London’s Great Stench in the 19th Century - Part 2: Bazalgette, Sewers and Stench

Millions of tourists visit London each year to take in the city's iconic architectural sites and attractions. It is hard to imagine that the iconic River Thames was once a site of unbearable stench and disease that choked Londoners. The summer of 1858 was labelled as the Great Stink by the British press and was a result of many years of poor living conditions, sanitation and a lack of public health reforms. The Great Stink was the tipping point that encouraged a change of attitude towards public health from a laissez-faire attitude, where the government did not interfere with public health, to a desire to improve living conditions. A laissez-faire attitude meant that government officials took a step back from interfering with social welfare and let issues take their own shape naturally.

In part 2, Amy Chandler explains how throughout history, the “Thames was effectively the city’s sewer for centuries” as the banks became “dominated by factories, furnaces and mills, all dispensing their foul waste and chemical pollutants into the river”.(1) This article explores how Joseph Bazalgette constructed the London sewer system to clean up the River Thames from sewage. 

If you missed it, part 1 on what caused the Great Stench is here.

An 1828 cartoon: Monster Soup commonly called Thames Water.

What to do about the Great Stink?

The perseverance to improve public health culminated in the Great Stink of 1858 from June to August. The heat wave in the summer of 1858 made the River Thames a bubbling vat of stench and raw sewage that contributed to outbreaks of disease, such as cholera, across London. Throughout that summer, the Thames water levels fell leaving piles of sewage and waste to visibly build up in public view. The build-up of waste was now staring Londoners and government officials in the face. The laissez-faire attitude of avoiding public health problems was no longer an option for Parliament.

In July 1858, Parliament discussed the “purification of the River Thames” and what course of action to take to solve the problem of sewage flowing into the river. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Benjamin Disraeli, described the river as an “unexpected calamity” for many but that there was always “an observant minority in the community which has expected the catastrophe” for some time. (2) For some members of the public and Parliament, it may have been a shock that London’s population was suffering from cholera and other diseases. But for a select few like Sir Edwin Chadwick and Dr John Snow, concerns of public health and welfare was an imperative thought. The problems of the Great stink was, to a point, inevitable as living conditions were continuing to decline as London’s population expanded and the government continued to avoid passing any bills to improve public health in poverty and disease-stricken areas. It was not until Members of Parliament became affected by the smell of sewage and waste from the river that they felt it was time to take charge of London’s public health. If the Houses of Parliament were not built directly next to the River Thames, it may have been unlikely that public health would have taken a dramatic change in the way that it did in 1858. The smell became so unbearable that it “severely affected [Parliamentary] business” with strong consideration of moving Parliamentary business to Oxford or St. Albans as well as the “curtains were soaked in chloride to attempt to mask the smell”. (3) The Times reported Members of Parliament were frequently seen with handkerchiefs pressed against their noses as their offices overlooked the Thames and became surrounded by the stench. (4)

Many satirical cartoons at the time, such as Punch, illustrated the dire reality of London’s public health. These cartoons often personified the River Thames as ‘Father Thames’ as ill and in poor health because of the pollution and tonnes of sewage forced and filtered into the Thames and drinking supplies were killing the life force of London. In many ways, the personification of the dying River Thames mirrors the deterioration and ill health of the inhabitants in poverty-stricken areas of London. The British government was reluctant to take responsibility for allowing London’s “noble river” to become a “stygian pool, reeking with ineffable and intolerable horrors” but Disraeli commented that “this House, in pursuit of health” passed the bill to pump raw sewage into the waters of the River Thames, they ignored the voices of “persons of great authority on such matters” who could predict that such a health calamity was imminent. (5) Disraeli insinuated that this laissez-faire attitude of not interfering with the spread of disease and poor living conditions was the government's fault for not taking more control of the situation.

One method the government attempted in July 1858 was to pour lime chloride into the Thames to remove the smell of sewage and waste. In some ways this was a logical solution given the current scientific miasma theory that disease and illness were caused by bad smells. In nineteenth-century logic, overpowering the smell of the Thames not only stop disease but also removed the horrible smell. However, this was not effective and calls for a sewer system and reforms to purify the Thames was growing amongst Parliament and notable public figures.

On 2 June 1858, the Metropolitan Board of Works made a decision regarding London’s sewage problem and announced that they planned to “defer all consideration of it [the sewers] until the middle of October” and leave the summer period undisturbed with no changes. (6) In response, Sir Benjamin Hall commented on the selfishness of the Board of Works for using the city’s discomfort as a bargaining tool to pressure Parliament to resolve “the engineering and financial arguments in its favour”. (7) The Board of Works previously proposed to build a sewer system but was unsuccessful in receiving enough funds from the government to complete their project. As the city's health deteriorated, and Members of Parliament became increasingly afraid of becoming unwell through bad air, the need to find a solution became heightened. By 15 July 1858, Disraeli passed the Metropolitan Local Management Act that amended the 1855 Metropolis Local Management Act to “extend the Metropolitan Board of Works for the purification of the Thames and the main drainage of the Metropolis”. (8) By 2 August 1858, this act was officially passed after eighteen days and allowed the Board of Works full authority on the project and borrow £3,000,000 to carry out the project and deodorise the Thames in the meantime before work started. (9)

Bazalgette’s construction of the London sewer systems

The Metropolitan Board of Works was given full authority and enough money to start work on tackling London’s waste problem. Joseph Bazalgette was in charge of constructing London’s new sewer system with the plan to create a network of main sewers that was parallel to the River Thames and filter waste and surface water away from the city. (10) The project was overseen by Bazalgette, who took great care and consideration into every aspect of the construction, from personally measuring the lead and cement contents for each brick used within the tunnels. Much of Bazalgette’s work “involved substantial bank extension and infill, reducing the width of the river in the central part of the city.” (11) Bazalgette used a new type of cement called Portland cement that was strong and water-resistant to support the tunnels from collapse and sewage wearing down the interiors. The project required 318 million bricks, 670,000 cubic metres of concrete, and over a thousand labourers to excavate the tunnels. This increase in labour saw brick layers wages increase by 20%. (12)

Aside from building interconnecting pipes and sewer systems from east to west across London that collected waste and rainwater, Bazalgette also built four pumping stations, and two treatment works to manage, treat sewage and pump out the purified liquid into the River Thames. (13) The Abbey Mills Crossness pump station is still operational today and open for public visits. The pumping station is decorated with ornate Byzantine-style architecture and described as The Cathedral of Sewage because of its ostentatious designs that are out-of-place for the nature of the building. Many wealthy Victorians enjoyed ornate architectural designs therefore something as unappealing as a sewage house was designed in an ornate and extravagant style. Furthermore, Bazalgette’s construction of the London sewer system transformed London from below ground and above by building the Victoria, Albert and Chelsea Embankments that narrowed the Thames by 52 acres causing water to flow faster. (14)

The construction of the sewer system transformed London’s landscape, shape and improved the health of the city’s population. Many visitors to London may notice the decadent and intricately designed benches and Dolphin lamp-posts that line London’s popular Thames Embankment. The Metropolitan Board of Works decided to illuminate the new Embankment with electric lights and asked for design submissions. The ornate fish-shaped lamps were designed by George John Vulliamy in the late 1860s. The Board of Works received many designs, one designed by Bazalgette is situated on the Chelsea Embankment. The ornate lamp designs are a visible legacy of the transformation of London from a dirty and disease-ridden city to a cleaner and more sophisticated river where many walk and enjoy the sights London has to offer.

The sewer system is still in use in London today, and it was because of Bazalgette’s forethought that London’s population was expanding rapidly and would continue to grow over time. He, therefore, created the sewer pipes to be larger than necessary to accommodate an increased amount of waste in the future. This forethought has allowed the sewer system to last for over 150 years and is only now undergoing repairs to the tunnels to ensure London’s sewers continue to function efficiently. London’s sewer system today faces something unimaginable to Bazalgette, the fatbergs that block the tunnels of the sewers forcing sewage to pile up within the tunnels. For example, the 2017 fatberg was removed from Whitechapel. There is a certain irony that our modern obsession with cleanliness and the use of products, such as wet wipes and other items of personal hygiene, are now discarded by modern Londoners in a similar way to how the Victorians were keen to dump their waste in the Thames. Both of course are equally disruptive and likely to cause a stink!

What do you think of the Great Stink? Let us know below.

Now read Amy’s articles on Ignaz Semmelweis’ key contribution to medicine - hand-washing in hospitals here.

Bibliography 

Bibby, M. ‘London’s Great Stink’, undated, Historic UK < https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Londons-Great-Stink/ >. 

Collinson, A. ‘How Bazalgette built London’s first super-sewer’, 26 March 2019, Museum of London < https://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/discover/how-bazalgette-built-londons-first-super-sewer >.     

Crossness Engines, ‘Visit Us’, 2022, Crossness Engines <https://www.crossness.org.uk/visit.html >. 

Curtis, S. ‘The River Thames: London’s Riparian Highway’ in: A. Smith and A. Graham, eds., Destination London (London: University of Westminster Press,2019).  

Halliday, S. ‘Sir Joseph Bazalgette and the Great Stink’, April 2012, London Historians < https://www.londonhistorians.org/?s=articles >.

Halliday, S. The Great Stink of London: Sir Joseph Bazalgette and the Cleansing of the Victorian Metropolis, The History Press, Gloustershire, 2013, ebook, p.1781.

HC Deb, 15 July 1858, vol 151,cols 1509W.  

Patowary, K. ‘The ‘Great Stink’ of London’, 14 July 2017, Amusing Planet < https://www.amusingplanet.com/2017/07/the-great-stink-of-london.html >. 

UK Parliament, ‘Estimate of expense River Thames Purification Bill 1866’, undated, Uk Parliament < https://www.parliament.uk/es-test-gallery-page-dnp/living-heritage2/building/palace/estatehistory/from-the-parliamentary-collections/thames/estimatethamespurification/ >.  

1 S. Curtis, ‘The River Thames: London’s Riparian Highway’ in: A. Smith and A. Graham, eds., Destination London (London: University of Westminster Press,2019)p.168. 

2  HC Deb, 15 July 1858, vol 151,cols 1509W.  

3  UK Parliament, ‘Estimate of expense River Thames Purification Bill 1866’, undated, Uk Parliament < https://www.parliament.uk/es-test-gallery-page-dnp/living-heritage2/building/palace/estatehistory/from-the-parliamentary-collections/thames/estimatethamespurification/ > [accessed 22 March 2022]. 

4  M, Bibby, ‘London’s Great Stink’, undated, Historic UK < https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Londons-Great-Stink/ >[accessed 18 March 2022].

5  HC Deb, 15 July 1858, vol 151,cols 1509W.  

6  S.Halliday, The Great Stink of London: Sir Joseph Bazalgette and the Cleansing of the Victorian Metropolis, The History Press, Gloustershire, 2013, ebook, p.1781.

7  Ibid., p.1789. 

8  Ibid.,p.1798. 

9  Ibid.,p.1853.

10 Ibid.,pp.1880-88.

11 Curtis,op.cit.,p.168. 

12  A, Collinson, ‘How Bazalgette built London’s first super-sewer’, 26 March 2019, Museum of London < https://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/discover/how-bazalgette-built-londons-first-super-sewer> [accessed 10 March 2022]. 

13  S.Halliday, ‘Sir Joseph Bazalgette and the Great Stink’, April 2012, London Historians < https://www.londonhistorians.org/?s=articles >[accessed 18 March 2022]. 

14  Ibid. 

The 1665 Great Plague of London: Part 2 – Was Home Quarantine Worth it?

In 2020 and now 2021, a large number of citizens found themselves homebound. While the stay-at-home orders were a novel experience for most people, the isolation of individuals with a contagious disease has a long history. While it is true that many suffered inconvenience and the disruption of normal routines, the modern home is so well equipped we weren't lacking for much in the way of necessities and comforts. Additionally, those quarantined at home were able to venture outside to replenish supplies or through delivery is needed. It has not always been so easy. The worst outbreak of bubonic plague in early modern England took place in London in 1665. Considering this experience can give us pause to give thanks that we live in the early twenty-first century.

In part 2, Victor Gamma looks at the Great Plague of 1665 in London, how people often lived in cramped conditions in Plague houses, and whether in perspective home quarantine was worth it.

Two men discovering a dead woman in the street during the Great Plague of London, 1665. Wood engraving by J. Jellicoe. Source: Wellcome Trust, available here.

What were conditions like in plague houses? Typical plague homes ranged from modest to ramshackle. Those subject to home quarantine were middle class or poor because those with the means had fled the city before the worst of the outbreak. Middle class Londoners could afford a house on a major street. Under quarantine, the poor suffered greater tribulation because their houses were rather sparsely furnished and lacking in much that might make the quarantine tolerable. The parishes supported those in financial distress in time of quarantine. Households were listed as “chargeable” if they were dependent on the parish for support during the plague. This meant they could not afford the 4 pence that the parish charged per quarantined person per day. In one instance, the records of St. Martin’s show that 84% of individuals in infected houses were “chargeable.” Additionally, the plague increased the number of those financially dependent on parish assistance due to loss of income. 

Although the practice of shutting up houses helped stop the spread of disease, the environment inside these plague houses undermined the health of those confined. To compound their suffering, homes at that time had no bathrooms as we know them today. Even the homes of the very wealthy lacked a lavatory. The good health of the inhabitants would normally not last long. After so many weeks of being cooped up, depression and mental lethargy took hold. Fever would often follow, leading to full-on sickness. Although the flight of many doctors earlier in 1665 year made the pitifully weak health system even more ineffective, the Lord Mayor did direct a number of physicians to treat the poor.

Sometimes the supply of food in shut up homes began to dwindle. Lacking preservatives, the food they had left began to rot. Its odor would permeate the air, along with the smell of putrefying water. Conditions were mostly cramped. Unlike the wealthy, the typical quarantined family lacked the space to segregate themselves. The air in that hot, humid summer of 1665, would be stifling in the shuttered, darkened structure. Without light and air, some began losing their grip on reality. In many plague houses one or more people were dead or dying. The mental state of everyone in the home ranged from mild fear to pathological terror. Those still alive knew what awaited them if they became infected: headaches, fever, vomiting, painful swellings on the neck, armpits and groin (buboes), blisters and bruises, coughing up blood and likely death. The atmosphere was rank with the odor emanating from one or more plague-ridden corpses. Even when they had been removed the smell of death and decay would linger. With each fresh outbreak of the epidemic the twenty-day quarantines were extended. Since this was a regular occurrence, the quarantine could go on indefinitely or until the entire household was dead. 

Some families held desperate councils and took matters into their own hands. Many an imprisoned person crept up into the second story or attic, waited until the guard was not looking, carefully lowered a rope around the watchman's neck and pulled. They would demand he open the door - or else. If the guard proved stubborn they might keep pulling until he either changed his mind or lost consciousness. Those that lacked the nerve for such drastic measures tried hacking a hole in the back of the house. They were, after all, made only of plaster and narrow strips of wood. Some escaped through the neighbor’s yard using this method. Others threw messages tied to a block of wood or tile to a friend in the street, pleading with them to drug the guard. Those that lacked the wherewithal for any of these actions were often condemned to watch as their loved ones died, one by one. 

Pushback

Protests against the practice did occur. The level of distress of those home-quarantined is indicated by the number of violations recorded in court sessions. Offenses included illegally allowing inhabitants to leave their house or continuing to carry on business despite being quarantined. The government narrative held that its pandemic-control measures were necessary for the safety of the entire community. Parallel to this ran a largely popular counter-narrative that saw the home quarantines as a heartless punishment forced upon the poor that did little to stop the disease from spreading. For one thing, government policies strictly forbade the visiting of the sick by anyone other than plague officials. This severely disrupted the normal ties and customs of kinship and charity. Poet George Wither wrote of this:

That man was banished from the public sight Imprisoned in his house both day and night. As one that meant the Citie to betray And (to compel that his unwelcome guest Should keep within) his dore was crost and blest And for that purpose, at the door did stand An armed watchman, strengthened by command.

Partly to blame was the flight of the well-to-do, which took place that spring. The unintended consequence was that the overwhelming majority of victims were the poor and middle class, making it appear that government disease-control policies were aimed at the lower classes. An anonymous pamphlet called Plague Houses blasted the practice of home quarantine as "this dismal likeness of Hell, contrived by the College of Physicians." Even some doctors condemned the practice. It was, declared one physician, "Abhorrent to Religion and Humanity even in the Opinion of a Mohometan." Many argued that science simply did not back up the practice. One physician noted that "the tedious confinement of sick and well together" merely made the healthy "an easier prey to the devouring Enemy." Some sensible souls dared suggest that it would be more effective to separate the healthy from the infected. These voices of reason were drowned out by a chorus of fear. In 1604 Thomas Dekker wrote “Whole households and whole streets are strickent/the sick do die, the sound do sicken.”

A return to normality

The unpopular orders sometimes led to violence. For example, in 1637 a shoemaker named John Clarke refused to obey an order toleave his house and go to a “pestfield.” The justice of the peace sent bearers (those who carried corpses to burial) and other plague workers to his house in order to tell Clarke and his household to vacate their home. They had orders to force the family out if they persisted in their noncompliance. Riots even took place against shutting up the sick. In April 1665, as the shutting up of infected houses was just beginning, a report was given to the authorities of a case alarming enough to warrant a hearing and discussion in the presence of King Charles II. The report stated that infected houses at St. Giles were subject to a “ryot” in which the Cross and paper affixed to the door were taken off.  The door was opened “in a riotous manner.” The inhabitants were let and “permitted to goe abroad into the street promiscuously.” The Lord Chief Justice was ordered to investigate and prosecute the offenders severely for committing a crime “of soe dangerous a consequence.” The “ryot” proved to be an exception, though, for as the plague spread, fear of infection accomplished what the authorities could not and most people avoided the sick. Nonetheless, such incidents reinforced the popular perception of home quarantine as a punitive measure.

Fortunately, after the fading of summer’s heat, the crisis subsided. With the cooler weather of autumn the first ray of hope appeared. The Mortality Bills for September registered the first significant decline in fatalities. With some fluctuation the decline continued into the winter. By October the diarist Pepys could write; “... there are great hopes of a great decrease this week; God send it!” Pepys’ optimism was soon realized. By the end of November London began its painful return to normal conditions.

Quarantine in perspective

Was the home-quarantine worth the cost? The consensus is that the home quarantines may have helped to stop the spread of plague to an extent. According to Daniel Defoe in his Journal of the Plague Year, wherever the practice was instituted “it was with good success; for in several streets where the plague visited broke out, upon strict guarding the houses that were infected, and taking care to bury those that died immediately after they were known to be dead, the plague ceased in those streets.” Although Defoe based his Journal on the recollections of survivors, many contemporaries disagreed, blaming the high mortality rate and personal suffering on the practice of home quarantine. One problem was the social nature of households. As mentioned already, the members of a quarantined home of middle or poor social class lacked the space to avoid congregating together throughout the day. This insured the spread of infection. The strict approach of the government also unwittingly spread infections. One order made it illegal to so much as sit at the door of a quarantined house. The punishment was that they “be shutt up with ye rest of ye infected persons.” In this way, many healthy individuals fell victim to the plague. 

Conversely, under the restrictions, ordinary life and commerce suffered devastating effects. Almost any street one walked down was eerily silent. Trade declined so dramatically that thievery and begging ran rampant. On average one to three people died in infected homes. All too often entire households perished, rising to a peak in the summer. By the time the plague had run its course as many as 100,000 had died in London, representing at least 15% of the population.

The current Covid-19 stay at home orders have been credited with helping stop the spread of the virus. As in 1665, it has triggered a recession and caused considerable suffering for those who lost jobs or endured financial loss. Despite this, most home-quarantined people in 2020 did not complain of anything approaching the hellish experience of 1665. However restrictive we have found our current on-going quarantine, a look back at times past can be a cause to give thanks. 

Now, if you want to learn about Tudor England, you can read Victor’s series on Henry VIII’s divorce of Catherine of Aragon here.

References

Anonymous The Shutting Up of Infected Houses (pamphlet), 1665. 

Antiquarian Repertory. London, Printed and published for E. Jeffery, 1807-09.

Defoe, Daniel Journal of the Plague Year, first published March, 1722. 

Gregory, Charles William, Public Opinion and Records, Published: The Author, 1856. Digitized: July 4, 2006.

Leaser, James, Plague and Fire. New York: McGraw Hill, 1961.

The National Archives Education Service: The Great Plague 1665 -1666 How did London respond to it? (Educational Material) 

Newman, Kira L. S. Dolby. “Shutt Up: Bubonic Plague and Quarantine in Early Modern England.” Journal of Social History Vol. 45, No.3. (Spring 2012), pp. 809-834. 

Pepys, Samuel, Diary.

Certaine necessary directions, as well for the cure of the plague, as for preventing the infection: with many easie medicines of small charge, very profitable to his Majesties subjects. London: Robert Barder and John Bill (By the Royal College of Physicians, London, 1636.