.
The Outcry against the Scavenging Yard in Bolton which arose
about the commencement of the erection of the Destructor has ceased and people
living near the Works have learned by experience that there is no reason to
complain. During the last 5 years, not a
single complaint has been heard.
The houses in the Vicinity of the Destructor at Bolton are
well tenanted by respectable Artizans and the health and cleanliness of the
District is quite equal to any part of the Town in which similar property is
The health of the immediate district is good and better than
many parts of the town provided with houses similar in character. The accompanying table will show that zymotic
or infantile mortality does not prevail above the average in the streets
adjoining the yard and during the last six years since the Destructor commenced
operations there has been an improvement as regards health. The average age at death is good and equal to
best parts of the Town. The people are
cleanly and the average tenancy of the houses is larger than is usual extending
over 6 years. I produce a plan shewing
the situation of the Bolton Yard and the houses adjoining some of which are
within 30 yards of the Destructor.
The Small Pox Hospital in the Vicinity of the Blackburn
destructor is placed in a convenient situation and is reasonably isolated. I have visited many fever hospitals in
various parts of the country and have superintended the erection of one in Bolton
and am of the opinion that the Blackburn Small Pox Hospital will compare
favourably with any of them in respect of isolation and it may be used without
danger to the inhabitants of the neighbourhood.
Call Edward Sergeant
James Kenyon of Preston
Road, Blackburn says:
I am a member of the Town Council of the Borough of Blackburn and Vice Chairman
of the Scavenging Committee of the Defendant Corporation.
I have been a Member of the Town Council for about 9 years
and have been a member of the Scavenging Committee since about the year 1882.
I know the Sanitary Depot and Destructor at Audley
complained of in this action and I have a full and accurate knowledge of the
method adopted by the Defendant Corporation for the collection and dealing with
the pails and the pail closets in the Town, with the emptying and dealing with
the contents of the ashpits and ashes tubs and generally with the work of the
Sanitary Depot of the Scavenging Department, and I say that the work of
scavenging and dealing with the Refuse of the Town on the above systems is
performed by the Corporation in the best possible manner and so as to create
the least possible nuisance.
On the 19th May 1887 a special sub Committee was appointed
by the Scavenging Committee to visit other Towns and to report upon the work of
the Scavenging Committee of the Defendant Corporation in comparison with
similar work in the Towns to be visited.
Of that special Sub Committee, I was a Member.
The special sub Committee accordingly visited a number of
Towns including the Towns of Bolton, Huddersfield, Burnley, Bradford and Leeds
and in October of last year they presented a report to the Scavenging Committee
in which they made the following recommendations:
(1) That a certain number of Houses now on the pail system
be yearly in the discretion of the Scavenging Committee changed from that
system to the water carried system at the expense of the Corporation; also,
that the dry ashes tubs should be done away with, and that larger receptacles
capable of holding one month’s ashes should be used instead.
(2) That for scavenging purposes the Town be divided into three districts.
(3) That three Inspectors be appointed under the Scavenging Superintendent one
to be in charge of each district their duties to be defined by the Scavenging
(4) That a full report as to the work done in each district, wages paid, cost
etc. be presented to the Scavenging Committee monthly by the Scavenging
(5) That two additional Destructors are erected
I produce a printed copy of the special sub Committee
The special sub Committee in their report express the
opinion that “more Destructor power is required and they think that the best
scheme will be to erect two Destructors in addition to the existing Destructor
one for each of the (3) Scavenging Districts into which your special Sub
Committee suggest the Town should be divided.”
In that opinion I as a member of the Special sub Committee entirely
The report of the special sub Committee was considered at a
meeting of the Scavenging Committee held on the 27th October 1887 and the
recommendations adopted but at the following meeting of the Town Council the
resolutions of the Scavenging Committee were referred back for further
On the 18th January 1888 the Scavenging Committee again
considered the report and passed resolutions adopting its recommendations with
the addition of a provision for the construction of a new chimney and mortar
mills at the Audley Destructor.
I produce the minute book of the Committee containing these
The resolutions of the Scavenging Committee of the 18th
January last were considered by the Town Council at their meeting on the 2nd
of February last and was duly confirmed.
I produce the minute book of the Town Council.
I have given careful study to the subject of the disposal of
Town refuse and in particular to the contents of ashpit closets.
There are in Blackburn about 11,000 houses on the ashpit
closet system. As a rule there are two houses to one ashpit closet which gives
5,500 ashpits to be emptied. My means of
knowledge are derived from the examination of the books and returns kept in the
department of the Scavenging Committee of which I am the Chairman.
The contents of ashpit closets consist in addition to
excreta of the ashes and general house refuse.
The more modern ashpit closets permit the excreta to fall to
the bottom of the pit and therefore when emptied it is more easy to divide the
dry refuse such as the ashes and house refuse from the excreta or closet
refuse. But the majority of the middens
in Blackburn are on the old system where the house refuse and closet refuse
flow in one ashpit.
The orders given by the Scavenging Committee to the
Superintendent of the Scavenging Department as to the mode of emptying and
dealing with the contents of the ashpits are as follows:
“The Scavenging Superintendent is required to cause the ashpits to be emptied
from time to time as required”
“The men employed are directed to divide as far as possible the refuse
containing excreta which has a manurial value from the house refuse which has
no manurial value. After the men employed in emptying the ashpits have done
their work the Scavenging Superintendent is required to send two carts one to
collect the refuse which has manurial value and the other to collect the refuse
which has not.”
The Scavenging Superintendent has orders from the Committee
to take the refuse having manurial value either to the Town Store Yard to be sent
away to purchasers by railway or to the Sanitary Depot at Audley to be sent
away to purchasers by Canal.
It is the duty of the Scavenging Superintendent to arrange
for the disposition of the refuse having manurial value in the best possible
manner so as to get rid of it by rail or canal as the case may be.
In the event of the quantity taken during any one night to
the Sanitary Depot at Audley being insufficient to fill a boat he is permitted
to keep the manure in a shed in the Depot until he has collected sufficient.
No nuisance does in fact, or as far as I can ascertain, can
possibly arise from keeping this manure for a few days, at any rate outside the
walls of the depot.
With regard to the refuse taken from the ashpits having no
manurial value, the orders of the Committee to the Superintendent are to
dispose of it in two ways, either on the tips or by the Destructor.
The Superintendent is required to keep the Destructor fully
at work, and the Destructor is capable of destroying from 27 to 30 tons per cell
per week. The balance of this class of refuse is disposed of on the tips.
There are 4 tips at present in use in the Town but I hold a
very strong opinion that this method of disposing of refuse is a great danger
to public health, and even if any annoyance by smell should be caused by the
Destructor, the inconvenience from the public health point of view is trifling
in comparison with the danger to health from the disposal of this class of
refuse about the Town on tips which ultimately come into building land - In addition to which the finding of suitable
tips in a thickly built upon Town is very difficult - The danger of putting
this refuse on tips arises from the fact that in separating the contents of the
ashpits it is impossible for the men to prevent some excrementitious or
putrescible matter being taken with the house and general refuse.
It has been the practice of the Corporation in lat…years to
require the conversion of the ashpit closets to water closets and this process
of conversion is rapidly being carried on, and the Town Council have now by the
resolution of the Scavenging Committee of the 18th January last determined to
gradually convert the pail closets to water closets—When this process of
conversion has been carried out the Corporation will be relieved of the most
offensive and most difficult part of the refuse with which they have to deal.
It will probably take however some few years before the
conversion can be completed.
With regard to the Destructor I have studied the subject of
Destructors with considerable care and I have visited the Destructors in work
in many other Towns.
The Destructor complained of is a 4 cell Fryer’s Destructor
and can, I think, be improved - In my opinion the existing chimney is too low
and the draught is insufficient. I have
advocated in the Scavenging Committee the construction of a new and larger
chimney and the decision of the Committee to construct a new chimney 100 yards
high and with a sufficient diameter to cause a good draught meets with my
During the early part of last year, the Scavenging Committee
on my suggestion caused a Fume Cremator to be added to the Destructor. The principle of a Fume Cremator is that the
gases passing from the Furnace in which the refuse is burnt are made to pass
over a second furnace fed with coke. The
heat of this furnace is expected to rise to about 1500 degrees and to be
sufficient to destroy any noxious fumes passing from the first furnace before
those fumes can pass up the chimney.
Whilst the Fume Cremator was working at the Audley
Destructor I carefully watched and studied it.
I formed the opinion that in consequence of the chimney
being too low and the draught insufficient the Fume Cremator was not
The heat of the second furnace could not be got up to the
full temperature required, and in addition to that the destroying power of the
Destructor was lessened by about one third and the draught by about one fifth.
The Fume Cremator was on my suggestion in consequence
dispensed with until the Destructor works could be rearranged and a new chimney
The Committee have frequently since the Cremator was taken
out considered the question of improving the works and the special Sub
Committee already referred to in their visits to other Towns were requested to
carefully study the Destructors in those Towns which they accordingly did.
I think that a Fume Cremator under proper conditions is
capable of preventing any smell arising from noxious gases. It is true that the action of the Fume
Cremator will always be, I think, to somewhat decrease the destroying power of
the Destructor, but this can be met by the construction of additional cells.
In my opinion the Destructor at Audley can be rendered
entirely innocuous by the addition of 4 more cells, by the construction of the
new chimney already ordered by the Committee and by the addition of a Fume
I have constantly visited the Destructor and although I have
occasionally smelt a slight sulphurous or oily odour I have never found
anything from it which could be termed a nuisance of a special or serious
The Scavenging Committee have always been animated by the
strongest desire to carry on the works so as to create the least possible
nuisance and apart from this action altogether they are now and have for a
long-time past been considering improvements. The contract for the construction
of the new chimney has already been let.
I have a good knowledge of the value of property in
Blackburn, and I know the Town of Blackburn thoroughly—I have inspected the
houses erected in Pringle Street by the Plaintiff, they are mostly out of
repair, badly built, and apparently damp, but I find that they are all let except
one house and one shop.
From enquiries I have made from the tenants I find the rents
vary from 4s/= to 4s/9d per week for the Houses—The house nearest the
Destructor being 4s 9d per week.
One house only of those erected by the Plaintiff is
unoccupied as a dwelling, but this house is in very bad repair and is used as a
Call James Kenyon
of Shadsworth Villa, Blackburn says:
I am a member of the Town Council of the Borough of Blackburn and Chairman of
the Scavenging Committee of the Defendant Corporation.
I have been a member of the Town Council since 1874 and have
been Chairman of the Scavenging Committee for about 4 years.
I know the Sanitary Depot and Destructor at Audley
complained of in this action and I have a full and accurate knowledge of the
method adopted by the Defendant Corporation for the collection and dealing with
the pails and pail closets in the town with the emptying and dealing with the
contents of the ashpits and ashes tubs and generally with the work of the Sanitary
Depot and Scavenging Department and I say that the work of Scavenging and
dealing with the refuse of the Town on the above system is performed by the
Corporation in the best possible manner
and so as to create the least possible nuisance.
ON the 19th of May 1887 a special Sub Committee was
appointed by the Scavenging Committee to visit other towns and to report upon
the work generally of the Scavenging Committee of the Defendant Corporation in
comparison with similar work in the towns to be visited.
That Special Committee (accordingly) visited a number of
towns and in October of last year presented a Report to the Scavenging
Committee in which they made the following recommendations
(1) That a certain number of houses (now) on the Pail System
be yearly in the discretion of the Scavenging Committee changed from that
system to the water carried system at the expense of the Corporation also that
the dry ashes tubs should be done away with and that larger receptacles capable
of holding one month’s ashes should be used instead
(2) That for scavenging purposes the town be divided into three districts
(3) That three Inspectors be appointed under the Scavenging Superintendent one
to be in charge of each district their duties to be defined by the Scavenging
(4) That a full report as to the work done in each district, wages paid, cost
etc. be presented to the Scavenging Committee monthly by the Scavenging
(5) That two additional destructors be erected
I produce the minute book of the committee containing this
The Report of the Special Sub Committee was considered at a
meeting of the Scavenging Committee held on the 27th October 1887 and the
recommendations adopted but at the following meeting of the Town Council the
resolution s of the Scavenging Committee were referred back for further
consideration on the 18th January 1888.
The Scavenging Committee again considered the report and passed
resolutions adopting its recommendations with the addition of a provision for
the construction of a new chimney and Mortar Mills at the Audley Destructor. I
produce the minute book of the Committee containing these resolutions.
The resolutions of the Scavenging Committee of the 18th
January were considered by the Town Council at their meeting on the 2nd
February and was duly confirmed. I produce the minute book of the Town Council.
There are at present 11,000 Houses in Blackburn on the Pail
System, 11,000 Houses on the ashpit closet system and 2,850 Houses on the Water
It has been the practices of the Corporation in later years
to require the conversion of the ashpit closets to Water closets and this
process of conversion is rapidly being carried on and the Town Council have now
by the resolution of the Scavenging Committee of the 18th January determined to
gradually convert the pail closets to water closets. When this process of conversion has been
carried out the Corporation will be relieved of the most offensive and most
difficult part of the refuse with which they have to deal.
With regard to the Destructor I live myself less than ½ a
mile away from it at a considerable height above it on the hill side.
I have never at my own house experienced the slightest
nuisance or inconvenience from the Destructor.
The Destructor is a 4 cell Fryer’s Destructor and is burning
an average of about 27 tons per cell per week.
It is possible in certain conditions of the atmosphere that
some slight smell may be perceptible from the fumes given off from the Chimney
but I do not think with careful firing that any nuisance of a really
objectionable character need be created.
I have for a long time past considered carefully as to the
possibility of improving the Destructor. The Committee have already determined
to construct a large chimney and a tender for the construction was accepted on
the 4th of April last. The addition of this chimney will materially improve the
draught and consequently there will be more complete combustion and in addition
the fumes will be carried to a greater height and spread over a larger area.
In the year 1886 the Corporation added to the Destructor a
fume cremator - It was worked from December 1886 to about March 1887. I watched the working of this fume cremator
very carefully and I came to the conclusion that with the existing chimney it
was very inefficient. It lessened the
destructive capacity of the Destructor by 1/3rd and the draught by 1/5th. I therefore concurred with the Committee in
having it removed at any rate until a new and better chimney could be
In my opinion the Destructor is capable of improvement by
the construction of 4 more cells of the large chimney already ordered and by
the addition of a fume cremator. Given those things I do not think any cause
for complaint would be possible.
I am satisfied from a long observation that the destruction
of Towns Refuse by heat is from the public health point of view a far more
satisfactory method of disposing of it than by putting it upon tips the only
other known method.
All the Refuse which has any manurial value is sold to
Farmers and so disposed of and the only Refuse which is tipped or destroyed in
the Destructor is Refuse which has no manurial value at all.
There are now 4 tips in use in Blackburn and these are
rapidly getting filled and other tips cannot be found.
It is impossible to so divide the Refuse taken from the
middens as that no excrementitious matter shall exist in the refuse to be burnt
The portion which is placed on tips does in fact and must at
any rate occasionally contain some proportion of excrementitious matter and as
the land tipped upon it afterwards used for building an element of danger to
the public health always must exist from the use of tips.
I have known the Plaintiff for some years. He is a speculative Builder. I also know well the houses he has erected in
Pringle Street they are cheaply and badly constructed—At one time a number of
houses remained for a long period half built.
The Plaintiff’s land on the southerly side of Pringle Street
is higher than Pringle Street and the land on the northerly side of Pringle
Street and abutting on Bennington Street is a great deal lower than the road
and particularly is this so as regards the land abutting upon Bennington Street
and the Destructor end at Pringle Street as a consequence it will be very much
more costly to build on this land than it would be if the land on each side
I think that this fact has had a good deal to do with the
non-development of the Plaintiff’s land.
Call John Dixon
Cox of …. Bradford Associate Member Inst. Civil Engineers says,
I am Borough Surveyor of Bradford and have been for upwards
of 9 years.
In the year 1880 I superintended the erection of one of
Fryer’s Refuse Destructors containing 6 cells at the Hammerton Street Yard,
Bradford for the Bradford Corporation, and in 1882 an additional Destructor of
6 cells was constructed under my charge at the same place.
These have been kept in full operation since their erection,
and have worked satisfactorily.
I am not aware that any Complaints have been made respecting
their working for the last two or three years, but previously slight complaints
were made, on rare Occasions, by people resident in the District.
The difficulty in obtaining suitable tips for Ashpit refuse
has compelled the Bradford Sanitary Authority, like many others, to adopt the
above means of disposing of it.
Previously the refuse was tipped in disused quarries, and other places
which were afterwards used as building sites, thus seriously endangering Public
Frequently poor people would search for hours together,
amongst these refuse tips, gathering rags and other materials at great risk to
themselves and others -
The refuse is reduced to one fourth in bulk in passing
through the Destructor, and is drawn out in the form of Clinkers. The Clinkers
may be taken to any tip without the slightest risk or nuisance or they may be
utilized in various ways.
At Bradford the heat from the Destructor is utilized by
being passed through a multi-tubular boiler on its way to the chimney shaft,
thus providing the steam for a 16 horse-power Engine which drives three Mortar
The Clinker is ground up in these Mortar pans together with
due proportions of lime and water, and makes exceeding good mortar.
The Furnace also provides a ready means of disposing of
infected bedding and diseased meat.
A Destructor properly constructed and carefully worked need
not be a nuisance.
I visited the Blackburn Refuse Destructor on Tuesday the
10th July, when the weather was very dull & showery, and found no nuisance
existing although the works were in full operation—The Blackburn Destructor is
practically of the same construction as the one at Bradford, but comprises only
The Stoker in charge was evidently a steady and experienced
man, and took every care in the management of the fires, and with the exception
of attending more frequently to the removal of flue dust from the main flue
leading from the kiln to the Chimney shaft. I saw no reason to Complain of his
The character of the Refuse dealt with is the same as that
at Bradford, but as the Water Closet System becomes extended in Blackburn as it
appears to be doing the Ashpit refuse will be become less and less
objectionable by reason of the gradual displacement of privies.
I consider the site of the Blackburn Destructor to be a
suitable one for the purpose and its proximity to the Canal is very convenient.
I understand that the Blackburn Corporation are about to
erect a tall chimney shaft. This will certainly lend to improve matters by
creating a better draught and thereby securing more perfect combustion and in
my opinion, this would effectually prevent any bad odour that may possibly now
The substitution of rocking bars for the present five-bars
as they become worn out would also prove advantageous by preventing the Clinker
adhering to the bars and also by admitting more Air and causing more complex
The removal of flue dust from the Main flue and the bottom
of the Chimney Shaft once a week, say every Saturday night or Sunday when the
fires are banked up and the damper is down would prevent to a considerable
extent any escape of dust from the top of the Chimney.
I am also of opinion that Jones’s Fume Cremator properly
constructed is a valuable adjunct to any Refuse Destructor.
Call John Henry Cox
Ashworth of 90 Chester Street, Blackburn, Coal Merchant says:
I live within a quarter of a mile from the destructor and in a Northeast
direction and have resided in my present house about 20 years.
I remember when the destructor was erected in 1878 or 1879
the plaintiff could only smell any offensive odours when the wind is in the
west or Southwest and if any nuisance exists I ought to smell it likewise but
during the whole time that the destructor has been in use I have never detected
the slightest smell nuisance or annoyance from either the destructor or the
other works on the defendant’s wharf.
I am well acquainted with property in Blackburn especially
of the class of house in Pringle Street which the Plaintiff alleges belongs to
The Plaintiff has erected 54 houses in Pringle Street of
these 52 are now let at the following rents
The table here is identical with
the one in Joseph Pollard statement earlier
I have compared the rents of these houses with the rents
obtained from a similar class of houses in similar parts of the town and I say
that the rents obtained for the Plaintiff’s houses are fully equal to rents
obtained from similar houses elsewhere.
During the last 3 or 4 years there has been an
overproduction of houses in Blackburn and as a consequence there has been a
considerable amount of empty property and property has depreciated in
consequence in value and there has been a difficulty in disposing of it. The houses in Pringle Street are very badly
built and in fact have never been completely finished and this cause would
possibly prevent a similar price being realized for those houses as other
houses in other parts of the
Call John Ashworth
John Tatham of
I am a Bachelor in Arts and Doctor in Medicine of Trinity College Dublin
and a Diplomate in Public Health of the University of Cambridge. I am at
present, and have been for 13 years Medical Officer of Health and Fever
Hospital Superintendent to the Borough of Salford, which contains more than
200,000 inhabitants. I have recently visited the Sanitary Depot on the west
side of Bennington Street, belonging to the Corporation of Blackburn.
The Sanitary Depot is situated on the outskirts of the Town,
in a thinly populated district.
To this Depot the Corporation as the Urban Sanitary
Authority are in the habit of carting large quantities of ashpit and other
household refuse from the town of Blackburn and of so dealing with it, as to
prevent its becoming a nuisance injurious to the health of the inhabitants. At
this Depot the Corporation have erected a destructor for the purpose of
calcining by heat a portion of the refuse thus removed from about the houses of
experience of a similar establishment in Salford. I am of opinion
(a) That the site of the Blackburn Sanitary Depot is in all
respects a suitable one for the purpose to which it is at present applied by
the Sanitary Authority.
(b) That its position on the banks of a Canal will
facilitate the prompt and economical conveyance into the Country of such
excremental refuse as may possess a manurial value.
(c) That the destruction of midden refuse by heat is the
proper and least objectionable method of ridding a town refuse and that refuse
of this kind if allowed to remain in the vicinity of dwelling houses, will
inevitably become detrimental to health.
(d) That the operation of refuse disposal, can readily be,
and ought to be carried on at the existing Sanitary depot in such a way as not
to give rise to nuisance of a character which may reasonably be objected to,
having regard (1) to the nature of the work and (2) to the Statutory
obligations imposed upon the Corporation to carry it on and
(e) That the erection of a chimney 100 yards in height—far
from increasing nuisance as has been alleged—will on the contrary greatly
promote the effectual and inoffensive working of the Fryer’s Destructor and I
am of opinion when the chimney, the fume cremator and the 4 extra cells are
constructed it will be impossible for any offensive odour to arise. If any odour arises from the destructor as it
stands now I am of opinion that such odour is not in any way injurious to
I have also visited the Small-Pox Hospital which stands near the Sanitary
Although in recent years Small Pox seems to have shown a
tendency, under certain conditions to spread from Small-Pox Hospitals to
persons in their immediate neighbourhood. Nevertheless, it is worthy of remark:
(a) That although the disease has unquestionably been known
to spread in the way indicated, still the danger of its spreading from a
hospital is much less than that which would accrue from nursing small-pox
patients at home amongst their friends, where isolation is impossible.
(b) That the capability of a hospital to spread small-pox is
known to be proportional to the degree of aggregation of patients in hospital
at one and the same time. Now the prime
use of such a Small-Pox Hospital as that at Blackburn is the isolation, away
from home, of first cases, and thus, the nipping of threatened epidemic in the
bud, and it is certain, that a single patient, or a few patients may safely be
treated in a hospital, which would probably become a source of danger in the
event of its becoming full of small-pox patients.
(c) That the Blackburn Small-Pox Hospital is much more
perfectly isolated from the neighbouring dwelling houses than was either our
own Infectious Hospital in Cross Lane, or the Small-Pox Hospital belonging to
the Salford Guardians in both of which institutions I have had medical charge
of large numbers of small-pox patients for long periods together; and yet in no
single instance have I known of the transference of infection from within the
wards to persons outside those buildings.
(d) And lastly. That Small-Pox Hospitals somewhere in the
vicinity of large towns are an absolute necessity for the protection of the
poorer class of our urban populations.
Call John Tatham
Meymott Tidy says:
I am a Bachelor of Medicine and Master of Surgery -I am a Vice President
of the Institute of Chemistry. I am a Professor of Chemistry and of Segue
Medicine of the London Hospital.
I am Medical Officer of Health for Islington and one of the
Official Analysts to the Home Office.
I have had large experience in Sanitary works generally.
I am perfectly familiar with most of the Destructors that
have been erected by Local Authorities.
The difficulty of providing shoots and of otherwise dealing
with refuse is at the present time so great that destructors have become an
essential part of Sanitary machinery.
The quantity of refuse is now so enormously in excess of
what can be utilized that Sanitary Authorities have been compelled to adopt
burning as the only certain method whereby the refuse of a community can be
speedily and with regularity got rid of without danger to the health of the
community. The system of tipping the refuse in shoots I consider very dangerous
and prejudicial to public health.
The principle of a destructor is this.
The refuse consists of two parts
(a) the burnable and
the un-burnable material
a) The burnable material (that is the organic matter)
consists of substances containing Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen and Oxygen. When
this is burnt with air the carbon becomes the inoffensive Carbonic acid (CO2).
The hydrogen becomes water (H2O) and the nitrogen escapes. The oxygen present
is used to help to burn up the carbon and the hydrogen. The burnable material is the true noxious
material - that is the part of the refuse liable to decompose and become
Thus, the destructor converts noxious materials into
perfectly innocuous compounds.
The only things produced being water, carbonic acid,
nitrogen, with same per oxygen
To effect this there must be;
(a) A good fire to burn
(b) A free current of air to supply oxygen
The destructor in use by the Defendant Corporation is made
by Fryer according to his patented process.
I have had occasion to examine on many occasions the working
of Destructors similar to that in use in Blackburn. I consider it the best at
b) The un-burnable material constitutes the Clinker. It consists of sand and various earthy and
siliceous matters. It is perfectly inoffensive seeing that it contains no
materials liable to decompose and may be utilized for road making, cements,
On June 28th in company with the Borough Surveyor, the
Medical Officer and the Scavenging Superintendent I inspected the Destructor
erected on a site a mile from the town by the Corporation of Blackburn.
The Destructor is one of Fryer’s four cells destructors. It
was in full operation at the time of my visit. (8.30 AM)
Having regard to its situation selected I consider that in
all respects the Corporation have been well advised.
Having regard to the works themselves I found them at the
time of my inspection cleanly and in working order.
I could detect no smell outside the works, and as a fact but
little much even when on the premises. Without saying that the works of a
Sanitary Authority are the kind of neighbours one would select, I am certainly
of opinion that the plant and works carried out by the Defendant Corporation
can scarcely be regarded as the source of nuisance described by the Plaintiff
in the 3rd and 4th
paragraphs of his statement of Claim.
There may be times when extra work is demanded of the
destructor, and when an occasional smell may result from the fires burning less
perfectly than they should, but I am quite certain that the continuous evil
complained of in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the statement of Claim was not likely to
The results of my inspection convince me that the uniform
want of care described in various paragraphs must be very much exaggerated.
As regards the allegation in paragraph 8 that the erection
of a larger chimney will increase the said nuisance, I say the proposal is for
the purpose of ensuring a more perfect supply of air and thereby preventing any
accidental escape of unburnt vapours
Without for a moment saying that no smell could result or
has resulted I am convinced that the principal of the destructor is a right
one, and that possible mishaps may be by some few additions reduced to a
Assuming that there was occasionally a bad odour arising
from the destructor I say that such would not be in any way prejudicial to the
Allowing however the worst I can imagine to have occurred.
The statements as to the creation and diffusion (Paragraph 7) of pestilential
and poisonous stenches and effluvia are (in my judgment) without foundation.
On the occasion of my inspection I saw the position of
Small-Pox Hospital complained of in paragraphs 9 to 17 of his statement.
A hospital for infectious cases is an important part of
In my opinion the hospital is well placed.
I fail to understand whatever may be said as to increased
liability to disease among the residents around how an intolerable nuisance by
reason of “noxious, disagreeable and pestilential vapours” and “unwholesome
smells” could arise from the building in question.
On this part paragraph 11 is to be me unintelligible even so
far as increased liability to disease is concerned, the Court declined to admit
this to be an accepted fact in Fleet v Metropolitan Asylums Board.
When proper precautions are taken as to visitors to the
hospital, ambulance etc. the facts that have come to my knowledge prove that
the liability to spread disease by visitors and by the vehicles conveying the
cases is comparatively small.
I notice that the Plaintiff speaks constantly of “germs of
The phrase conveys no accurate idea of what is known at
present, no such germs having been isolated or their existence definitely
I consider that the hospital in question may be conducted
without causing a nuisance and with due precautions without any alarming
effects for which an injunction is claimed.
Call Charles Meymott Tidy
of 4 St Andrews Place Blackburn Builder and Contractor says:
I have been 8 years a member of the Town Council and am a considerable owner of
Cottage property in Blackburn and have a good knowledge of the value of
property in that town.
I own 21 houses in Helm Street and they are all let at 4/6
per week. I have never detected any smell only one tenant has ever complained
to me and he still there.
The works and Destructor have not in any way injured my
property and no cases of Small Pox has ever occurred in any of my houses.
I know I am acquainted with the houses built by the
Plaintiff in Pringle Street they are very badly built out of repair and
damp there are 54 houses and of those 52
are let at rents from 4s–5s/6d per week and considering the condition of the
houses I am of opinion they are very well let – Those rents compare very
favourably with the rents obtained for a similar class of houses in similar
parts of the town but in consequence of the houses being so badly built and out
of repair this fact would possibly prevent the same price being obtained on
sale supposing they were reasonably well built.
In my judgment and belief, I say the Destructor or the works
of the Corporation or the Small-Pox Hospital do not in any way prejudicially
affect the letting or selling value of the Plaintiff’s property.
I know the vacant land belonging to the defendant
Corporation in Bennington Street this land is considerably lower than the
surface of the adjoining Street in some places 8 or 9 feet lower.
Before this land could be built on, the foundations would
have to be raised to the level of the adjoining Street which would entail a
very large expenditure which could not be recovered from the class of house
that would be built and I consider that this fact renders the land practically
value-less for building purposes.
Call John Calvert
Whalley of No 25 York Street Blackburn Grocer says:
I have lived in my present house where I carry on the business of a grocer for
20 years. I have never detected any smell or unpleasant odour arising from the
Defendants’ Works. My house is between 200 and 300 yards off the Destructor. No
complaints have been made to me either by my neighbours or Customers as to the
defendants’ Works. I own 7 houses and a shop in Haslingden Road which is within
300 yards of the Corporation Works. I have never received any complaints from
any of my tenants by reason of the alleged nuisance. All the houses are let at
4s 3d a week and they are very rarely empty. I have never had any trouble with
them and I do not consider that the works in any way prejudicially affect
property in the locality.
Call Henry Whalley
Alliott of Nottingham says:
I am a member of the Firm of Manlove, Alliott Fryer and Company, the Patentees
and Manufacturers of “Destructors”. “The
Destructor” Furnaces at Blackburn were built from designs made by my firm, and
the ironwork connected with them was supplied by my firm in the latter half of
the year 1879. These Furnaces are
exactly similar to the “The Destructor” Furnaces erected by my firm at …. and
are substantially similar to the Furnaces erected by my firm at …. I have no
reason to believe that “Destructors” have created a nuisance at any of these
places – Some complaint was made at Bolton many years ago but “the Destructors”
were not stopped and have been working constantly since.
At all the places mentioned “the Destructors” have continued
in use and are still being employed.
“The Destructors” at Blackburn were erected under the
superintendence of my Firm and have been visited many times by the Agents of my
Firm—I have myself twice visited these Furnaces during the present year and on
neither occasion did I find any nuisance existed—I was told and believe that on
neither occasion was there any notice of our expected visit given to the man in
The first occasion was on the afternoon of the 18th April in
the Company of Mr McCallum and some of the Members of the Town Council. The day
was damp and rainy, and the material which I found on the top of “The Destructors”
ready to pass into the Furnaces was of a kind particularly difficult to burn
without causing smell – Most of the material was very small and decidedly wet,
and there was a considerable quantity of fish and cockles, also upon the top of
the Furnaces. I carefully tried when outside the yard if I could detect any
smell coming from it but was unable to do so. Within the yard nearer to the
Furnaces there was a slight smell of burning but this smell was not so
unpleasant even as the smell arising from the slaking of Clinker from any
ordinary Boiler Furnace.
On the occasion of my second visit on the 27th June the
refuse was not of so bad a character. This visit was made in the company of Mr
Jacob and Dr Tatham of Salford, Dr Sergeant of Bolton, Mr McCallum and others.
Some portions of the refuse were damp and very small but other parts were
comparatively dry and good.
On that occasion no smell from “The Destructor” could be
detected outside the yard, and even less than before within it—There is nothing
in the construction of “The Destructors” at Blackburn which should cause them
to prove a nuisance when worked under ordinary conditions—It is possible to
produce an unpleasant with “The Destructor” if it is worked with great
carelessness, or if material of a very bad character indeed is sent to it a
smell may be more easily occasioned. It is more easy to avoid unpleasant smell
even with refuse of a character very difficult to burn if the chimney draught
be strong—The chimney at present existing at Blackburn is lower than those in
use in most other Towns in which there are Destructors, and consequently, the
draught is not so powerful as is most of these other Towns—I understand that in
the past the worst portions only of the refuse collected by the Authorities at
Blackburn have been sent to ”the Destructor” which is not large enough to burn
all the refuse of the Town. In consequence of this some refuse has been sent to
tips and it has been necessary to choose for the tips the best portions of the
refuse as the worst portions would be such a very great nuisance if sent to
them. If it should appear from the evidence that a nuisance has occasionally
existed I should say that it could be entirely
removed by the addition of further Destructor Cells which would remit the burning of a portion of the best
refuse collected along with the worst. The heat generated by the best refuse
would be much greater than that produced by the worst and it would cause any
objectionable gases given off to be decomposed and destroyed. This result would be further assisted by the
use of a Jones’ “Cremator.” This is a Furnace introduced between “The
Destructor” and the chimney and so arranged that “the Destructor” gases pass
through it and are greatly heated in doing so, being raised to a temperature
sufficiently high to destroy unpleasant odours and for this assistance would be
obtained by the construction of a higher chimney which would give a better
draught than is obtained with the present one—This better draught would also
tend to raise the temperature in the Destructor Furnaces and that of the
products of combustion and would therefore tend to destroy unpleasant odours—If
a nuisance has at any time existed at the Blackburn “Destructor” it must have
arisen from special conditions either of the working of these “Destructors” or
of the material sent to them. This is proved not only by the fact that similar
“Destructor” Furnaces work elsewhere without nuisance but also by the fact that
the Furnaces at Blackburn are only complained of on particular occasions.
Call James B. Alliott
Dyson of 5 Infirmary Road, Blackburn Flagger and Slater says:
I am a Flagger and Slater carrying on business in Canterbury Street Blackburn.
I own 11 houses and 1 Shop in Pringle Street which were partly erected by the
When the Plaintiff was building the houses, I was asked to
contract for the Flagging and Slating but I declined to do so unless the
Plaintiff gave me Security for payment of my bill.
At that time Messrs. L. & W. Wilkinson, Solicitors had
advanced money to the Plaintiff on Mortgage of the premises during the progress
of the building and they accordingly agreed with me by the request of the
Plaintiff to secure the amount of my account and I agreed not to send my
account in until the buildings were complete. The Plaintiff however from want
of funds was unable to complete the houses and by arrangement with Messrs L.
& W. Wilkinson the Mortgages I agreed to complete the Houses myself and
they undertook that if the Plaintiff did not pay the amount expended by me on
the completion of the building that they would transfer the property to me.
The Plaintiff failed to pay the amount due to me and the
property was accordingly conveyed to me, this was about the year 1884
All the houses and the Shop are let
The houses let well and I have no difficulty in obtaining tenants
None of my tenants have ever complained to me of the
Destructor or Hospital. The only complaint they have made to me at any time
have been with regard to an open drain from the Workhouse which in summer-time
smells very badly.
The Works of the Defendant Corporation complained of, have
not depreciated the value of my premises or interfered with them in anyway.
Call William Dyson
Pickup of No 114 Grimshaw Park Blackburn Grocer says:
I have resided in my present house 16 years and my house is within 200 yards of
the defendant’s works—I have never detected any offensive odours or smells from
the destructor—but there is a tip close to my house where the Corporation are
accustomed to shoot their refuse—this latter causes a considerable nuisance and
a very offensive smell arises therefrom—I own 5 houses in Haslingden Road –
they are now all let at rents ranging from 3s 6d–4s a week they are never empty
and I have no trouble with them – my tenants occasionally complain of the smell
arising from the tip but I have never received any complaints relating to the
Destructor or the Hospital. I do not consider the property in the neighbourhood
is in any way prejudicially affected by the defendants works.
In addition to the above houses I also own 2 houses and
Stables in Brandy House Road close to the defendants’ works and also 11 houses
in Saint Ann Street and Cumpstey Street a little far off. I have never received
any complaints from the tenants on either the latter properties they are always
let and I do not find they are in anyway affected by the works.
Call Dennis Pickup
Harrison of 14 Ainsworth Street Blackburn says:
I am the Foreman of the defts works at the Audley Depot and have been so
engaged 6 years and upwards. I am in charge of the Destructor and it is my duty
to feed it and thus destroy the refuse which is intended to burn I have two
firemen under me one for day work and the other for night work.
During the time the Destructor has been in use I have never
noticed any smell or odour from the Destructor
There are printed instructions hung up in the destructor
showing how the firing and feeding of the Destructor is to be carried out - a
copy of those instructions is now produced to Mr…I am on duty alternately one
week all day and the other week all night—During the time I am on duty I swear
that the rules have been adhered to most rigidly—when I am not on duty Mr
Whalley the Superintendent of the Scavenging Department is in charge and it is
his duty to see to the charging and feeding of the Destructor until my return.
Call John Harrison
I am a member of the Institute of Civil Engineers and one of the Engineering
Inspectors of the Local Government Board.
In the year 1887 I received the instructions of the Local
Government Board through Sir Robert Rawlinson to report on the different
methods in use for destroying Town Refuse and during the year 1887 I
accordingly visited all the Towns in Great Britain where Works for this purpose
have been established.
Town Refuse consisting of the Contents of Ashpits and Dust
Bins, Market and Trade Refuse and the Sweepings of Paved Streets includes
Materials which when sorted out and separated may yield a small return or can
be utilized in some way but this part of the Refuse has from various causes
lost much of whatever value it formerly had and sanitary objections to the
handling of an offensive material for the sake of a small gain are now more
It is also becoming more and more difficult to get rid of
that part of the Refuse which is absolutely worthless.
The practice of filling up pits, quarries and hollows with
materials containing offensive and putrescible matters sometimes afterwards to
be built on is now properly condemned on Sanitary Grounds and Town Authorities
when places for deposit within their own boundaries are no longer available,
find neighbouring authorities more and more averse to allow refuse to be
accumulated within their District. The disposal of Town refuse has thus become
almost everywhere a troublesome question.
In Towns in which Water closets ar(e) general the house
refuse consists of Cinders and Ashes mixed with vegetable and Animal Waste,
broken glass and Crockery and the rubbish of all sorts that finds its way into
the Dust bin or Ash pit including often trade refuse and garden refuse in
greater or less proportions.
Where the privy and Ashpit System or Pail System is in use
as in Blackburn the finer ashes are mixed with the excreta, either in the
Closet or subsequently, to make a portable manure and the contents of the
ashpits are generally more or less fouled with excrementitious matter.
I have visited the Destructor in Blackburn. It is one of
Messrs Manlove, Alliott and Fryer’s 4 Cell Destructors and forms part of the
night soil and Scavenging Depot belonging to the Corporation at Audley.
The Chimney is 105 feet high and the amount of Refuse
destroyed averages about 27 per cell per week—the material being ordinary
The Destructor consists of a group of 4 furnaces or cells
each internally about 9 feet long and 5 feet wide covered by a brick Arch 3
feet 6 ins high—The furnace has an inclination of 1 in 3 from back to front and
the bottom consists of a Fire brick hearth for the upper 4 feet and a fire
grate for the lower 5 feet—On one side of the furnace the upper end of the
hearth is prolonged with a steeper slope under an opening for the admission of
the refuse from above, and on the other side is a passage whereby the products
of combustion pass downwards to the main flue, a wall in the Middle line of the
furnace dividing the feedhole from the flue opening.
The Main flue is under the hearth and in the later
Destructors is made of large size to form a dust chamber. The Cells are
preferably placed back to back with the feed holes adjoining there being only
one opening above for the two cells. A somewhat larger opening fitted with a
cover is provided over the middle of one or more of the furnaces through which
infected bedding, condemned meat as can be consigned to the hottest part of the
The furnaces and flues are lined throughout with firebrick
and corner pieces stays and the rods hold the brick work together—A furnace or
cell with the enclosing brickwork forms a rectangular mass about 12 feet long,
7 feet wide and 12 feet high a group of 4 cells back to back measuring 14 feet
by 24 feet and a group of 6 cells about 21 feet by 24 feet—A road is made by
which the Refuse is carted to a Platform 2 feet 6 inches or 3 feet above the
Destructor and another leading to the Ashpit floor for the removal of the
unburned portion of the refuse.
The feed openings at the top of the Destructor are kept
filled with refuse which slides forward on the sloping hearth and is partially
dried by the heat given out by the burning material and reflected from the
It is helped forward by raking till it reaches the fire
grate when every-thing combustible is burned to a hard clinker which is
withdrawn from time to time through the furnace doors.
The Clinker is removed about every 2 hours. It is lifted
from the fire bars and raised above the burning cinders with suitable tools,
and raked out of the furnace with any other thoroughly burned refuse.
The fire is then spread evenly over the grate, and dry
refuse is raked forward from the back sufficient to cover the fire evenly with
a thickness of about 4 inches – When the refuse is wet a less thickness is
enough—If too much refuse be drawn down at one time the fire will become dead
and black—At intervals of about 20 Minutes, another thin layer of refuse may be
raked forward and spread over the fire but it is best to leave the fire
undisturbed for half an hour before clinkering.
The fire bars must always be kept covered but the fire
should not be too thick 7 to 9 inches is quite enough to insure a clean bright
There should be enough refuse over the feed hopper to prevent
Air entering, but not so much as to prevent the proper charging of the Cell,
and there should be always sufficient refuse on the drying hearth ready to be
raked forward for burning.
Although experience has shown that Town refuse can be
effectually burned in Destructors and other furnaces without causing nuisance
or offence at or about the works themselves, there are two points about which
complaints have arisen—One is of a fine dust, and sometimes of charred paper
proceeding from the Chimney and falling at some little distance off.
The quality of dust produced from the burning refuse appears
to vary a good deal in different places and the amount of it which is carried
into the flue and up the chimney depends to a considerable extent upon the care
with which the excessive draught in the High Chimney is regulated by draught.
At one Destructor about 2 cubic yards per cell per week was
said to be removed from the dust chamber but a more usual quantity is ¼ to ½
cubic yard—A sample of flue dust from the Armley Road (Leeds) Destructor was
found on incineration by Mr F.U. Sutton to consist of 93.6 per cent of mineral
matter and 6.2 of organic matter, the rest being moisture imbibed in
transit. The Mineral matter under the Microscope
appeared to be Ash and Glassy Slag with many fragments of what seem to be
filaments of glass, probably melted in the furnaces and drawn out by the
draught—It is not likely that in all fine dust the organic matter is so
completely burned as in this sample.
In the Destructor more recently erected the Main flue has
been enlarged beneath the cells to form a chamber in which the velocity being
checked, the dust may fall—Instead of a flue 4 feet wide as in the earlier
Destructors there is now a Chamber 10 feet wide and 8 feet high and with good
effect—Sunk channels have been formed on each side of the bottom of the chamber
to collect the dust, and low cross walls for the same purpose have been tried.
The latter must be built of dry bricks in the middle to be
pulled down when the flue requires cleaning or preferably, there may be, as at
Salford, a removable Iron Plate to close an opening wide enough for a
Frequent Removal of the dust is very necessary to prevent
its being carried up the Chimney. The larger particles such as charred paper
have been arrested by wirework screens or grids—At Derby charred paper was
stopped by two baffles or bridges in the flue a short distance apart one at the
bottom and the other at the top—The best preventatives, however, appear to be
large dust chambers, proper regulation of the draught, and frequent removal of
The other ground of Complaint is an offensive smell from the
Chimney—In some instances it is true that the smells complained of did not
proceed from the furnaces at all—but it cannot be denied that the smoke and
vapour from furnaces burning Town Refuse have often an offensive smell which
under certain conditions of the Atmosphere can be recognised at some distance
on the leeward side of the Chimney.
Dr. Odling in a report to the Bradford Corporation rightly,
I think attributes it to empyreumatic vapours given off when the refuse begins
to burn before it reaches the hot fire and is undergoing destructive
distillation or frizzling. When as in the Manchester and Birmingham furnaces
the fresh charge of damp refuse is thrown directly into the hot fire, this
action must go on and the Arrangement in Fryer’s Destructor for feeding from
the back of the furnace while partially drying the refuse, affords a dried
passage into the flue for vapours arising in the cooler part of the furnace.
The products of Combustion must of course vary with the
nature of material burned but a good deal more depends upon the rate at which
it is burned and the care and regularity with which the furnaces are fed and
clinkered—Smoke and imperfect combustion, follow any attempt to overload the
furnaces, and this is especially the case when the reuse is unusually wet—Where
there are many cells or furnaces by careful and systematic firing and
clinkering the gases from the recently charged
and cooler fires may be made to mingle in the dust chamber or flue with
those from the hotter fires, and a temperature may be obtained high enough to
destroy offensive vapours that escape from the furnaces.
To effect the combustion of offensive vapours it has been
suggested that the gases from the furnaces should be passed through or over
The escape of dust and smell from the Chimney must be
regarded as defects to be amended especially when the Air is not already
polluted by factory chimneys.
Much in the way of prevention may be effected by careful and
systematic firing and feeding combined with large flues or dust chambers,
frequent removal of dust, and proper regulation of the draught.
When these precautions do not suffice, passing the products
of combustion through or over a second fire appears to be the most promising
means of destroying smoke or smell and preventing the escape of dust – In other
respects the burning of town refuse by furnaces already in use appears to be
successfully carried out—There’s no accumulation of an offensive material at
the works and very little smell which I do not consider is at all prejudicial
to health—Everything Combustible is burned within a few hours of collection
without nuisance, and at a cost which compares favourably with the old system
of carting the refuse to tips which I consider is most dangerous and
prejudicial to health. A valuable means is at the same time provided for
effectually disposing of infected bedding and clothing condemned meat and
provisions and the carcases of Diseased
Further improvements may be expected, but the results
already attained show that the destruction of the refuse of Towns by fire is
not only practicable, but is the best and often the only way of dealing with it
in a manner to satisfy Sanitary requirements.
I am informed that Complaints have been made by inhabitants
in the vicinity of the Destructor of the Defendant Corporation caused by
offensive smells arising from the Destructor.
I have also been informed that the Deft Corporation propose
to construct a new chimney to the Destructor 100 yards in height with 4 more
cells and a flue Cremator. When these works are carried out I am of opinion
that they will prevent the smell and nuisance complained of.
Call Thomas Codrington
I am the Inspector of Nuisances for the Borough of Blackburn
and have held that office for about 5 ½ years. Prior to that I was Sub
Inspector for a period of 6 ½ years
I know the Audley Depot and Destructor the subject matter of
complaint in this Action
It is my duty to visit and inspect every district in the
Town and I am almost daily about the neighbourhood in which the Destructor is
As regards the Depot I say that I have never had any
complaint, nor have I myself ever found any smell to arise from the excreta and
Refuse dealt with at the Depot (apart from the Destructor) outside the walls of
the Depot. That is to say, I am satisfied that no nuisance exists in respect of
the storage of excreta in the Tank and the placing of Ashpit Refuse and Street
Sweepings in the Shed and the Shipping of Manure from the Wharf outside the
Walls of the Depot itself any offensive odour that may arise being completely
Localised by the roof & Walls of the Shed & the Depot.
As regards the Destructor I have received very few
complaints from residents in the neighbourhood although I am aware that
recently an agitation has been got up in the District for the Removal of the
Destructor but I believe this Agitation was very largely owing to the fears of
the Residents respecting the Small Pox Hospital which is situate close to the
Destructor – I have myself noticed occasionally but very rarely a faint odour
from the fumes proceeding from the Destructor Chimney but I am of opinion that
any smell that may have occasionally been given off is not in any way injurious
In December 1886 a fume Cremator was added to the destructor
but in consequence of the diminution of the draught and destructive Capacity
caused by the fume cremator it was taken out pending the construction of a
large and improved Chimney which would cure such defects. During the period
when the Cremator was in use which was over 3 months I did not detect the
slightest smell or odour from the Destructor & during that period no
complaint whatever was made to me.
The few occasions upon which I have experienced an odour
from the Destructor Chimney have been at times when the atmosphere has been
very damp and heavy and when possibly—although I do not know as a fact—the
attendant has been carelessly firing.
About 108 Tons per week of the Refuse of the Town which is
not capable of being used for manure as having no Manurial value is destroyed
in the Destructor and the remainder is deposited on 4 tips there is no other
way disposing of this Refuse.
With regard to tips I am satisfied from a long experience
that they are most dangerous and prejudicial to health.
The rubbish tipped must often necessarily contain
considerable quantities of decomposing matter sufficient to breed disease if
built upon and moreover suitable tips in Towns are now most difficult to find.
I am satisfied that from a Sanitary and Public Health point
of view no more effectual or efficient method of disposing of Refuse could be
found than by burning, and if this is effectually done no smell or nuisance can
I am satisfied that the collection and disposition of the
Pails and their contents and the emptying and disposition of the contents of
the Ashpits and Dry Ashes is conducted by the Scavenging Department of the
Corporation in the best possible manner and with the least nuisance possible.
The Corporation have by resolution determined to gradually
convert the Pail Closets to Water Closets and they have actively for some years
past been converting the Ashpit Closets to Water Closets.
When these conversions are complete the Scavenging
Department will be relieved of the worst and most offensive part of the Refuse
with which they have to deal.
There are at present 11,000 houses with Pail Closets and
11,000 houses with Ashpit closets in use in Blackburn.
With regard to the Small Pox Hospital at Audley I am
satisfied that it is as well placed as a Hospital could possibly be, if it is
to be in the Town at all. It stands to reason that the more isolated a Hospital
of this character is the better.
During the present year the Town has unfortunately been
afflicted with a large number of Small Pox cases.
The Hospital Complained of is constructed to hold 30 beds
and when nearly full it was incumbent upon the Defendants as the Sanitary
Authority to consider whether they should add to the Hospital Complained of or
construct another Hospital in some other position and they finally determined
to convert certain buildings which they possessed outside the Borough at a
place called Finnington into a Hospital. This conversion was rapidly carried
out and up to the present time 16 patients from the Borough of Blackburn have
been treated in this new Hospital in addition to 9 patients in a convalescent
stage removed into it from the Audley Hospital.
The New Hospital is more commodious and more isolated than
the Hospital complained of and it is the intention of the Corporation to use as
far as practicable the New Hospital in place of the Hospital complained of.
I was present at a Meeting of the Health Committee when a
decision to the above effect was come to. With regard to the way in which the
Hospital complained of has been conducted I am satisfied that it could not have
been conducted better than it has been.
The conduct of it, and the removal of patients to it has
been under my Superintendence.
The Corporation have provided a special Ambulance for the
use of Small Pox Patients only, which is kept constantly disinfected.
No persons are allowed to leave the Hospital until fully
convalescent and then only after their clothes have been thoroughly disinfected
by heat, and every person whether a convalescent, nurse, or other person in the
Hospital is required before leaving the Hospital to pass through a proper
No friends of patients are at any time permitted to enter
It has been my duty to examine carefully into the origin of
every case of Small Pox reported and in no instance have I been able to trace
Small Pox as having spread from the Hospital, nor have the Majority of cases
arisen in the immediate proximity of the Hospital.
When the Hospital was occupied in 1883 to 1885 inclusive no
cases of Small Pox occurred in the Audley District. Of the 28 cases which were
treated in the Hospital in 1886 only one patient resided within a ¼ of a mile
radius of the Hospital – In the year 1887 of the 42 cases of Small Pox treated
in the Hospital only 2 patients resided within a ¼ of a mile of the Hospital.
In the year 1886 the Hospital was open for 7 months and 1887
for 6 months only.
At the beginning of this year (1888) early in January
several cases of Small Pox broke out in the Workhouse
On the 6th March 2 cases were removed from Haslingden Road a
distance of about 400 yards from the Hospital.
The infection in these cases was traced as for as it was
capable of being traced to the Town of Haslingden. The disease spread to this
locality and 26 patients were removed from their homes to the Hospital- During
the whole period from 1888(?) to the present time only 4 cases of Small Pox
have occurred in the portion of the Borough situate to the East of the
Hospital—Travelling over East of the Hospital via Bennington and Pringle
In all the cases of Small Pox that have occurred in
Blackburn previous to this year with a few exceptions all the cases originated
in other districts of the Borough and in 1886 particularly the seat of the
Epidemic was chiefly in St Pauls Ward which is situate on the other side of the
Call Alfred James Losbe
Braddon McCallum of Blackburn, says:
I am a Member of the Institution of Civil Engineers and also the Borough and
Water Engineer and Borough Surveyor of Blackburn which latter post I have held
since July 1882 when I was appointed being a period of upwards of 6 years.
I am fully acquainted with the Sanitary Depot and Destructor
at Audley the subject of complaint of this Action.
The land belonging to the Corporation upon which the
Sanitary Depot and Destructor are placed contains 3 or 4 acres and is bounded
on the Northerly side by the Leeds and Liverpool Canal, on the Easterly side by
Bennington Street and on the Westerly and Southerly side by vacant land.
The nearest dwelling to the Destructor is about 112 yards
distant. I am able to depose to this part having measured the distances.
I consider the land is most suitably situated for a Sanitary
Depot for the following reasons, viz:
(1) It is on the side of the Leeds & Liverpool Canal which offers
facilities for the conveyance of excreta and refuse to Agricultural parts
(2) It is on the outskirts of the Town and in a district comparatively sparsely
From the Books and plans in my Custody as Boro’ (sic)
Engineer I find that in the year 1878 the number of inhabited Houses within a ¼
of a mile radius of the Depot was 1056
At the present time the number of Houses within a ¼ mile
radius is 1449 showing that the existence of the Depot and Destructor has not
prevented the development of building in the neighbourhood and as a matter of
act, the population has come to the immediate vicinity of the Destructor.
The Town is served by Water closets, Pail closets and Ashpit
closets in the following proportions:
No of Houses on Water
closet system 2850
No of Houses on Pail closet system 11,000
No of Houses on Ashpit closet
The Pails attached to the Pail Closets are emptied by the
Scavenging Department of the Corporation weekly and about 1/3 of the Pails
collected are brought to the Sanitary Depot at Audley for removal by boat to
farmers at different parts of the County.
The Contents of the Ashpit Closets are emptied as occasion
The Water Closets are connected with the Sewers which
gravitate to precipitation tanks at the low end of the Town and from thence the
effluent is conveyed by Aqueduct a distance of 5 or 6 miles to the Sewage farms
belonging to the Corporation which are about 500 acres in extent.
The Pail and Ashpit Closets are only emptied at night time
and I am satisfied from close observation of the practice in Blackburn and in
other Towns that the work of Collection and disposal of the Refuse under the
Pail and Ashpit Closet system is performed in the best possible manner and I
say that outside the walls of the Depot there is no smell & therefore does
not cause any nuisance whatever to the neighbourhood.
During last year a special Sub Committee was deputed to
examine into the Scavenging System in vogue in other Towns and in Blackburn and
they presented a Report which was adopted by the Town Council advocating the
gradual conversion of the Pail and Ashpit Closets into Water Closets the
addition of two Destructors and subsequently the Town Council resolved to
construct a large Chimney to the Destructor at Audley.
I was present when the resolution was passed.
The above resolutions of the Town Council with reference to
the adoption of the Water Closet system and the construction of the large
Chimney at Audley are now being carried out under my Supervision and I say that
when the work of converting the Pail and Ashpit Closets to Water Closets is
complete the Defendant Corporation will be relieved of the most offensive and
difficult part of the refuse with which they have to deal, but until this work
of conversion can be completed I am
satisfied that the Corporation are dealing with the refuse and excrementitious
matter in the best possible manner. All the new Houses in the Borough are now
completed to adopt the Water Closet system.
The contract for the construction of a new Chimney to the
Destructor at Audley 100 yards high was let by tender on the 4th of April last
to Mr Woof Cronshaw. I was present when the tender was accepted by the Town
Council. In my opinion the works could not be completed before October 1890.
Recently an Agitation has arisen in the district surrounding
the Destructor for its removal on the ground of nuisance but prior to this
Agitation Complaints of nuisance were few and far between.
The quantity of refuse which the Destructor deals with is
about 27 tons per cell per week.
This refuse is a portion of the contents of the Ashpit
closets and dry Ashes Tubs of no manurial value—The remainder of this class of
refuse which the Destructor is not able to deal with is disposed of in its
tips—These tips however are rapidly becoming exhausted and in populous Towns
like Blackburn are very difficult to find.
Moreover, speaking from my own experience as a Sanitary
Engineer I am satisfied that the destruction of this class of refuse, by fire
is by far the best and most scientific method of disposal and is not in any way
injurious to health but the method of disposing of it by placing it on tips I
consider most injurious to Public Health.
The Destructor as it stands and with its present chimney if
properly and carefully worked and the furnaces fed carefully and with
discretion ought not to cause nuisance – Some odour may occasionally be
experienced from the fumes passing out of the Chimney in murky weather or when
the Atmosphere is heavy. In my opinion I do not consider any odour if any that
may arise are injurious to public health.
The Destructor is constructed with 4 cells and erected by
Messrs. Manlove, Alliott & Fryer of Nottingham the makers and Patentees.
I am of opinion that with the tall chimney already ordered
and of the addition of a fume Cremator any nuisance which may possibly have
occasionally been created by the Destructor in the past will be done away with
as the fumes will be spread over a much larger area at a greater height. In
addition, the draught of the furnaces will be greatly increased and
consequently combustion will be more complete.
In the year 1883 the Defendant Corporation at my instigation
considered a plan submitted by the Makers for Machinery for washing the fumes
before passing up the Chimney, but the Corporation were of the opinion that the
plan was not likely to be successful so the proposal was not adopted.
In the year 1886 I on behalf of the Defendant Corporation
entered into Negotiations with the makers for the addition to the Destructor of
a Fume Cremator. This was put in and was worked from December 1886 to the end
of March 1887 It was found that the Fume
Cremator had the effect of destroying any noxious gases passing up the chimney
but having regard to the height of the existing chimney it was further found
that the destroying power of the Destructor was reduced by 1/3rd and the draught by 1/5th. As a
Consequence the Corporation were of the opinion that the Fume Cremator was not
successful, and it was accordingly taken out pending the construction of a
larger Chimney - While the Cremator was
in use I was not able to detect any offensive Smell or odour from the works.
(Two lines of words deleted here.)
On the question of damages, I find that the Plaintiff has
erected 54 houses upon the land taken by him from the Ecclesiastical
I find further that of these 54 Houses 52 are now let and at
the following rents
The table here is identical with the one in Joseph
Pollard and John Ashworth’s statements earlier
I have compared the rents of these Houses with the Rents
obtained for a similar Class of houses in similar parts of the Town, and I can
say that the rents obtained for the Plaintiff’s houses are fully equal to rents
obtained for similar houses elsewhere.
It is the fact that some of the land taken by the Plaintiff
from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners abutting on Pringle and Bennington
Streets is or has been at a considerably lower level than the surfaces of those
streets averaging in both streets twelve feet
This fact is material to note as adding largely to the cost
of building and therefore materially increasing the difficulty which the
Plaintiff would have in raising sufficient money on Mortgage to enable him to
From my knowledge as Borough Surveyor I say that Cottage
property generally throughout the Borough during the last 3or 4 years has been
erected in excess of the needs of the population and as a consequence there has been a
considerable amount of empty property, and property has depreciated in
consequence in value and has been difficult to sell –
The numbers of empty houses during the past 5 years are as
1883, 1884, 185, 1886; Average 2,000.
I am enabled to depose to these facts from a perusal of
documents and books in the possession of the Rate Collector.
Call James Braddon McCallum
George AINSWORTH, Mill Overlooker; never detected any
unpleasant odours. Did not consider Small Pox-Hospital a nuisance (lived
John HAYES Clerk; never detected any bad smells, lived
Edward HAWORTH, Assistant Brewer; detected no smells (until
agitation took place), lived nearby.
George HALLIWELL, Weaver; no complaints of smells, lived
within 350 yds of Def. works.
Joseph Edward WADDINGTON; no complaints of smells.
Joseph POLLARD, House Owner; member of Town Council, never
detected any smells.
Jeremiah AINSWORTH, House Agent; no complaints of smells,
Ann CROSTON, Widow, House Owner; received no complaints of
smells from any tenants.
James PEARSON, Weavers’ Collector; no complaints of smells,
worked a garden regularly nearby.
Benjamin BROOKS, Joiner and Builder; no complaints from
Grimshaw MARSDEN, Weaver; many complaints re local tip, but
William ALMOND; again, many complaints about local tip but
Arthur JACOB, Sanitary Engineer; Technical information on
Edward BILLINGTON, Chairman of Health Committee; details of
Scavenging Dept and Small Hospital.
William WHALLEY, Superintendent of Scavenging Department;
great detail on Scavenging.
William Henry STEPEHENSON, Medical Officer for Blackburn
Corporation; great detail on Small Pox Hospital.
Thomas HIGSON, Property owner; not impressed by quality of
property built by Plaintiff, land at Bennington Street unsuitable for building.
Edward SERGEANT, Medical Officer of Health; detail of working
James KENYON, Vice-Chairman of Scavenging Dept; very
detailed statement of Scavenging Department.
John DIXON, Chairman of Scavenging Department; very detailed
report on Scavenging Department, not impressed by Plaintiff (Speculative Buil
John Henry COX, Borough Surveyor, detail of working the Destructor.
John ASHWORTH, Coal Merchant; complained of poorly built house in area, leading to depreciation in value, lived near Destructor.
John TATHAM, Medical Officer; very positive about value of Small-Pox Hospital
Charles Meymott TIDY, Medical Officer, Home Office Analyst; great detail of working of Destructor, and impressed by Small-Pox Hospital.
John CALVERT, Builder and Contractor; complained Plaintiff had built poor quality houses, and the Bennington Street land being unsuitable for building purposes.
Henry WHALLEY, Grocer; received no complaints about smells, lived near Destructor.
James B. ALLIOTT, Partner in firm that manufactured the Destructor; great detail of working Destructor.
William DYSON, Flagger and Slater; owned some property once belonging to Plaintiff, complained of poor quality of these houses, reported some smell from open drain from the workhouse in the summer.
Dennis PICKUP, Grocer; complained of smells from tip, not Destructor, believes property in area not depreciated by proximity of Destructor.
John HARRISON, Foreman at Destructor; never detected any smells.
Thomas CODDRINGTON, Engineering Inspector; very detailed description of working of Destructor.
Alfred James LOSBE, Inspector of Nuisances for Borough of Blackburn; very critical about tips, but not about Destructor.
James Braddon McCALLUM, Civil Engineer; detail of Scavenging town refuseder),
Bennington Street land not suitable for building purposes.
AINSWORTH, Jeremiah, 11 Oldham Street, Blackburn Broker and
ALLIOTT, James B., ‘Manufacturer of Destructors’.
ALMOND, William, 84 Haslingden Road, Blackburn, Property
ASHWORTH, John, 90 Chester Street, Blackburn, Coal Merchant.
BILLINGTON, Edward, 126 Whalley New Road, Blackburn, Town
Councillor, hospital details.
BROOKS, Benjamin, 47 Ingham Street, Audley, Blackburn,
Joiner and Builder, House Agent.
CALVERT, John, 4 St Andrews Place, Blackburn, Town
CODRINGTON, Thomas, Engineering Inspector.
COX, John Henry, Civil Engineer, Borough Surveyor.
CROSTON, Ann, Primrose Street, Langho, Widow, owner of 6
DIXON, John, Shadsworth Villa, Blackburn, Town Councillor,
Chairman of Scavenger Dept.
DYSON, William, 5 Infirmary Road, Blackburn, Flagger and
HALLIWELL, George, 163 Higher Audley Street, Blackburn,
HALLIWELL, George, DUPLICATE PAPER.
HARRISON, John, 14 Ainsworth Street, Blackburn, Foreman of
Department of Works, i/c of The Destructor.
HAWORTH, Edward, 27 Baines Street, Lower Audley, Blackburn,
HAWORTH, Edward, DUPLICATE PAPER.
HAYES, John, 100 Lower Audley Street, Blackburn, Clerk.
HAYES, John, DUPLICATE PAPER.
HIGSON, Thomas, Property owner, INCOMPLETE.
JACOB, Arthur, Civil Engineer in Salford.
KENYON, James, Preston New Road, Blackburn, Town
LONGWORTH, George, 122 Riley Street, Blackburn, Mill
LONGWORTH, George, DUPLICATE PAPER.
LOSBE, Alfred James, Inspector of Nuisances.
MARSDEN, Grimshaw, 71 Haslingden Road, Blackburn,
McCALLUM, James Braddon, Water Engineer, Borough
PEARSON, James, 35 Park Road, Blackburn, Weaver’s Collector.
PICKUP, Dennis, 114 Grimshaw Park, Blackburn, Grocer.
POLLARD, Joseph, 33 Victoria Street, Blackburn, Town
Councillor, Estate Agent.
SERGEANT, Edward, Medical Officer for Borough of Bolton.
STEPHENSON, William Henry, Medical Officer.
TATHAM, John, Medical Officer of Health for Fever Hospital.
TIDY, Charles Meymott, Medical Officer in Islington.
WADDINGTON, Joseph Edward, 6 Audley Range, Blackburn, Herb
WHALLEY, Henry, 25 York Street, Blackburn, Grocer.
WHALLEY, William, Superintendent of Scavenging Department.
List of pre-court papers (left in order they appeared in
2. John Hayes
9. Ann Croston
10. James Pearson
15. Arthur Jacob
18. William Henry
19. Thomas Higson
21. James Kenyon
22. John Dixon
23. John Henry
24. John Ashworth
25. John Tatham
27. John Calvert
28. Henry Whalley
29. James B
30. William Dyson
31. Dennis Pickup
32. John Harrison
33. John Hayes
36. Alfred James
37. James Braddon
All men except Ann Croston, widow
List of newspapers to look at Preston Archives
Herald 2 May 1888 (also BxB Police Court Rev Wilson)
Standard 5 May 1888
Lancashire Evening Post 1 May 1888
Lancashire Evening Post 6 Dec 1888
and Highgate Express 26 Nov 1887
Lancashire Evening Post 1888, letter from Mr Percy Hutchinson
7. Evening Post
12 April 1888
Herald 17 Jan 1891
Evening Post 27 Oct 1886
back to top