618
THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE.
superintending officer, who should be the sanitary
inspector of the place, an enormous secondary benefit
to the village might, without cost, be attained.
It is not by the single use of earth in the closets,
however, that those who have most experience think
that the most economical results can be obtained.
Mr. Moule, at Dorchester, and Mr. James, at Halton,
pass it through the closets two, three, four times, or
oftener, with the result of increasing its value each
time. Whatever may be the limit of this use of
earth, there is clear evidence that up to four times
using the efficiency of the earth is retained; and
there are these practical advantages in repeated use
of the earth, not only that smaller quantities are
more economically dealt with, but that, whereas with
single use a particular load may happen to be of
inferior value, with repeated use the whole is of
much more certain strength, and is on all accounts
more marketable. If in our village the earth be
passed four times through the closets, only a quarter
of the quantity will require to be brought from the
fields; so that, deducting the price of remainder
(£26 odd) from the cost of production, the annual
outlay will be only £244. The quantity of produce
is of course much less. It would amount, without
including the increment received from the closets, to
about 180 tons a year; or, including that increment,
to something like 200 tons a year. Now, concerning
the value of this more concentrated manure, there is
evidence that it commands, though not on a large
scale, a steady price of £3 a ton at Dorchester; and
as this is the value which Mr. James (from his
observations on its use in agriculture) puts on the
earth that has been once through the closets of
Halton, and which contractors at Dorchester put on
the matters removed after two uses from the grammar
school there, it is probable that this price may be
taken as representing the least agricultural value
of manure which has been used four times over.
Certainly there is as yet no prejudice in favour of
the manure that would lead farmers to give more for
it than they found it to be worth to them. And £3)
a ton for 200 tons would give to the authorities of
our community of 1,000 persons an income of £600
against an annual outlay of £244.

The fact appears to be that the whole agricultural
value of human excrement is retained under the dry
earth system, as defined in this report. That value
is variously estimated by chemists, but an average of
their statements would give above 10s. a year as the
value of each person's fæces and urine, or for our
1,000 persons over £500 a year. Reckoned in this
way, therefore, there is a certain correspondence with
the previous result, and certainly an ample profit
over the cost of the manure production. *

This, then, is the way in which it appears that

• I am not made doubtful about the correctness of the above
  estimates by the inferior commercial results which have been
  obtained at Lancaster. The unmarketable physical qualities of
  the product there made, and the loss of much of the urinary
  matters, conspire to lessen its agricultural value. I should,
  however, be a little puzzled by an estimate that comes from
  Rochdale, if I had not gained experience of the unpatriotic care-
  lessness of English farmers to their proper sedes paratas. In
  Rochdale, a system, not of earth conservancy, but of frequent
  collection of excrement mixed with fine ash and disinfectants,
  is in operation for a population which, though not exactly
  estimated, may be taken at about 5,000. It is claimed for this
  system that the whole manurial value is retained, and that the
  product is in a form handy for use as manure; yet the product
  realizes only about £13 10s. weekly, or £702 a year, about the
  amount which is above set down for the least value of the earth
  manure of only 2,000 people. [P.S. Feb., 1870.—I may now
  add that at Rochdale the manure is increasing in estimation,
  and that its makers expect to realize from it twice the amount
  per ton that they at present get. It should also be mentioned
  that, at present, much of the urine of the 5,000 inhabitants
  passes into the public urinals, and thence into the sewers, so
  as not to form part of the manure.]

the earth system may best be worked in the village
or small town. But it is susceptible of some modi-
fications. For instance, if it be desired to irri-
gate partially with the refuse of the inhabitants,
a part of the urine may be allowed to flow into
sewers, or it may be wished to use some of
the liquid refuse direct on cottage gardens; and,
of course, in such cases less manure (at less cost)
will be got from earth closets.* And there appears
no reason why an earth system should not be used in
certain parts of a town, and a water-closet system in
other parts. Especially, when one remembers what
a delicate machine the water closet is, the use of the
earth system may prove to be particularly useful for
the poorer parts.

The extension of this scheme beyond the village of
1,000 people to towns of any size appears to be
essentially a question of multiplication, with these
differences: on the one hand, an organization on a
large scale can commonly be had more cheaply than
one on a small scale, and in this way and by its compact-
ness, the town has the advantage over the village; on
the other hand, labour is dearer in towns, and towns
often have their closets so arranged that it is difficult,
without much cost to adapt them to the earth system,
and thus the village has advantage over the town.

Further, in towns, which must necessarily be supplied
with sewers for the purpose of drying the soil, and
for removing rainfall and house slops, the question
arises whether it may not be more advantageous
to throw all foul matters together into these sewers.

I do not propose to discuss the relative merits of a
water-closet system and of an earth-closet system;
this must depend upon a variety of considerations
proper to each particular place. In a locality where
sewage can be cheaply delivered upon suitably
situated land, where the amount of sewage dilution
is such as fits it for the particular crops that are
marketable, where the irrigable land is of such extent
and quality as effectually to remove the manurial
constituents of sewage, and to allow of the effluent
water passing off in sufficient purity; in short, where
sewage irrigation can be effected with profit to the
people and safety to the health of themselves and their
neighbours, I should anticipate a preference for a
system of water carriage for the excrement of the
place. But for the populations where these conditions
may not be attainable, or where experience may show
greater profit realizable from solid manure, I should
suppose that the earth system would find advocates
in preference to the water system; and it is impos-
sible to ignore the fact that many large English
towns do not regard the water-closet system as suited
to all their particular wants, nor irrigation as being a
remedy certainly suitable to their particular sewerage
difficulties. I refer, of course, to towns which,
although possessed of a system of sewers, neverthe-
less retain their excrement in middens or cesspools,
deliberately avoiding water closets as not affording
them the certainty of advantage which they need to
have before they enter upon expensive new construc-
tions. By the authorities of such towns the earth
system will especially deserve consideration, as pro-
mising them the means of making harmless their
retained excrement by a system readily, perhaps,
adaptable to their present privy construction, and
not involving in its introduction a new kind of diffi-
culty.

• I have assumed in the text the continued need, after the
  adoption of earth closets, for a complete system of drainage and
  sewerage for a town. The Rev. H. Moule, however, does not
  admit the necessity, and has suggested to me several ingenious
  ways in which slop and waste water may otherwise be got rid
  of. I have considered these schemes to be somewhat beyond the
  province of my report, and have been content to regard efficient
  drainage as remaining equally necessary for a town, however its
  excrement may be disposed of.