London’s Great Stench in the 19th Century - Part 1: What Caused the Great 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.

Amy Chandler explains.

A dirty Father Thames in 1n 1848 edition of Punch magazine.

This article will explore public health during 1842 to 1865 by focusing on the work of Dr John Snow and the cholera outbreaks, Sir Edwin Chadwick's contribution to the Public Health Act, and Joseph Bazalgette's construction of the London sewer system. Part one will explore the factors that contributed to the Great Stink, such as overcrowding, the introduction of flushing toilets, cholera outbreaks and a call for public health reforms. Part two will analyse how Parliament handled the situation of the noxious smells from the River Thames through Bazalgette’s construction of the sewer systems. 

Investigations by Sir Edwin Chadwick 1842-1848

In 1842, social reformer Edwin Chadwick published a report for the Poor Law Commissioner entitled Report on the Sanitary Conditions of the Labouring Poor. This report provided statistical evidence that outlined the stark contrast in life expectancy determined by class and residency. Chadwick highlighted how life expectancy in large cities, like London, was dramatically lower than in rural areas.(1) Laborer occupations were the most at risk of early death compared to professional trades.(2) Chadwick’s report is now seen as a “monumental step toward accepting and dealing with social costs of economic progress”, but not at the time of publication.(3) However, in 1842 Chadwick discovered that disease and infection spread throughout all classes of society. The poor suffered the most because of their unsanitary living conditions. Chadwick’s finding caused unrest with politicians. His report opposed the popular view that an individual was poor because it was their fault. This attitude meant that change was slow throughout the nineteenth century.

Furthermore, Chadwick’s report highlighted that social welfare concerns could only be resolved through financial improvements and changes approved by government. Chadwick suggested that the financial implications for tenants and owners to ensure good drainage and clean water supply to their inhabitants would be “offset by the reduced cost of tending to the ill” in the future.(4) Other measures included improved drainage, removal of refuse from houses, streets and roads and placed in “moveable vessels”.(5) The idea here was to spend money to improve the living conditions to save money in the future, as the population would be healthier and less likely to need medical assistance. Chadwick suggested taxing households to contribute to the cleaning programmes but he misunderstood that many people struggled to afford necessities in everyday life.

Chadwick’s theory does have some credibility that by improving the living conditions in densely populated areas would reduce the spread of disease. At this point in history, the theory of miasmas was still widely believed and accepted as diseases caused by bad smells rather than bacteria and viruses. Despite medical and scientific beliefs as largely inaccurate to what caused disease, the measures that Chadwick was describing were credible ideas. For example, providing clean water supplies reduced the risk of contracting an illness, and removing rotten household food and other waste from the streets, housing and roads deterred the presence of rats and mice infiltrating densely populated areas.

Chadwick encountered much opposition from Parliament as the poor working-class created the wealth that many of the upper class experienced the benefits from exploited labor. Change in attitudes towards creating the first Public Health Act was not until 1848 after London suffered another deadly cholera outbreak, although this act did not require local medical officers to enforce or design cleaning programs to improve sanitation conditions.(6) Parliament passed the 1846 and 1848 Nuisances Removal and Diseases Prevention Act, including “filthy and unwholesome” buildings and houses, “foul and offensive ditch, gutter, privy, cesspool or ash pit”, and removal of refuse and waste.(7) This act closed old cesspits, which caused all new waste to flow into the River Thames, with open cesspits unable to handle the growth in population and new flushing toilets leaked sewage into water supplies into the river.

The 1848 Public Health Act enforced appropriate drainage and sewer systems that distributed waste into the River Thames. Many believed that sewage in the river would magically disappear. In reality, waste stagnated within the water, and Londoners continued to use this water to wash and drink. Many did not understand that the River Thames is a tidal river, where water levels are influenced by the tide, resulting in circulating waste.(8) In 1851 The Great Exhibition in London, showcased the newest and high-tech inventions on an international stage that illustrated Britain’s power and wealth.(9) One invention that proved popular was the flushing toilet and it was made available to the public after 1851. Like many of the inventions displayed at The Great Exhibition, the flushing toilet was only affordable by the wealthy upper classes. Many toilets flushed into old cesspits that were incapable of containing the amount of waste pumping through, causing overflowing waste into the Thames and drinking water.(10) Despite technological advances of the flushing toilet, London did not have a sewer system capable of handling this new technology. 

The cholera epidemic and Dr John Snow’s breakthrough

Another cholera outbreak, in 1854, erupted throughout London and raised concern around the living conditions in London’s most densely populated areas. Dr John Snow investigated the cause of the disease by analysing the water supplied from the River Thames and water supplied by wells and natural springs. London suffered three major cholera outbreaks, but in 1854 the outbreak was different in the poverty-stricken area of Broad Street, Soho near Golden Square. Snow decided to investigate the deaths from cholera by using a grid system and map of the local area to plot the radius of infections by contacting the residents and workers in the local area. Snow’s findings revealed that those who drank from the Broad Street pump, which filtered water directly from the River Thames, became severely ill with cholera. Snow documented his investigation noting, “all the deaths had taken place within a short distance of the pump” and suspected “some contamination of the water of the much-frequented pump in Broad Street”.(11) Snow examined the water from Broad Street and compared water samples from the river and wells. The results emphasized that water from the Thames had physical specks floating in the water that supported Snow’s thinking.(12)

Snow concluded that the water from the River Thames was contaminated and caused cholera outbreaks. In light of this discovery, Snow ordered officials to stop public use of the Broad Street pump. In doing so, Snow discovered that infection and mortality rates reduced rapidly and proved his theory. In October 1854, Snow investigated the water quality supplied by companies in Southwark and Vauxhall that pumped drinking water from the Thames and compared this to water provided by Lambeth water company, who pumped their water from a less polluted area in the Thames; Lambeth had a lower mortality rate in comparison to the Southwark and Vauxhall areas.(13) Of course, Snow’s understanding of science and disease was founded on the miasma theory, but his investigations disproved the miasma theory but he was unsure why or how as Germ theory was not discovered until 1861. Despite Snow’s investigation, many politicians were still adamant in their belief of bad smells as the cause of disease, and this attitude halted progress in improving public health.  

Solved one problem to cause another

The work of Snow and Chadwick progressed attitudes towards public health and improved living conditions for Londoners. But they could only do so much as many government officials were resistant to believing anything other than bad smells causing disease. The Public Health Act aimed to improve life in poverty-stricken areas but in reality, created overfilled cesspools that contaminated water supplies, turning London's iconic river into a vat of stench and disease. All these factors became culminated into the 1858 Great Stink and became a turning point in changing government policies towards public health and sanitation by constructing a sewer system that is still in use today. 

Part two will explore how the Great stink forced government officials to tackle London’s sewage and waste problem by commissioning Joseph Bazalgette to flush the River Thames and clean up London’s act.

Now read party 2 on the Great Stench and its aftermath here.

 1. The National Archives, Victorian Britain, The National Archives: Find Out More, undated <https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/victorianbritain/healthy/fom1.htm> [accessed 4 March 2022].

2. Ibid.

 3. I. Morley, ‘City chaos, contagion, Chadwick, and social justice’, Yale J Biol Med, vol. 80, (2007),p.61.  

 4. M. Williams, ‘Kingsley, Millar, Chadwick on Poverty and Epidemics’, 26 May 2020, The Victorian Web < https://victorianweb.org/science/health/williams1.html > [accessed 4 March 2022].

 5. Ibid. 

 6. Ibid.

  7. UK Parliament, ’Nuisances’, 2022, Uk Parliament <https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/towncountry/towns/tyne-and-wear-case-study/about-the-group/nuisances/nuisances/ > [accessed 4 March 2022]. 

 8. D.G, Hewitt, ’18 facts about the 1858 Great Stink of London’, History Collection, 3 June 2019 < https://historycollection.com/18-facts-about-the-1858-great-stink-of-london/ >[accessed 4 March 2022].  

 9. L. Picard, ‘The Great Exhibition’, The British Library, 14 Oct 2009 <https://www.bl.uk/victorian-britain/articles/the-great-exhibition> [accessed 4 March 2022].

 10. Hewitt, op.cit. 

 11. T.H. Tulchinsky, ‘John Snow, Cholera, the Broad Street Pump; Waterborne Diseases Then and Now’, Case Studies in Public Health, (2018), p.81.

 12. K, Tuthill, ‘John Snow and the Broad Street Pump’, UCLA, 2003 <https://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/snow/snowcricketarticle.html >[accessed 8  March 2022]. 

 13. Tulchinsky,op.cit,p.82.

Bibliography

Authority., ‘Cholera epidemics in Victorian London’, The Gazette, 2016 <https://www.thegazette.co.uk/all-notices/content/100519 >. 

BAUS.,‘A Brief History of The Flush Toilet: From Neolithic to modern times’, The British Association of Urological Surgeons, undated <https://www.baus.org.uk/museum/164/a_brief_history_of_the_flush_toilet >.

Bibby, M., ‘London’s Great Stink’, Historic UK, 2022 <https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Londons-Great-Stink/ >.

Hewitt, D.G.,’18 facts about the 1858 Great Stink of London’, History Collection, 3 June 2019 < https://historycollection.com/18-facts-about-the-1858-great-stink-of-london/ >. 

LSHTM., ‘Sir Edwin Chadwick 1800 – 1890’,  London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 2022 < https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/aboutus/introducing/history/frieze/sir-edwin-chadwick >.

Morley, I., ‘City chaos, contagion, Chadwick, and social justice’, Yale J Biol Med, vol. 80, no. 2, June, 2007,pp. 61-72. 

Picard, L., ‘The Great Exhibition’, The British Library, 14 Oct 2009 <https://www.bl.uk/victorian-britain/articles/the-great-exhibition>. 

Porter, D.H., ‘From Inconvenience to Pollution -- Redefining Sewage in The Victorian Age’, The Victorian Web, 1999 <https://victorianweb.org/technology/porter9.html >. 

The National Archives, Victorian Britain, The National Archives: Find Out More, undated <https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/victorianbritain/healthy/fom1.htm>.

Tulchinsky, T.H., ‘John Snow, Cholera, the Broad Street Pump; Waterborne Diseases Then and Now’, Case Studies in Public Health, 2018, pp. 77-99. 

Tuthill, K., ‘John Snow and the Broad Street Pump’, UCLA, 2003 <https://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/snow/snowcricketarticle.html >. 

Uk Parliament, ’Nuisances’, 2022, Uk Parliament <https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/towncountry/towns/tyne-and-wear-case-study/about-the-group/nuisances/nuisances/ >.

Williams, M., ‘Kingsley, Millar, Chadwick on Poverty and Epidemics’, 26 May 2020, The Victorian Web < https://victorianweb.org/science/health/williams1.html >. 

The 1665 Great Plague of London: Part 1 - The Stay at Home Orders

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 the first part, Victor Gamma looks at plagues in 17th century England and how people in London during the 1665 Great Plague endured quarantine.

A cart for transporting the dead in London during the 1665 Great Plague. Source: Wellcome Trust, available here.

From 1574 English law stated that members of a house containing a plague victim were not allowed, "to come abroad into any street, markete, shoppe, or open place of resort." If any one from an infected house needed to come out for any reason they were required to carry a white rod, at least two feet in length for all to see. At each outbreak of plague the College of Physicians met to formulate a plan of action. This would include written and published advice on managing a pandemic. This had taken place in the 1580s, 1630 and 1636. In April of 1665, knowing an epidemic was likely, the College of Physicians recommended a two-fold approach to containing the spread of plague: isolation in pesthouses or quarantine of infected persons in their homes. A pest or plague house was a structure used to forcibly quarantine infected individuals. One obvious measure was the isolation of infected individuals or those suspected of carrying the dreaded disease. The weak infrastructure and resources of the time made household quarantine a necessity. Some parishes, in fact, had only recently begun a serious effort to construct an adequate number of pesthouses. To illustrate the sluggish nature of plague response: in St. Martin’s a well was dug for a pesthouse on July 24, 1836, 4 months after the plague made its appearance.

1665 plague

The plague of 1665 was to dwarf the earlier plagues. There was no way to know this, of course, but to meet the looming crisis the College began regular meetings in May 1665 at the request of the Privy Council. The Council specifically enjoined the Physicians to review the previous advisory statements and add anything they deemed would improve the effectiveness in stopping the spread of this new outbreak. Within two weeks, on May 25 they had a “little book” of 44 pages published entitled “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.” The Physicians saw no reason to change the practice of shutting up infected people in their houses. The 1636 advice had read:

If any person shall have visited any man, knowne to be Infected of the Plague, or entered willingly into any knowne infected house, being not allowed: the house wherein he inhabiteth, shall be shut up for certaine dayes by the Examiners direction

This direction was given in spite of the fact that in 1630 the Privy Council had recommended pesthouses as a “better and more effectual course” to reduce the plague. In the Great Plague, the order to shut up all infected houses was ordered officially on July 1, 1665. The only way a person in an infected house could move legally was to go to another property they themselves owned or to a pesthouse. Once an infected house was identified it was to be “shut up” for forty days. Records indicate that this policy was quite unpopular and that residents attempted to avoid this fate as often as possible. 

The Privy Council handed its directives to the Lord Chief Justice, who in turn gave it to the magistrates. Attempts were made to keep the proceedings secret but word of mouth soon gave wings to the terrifying reality that another outbreak of the bubonic plague was at hand. Besides, a member of the Royal Society named John Graunt published a regular report of deaths in the city, called “Bills of Mortality.” For a subscription of four shillings a year anyone could read these and easily see that London was in the throes of a dreaded “visitation” - and this one promised to be worse than that which held the City in its grip just ten years earlier.  

Identifying the Sick

Once someone in a household died, the government sent out “searchers” to ascertain the cause of death. This would come in the form of an old woman. It was her job to report her findings to the parish clerk and especially to alert authorities if plague was present so that the house might be shut up. Usually old women who had no other means of support filled this occupation. This offered some hope to the victim’s family of not being labeled as infected of plague because these old women were notoriously unscientific in their methods. First, they had no real training in medical diagnosis. Typical opinions rendered by the searchers on cause of death included vague terms such as "frighted", "rising of the lights", or "suddenly."  Anyone at all elderly was most likely reported as dying of "age." To mitigate this problem, the government directed surgeons to assist the women with their work. The accuracy of reporting was undermined, though, by corruption. The women were quite susceptible to bribery. These women were invariably of the poorer classes and they were not likely to be fussy about the rules if their palms were warmed with silver. The reality was, they almost needed bribes to keep body and soul together. This hard fact outweighed the solemn oath they had taken to "faithfully, honestly, unfeignedly, and impartially" report the cause of death. If there was a danger of the searchers reporting an instance of plague, a few shillings or a bottle of gin would often suffice to persuade the woman to change her verdict. In spite of the reputation of the searchers, many families felt compelled to take any desperate measure which might avoid the living hell of home imprisonment. A family with a sick member would often attempt to disguise signs of plague as much as possible. For example, to mask the symptoms they might hold a piece of ice or a cloth soaked in cool water against the face of the deceased in hopes of hiding signs of inflammation.

Despite these efforts, thousands of houses were marked as infected or as “plague” houses. This would include everyone in the home, infected or not. The “clarke” or sexton of each parish was then directed to post a sign on the house which read “Lord Have Mercy Upon Us.” A large cross of one foot in length would be nailed or painted onto the front door. The twenty-day countdown to the end of the quarantine would commence either when all infected persons were cured or carried off dead. Families tried to reason with the magistrate that if, of the twenty people in the house, only one was sick - why should all be imprisoned within the walls? These pleas normally fell on deaf ears. If any member of that household appeared in public they would be liable to a jail term of forty days or a fine of £5 (some $1,100 in today's money). Many attempted to bribe the authorities or flee before the watchmen arrived.

Quarantine

Once marked, the inhabitants were now prisoners in their own home until the property was declared free from infection for at least twenty days. Unlike our own time, there would be no trips to the store to stock up on supplies and no ordering of delivery service. Far from it, for most people would avoid these houses at all costs. Word spread rapidly about which streets had “shut up” houses. Samuel Pepys noted in his diary that even when a distance from a shut up house he would sometimes be warned away: "...a gentleman walking by called to us to tell us that the house was shut up of the sickness. So we with great affright turned back, being holden to the gentlemen; and went away." Those people who were compelled to walk the street that contained plague houses would stay in the middle of the street to avoid infected persons and any odors emanating from the house, which were believed to carry plague. As a further incentive to keep people away, the law also stated that persons guilty of unauthorized entering of an infected house would have their own house shut up.   

Aware of the large number of attempted escapes, government directives were very specific about enforcement. The unpublished minutes of the Privy Council contained an order that “whosoever shall do the contrary shall be shutt up in the same house as in an infected house for soe long a time as the … Justices of the Peace shall (think) meete.” Watchmen were sent to guard the structure for the length of the quarantine. An armed guard would be posted outside the house with orders to prevent anyone from leaving. In the evening a night watchman would come to his relief. They would most likely be armed with a sharpened halberd. The watchmen were not to be merely guarding the house; they were instructed to give aid as needed, even at their own expense. Additionally, parishes did have systems in place to minister to needs of shut up houses. In practice, of course, this generosity did not always occur and the family would sometimes have to decide whether to starve or sell their few possessions. They would begin gathering up anything of value; cooking utensils, candles, items of furniture, even floor mats. These items would be handed through the window to the watchman. Before departing to sell the items, the watchman would go all around the house nailing up all doors and windows. Could the watchman be trusted? The answer too often came when he returned but a pittance for the few pitiful goods offered, claiming he was only able to sell the candles. Some attempted to trick the guards into leaving his post on some pretense. If the watchman were simple enough to be fooled, the inhabitants could break off the lock while he was gone, gather whatever items could be carried on the door or through some other means, and escape. To avoid that possibility, the guards placed padlocks and bolts on doors and shutters.

Now you can read part 2 on Plague houses and whether home quarantine was worth it here.