Page 2

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 seldom black.
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 situated.
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 Committee
(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 Superintendent
(5) That two additional Destructors are erected
I produce a printed copy of the special sub Committee report—
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 concur.
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 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 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 approval.
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 successful.
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 constructed.
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 Cremator.
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 character.
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 Joiner’s Shop.
Call James Kenyon

John Dixon 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 Committee
(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 Superintendent
(5) That two additional destructors be erected
I produce the minute book of the committee containing this resolution.
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 Closet system.
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 constructed.
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 or tipped.
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 were level.
I think that this fact has had a good deal to do with the non-development of the Plaintiff’s land.
Call John Dixon

John Henry 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 health.
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 Mills.
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 four cells.
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 management.
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 arise.
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 combustion.
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

John 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 him.
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
Town.
Call John Ashworth

John Tatham of Salford says:
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 the people.
From personal 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 health.
Small-Pox Hospital  
I have also visited the Small-Pox Hospital which stands near the Sanitary Depot.
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

Charles 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
(b) 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 offensive.
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 present known.
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, etc.
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 have occurred.
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 minimum.
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 public health.
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 Sanitary machinery.
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 disease”
The phrase conveys no accurate idea of what is known at present, no such germs having been isolated or their existence definitely proved.
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

John Calvert 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

Henry 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

James B. 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 charge.
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

William 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 Plaintiff.
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  

Dennis 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

John 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