19 results
Index
- James G. Hanley
-
- Book:
- Healthy Boundaries
- Published by:
- Boydell & Brewer
- Published online:
- 07 May 2022
- Print publication:
- 01 June 2016, pp 253-257
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Frontmatter
- James G. Hanley
-
- Book:
- Healthy Boundaries
- Published by:
- Boydell & Brewer
- Published online:
- 07 May 2022
- Print publication:
- 01 June 2016, pp i-iv
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
2 - Private Benefit and Public Service: Paying for Sewers Before 1848
- James G. Hanley
-
- Book:
- Healthy Boundaries
- Published by:
- Boydell & Brewer
- Published online:
- 07 May 2022
- Print publication:
- 01 June 2016, pp 39-64
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
In the first half of the nineteenth century, utilities such as bridges, water supplies, and gas undertakings could all be privately owned; by mid-century about 90 percent of gas undertakings were privately owned, and only 10 out of 190 municipal corporations possessed their own water supply. Over the second half of the century, these services, at different times and to different degrees, were municipalized. Though it was by no means first in the field, the Birmingham council's takeover of its gas and water supplies in the 1870s caught the attention of contemporaries and historians, particularly once it became part of the narrative of the municipal gospel associated with Joseph Chamberlain's mayoralty. However, one utility that is usually absent from analyses of municipalization is the lowly sewer. In part, this absence makes sense. As far back as the sixteenth century, sewers were controlled by public bodies such as sewers commissions. By the end of the eighteenth century, there were approximately one hundred provincial sewers commissions across the country. Because of their public status, these commissions did not have to be municipalized, even though their constitutions and powers changed over time.
Yet the failure of sewers to find a place in the discussion of municipalization has, I suggest, led to a neglect of important problems and questions related to the provision and even the nature of this particular public good. The public provision of sewers is sometimes taken for granted in the literature on municipal provision. Private provision was, however, a real albeit infrequently chosen option for nineteenth-century towns. An analysis of why some towns first chose and then rejected it may tell us something about the nature of municipal provision.
Public sewer commissions also changed significantly over time. One of the most important of these changes involved rating. According to the Tudor Law of Sewers, parties could be forced to pay for sewers only if their property benefited from or avoided damage as a result of them. This law was still in force at the start of the nineteenth century, and sewer commissioners spent much time and energy attempting to avoid its consequences. A related but distinct change involved drainage areas.
Dedication
- James G. Hanley
-
- Book:
- Healthy Boundaries
- Published by:
- Boydell & Brewer
- Published online:
- 07 May 2022
- Print publication:
- 01 June 2016, pp v-vi
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Bibliography
- James G. Hanley
-
- Book:
- Healthy Boundaries
- Published by:
- Boydell & Brewer
- Published online:
- 07 May 2022
- Print publication:
- 01 June 2016, pp 229-252
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Notes
- James G. Hanley
-
- Book:
- Healthy Boundaries
- Published by:
- Boydell & Brewer
- Published online:
- 07 May 2022
- Print publication:
- 01 June 2016, pp 137-228
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Introduction
- James G. Hanley
-
- Book:
- Healthy Boundaries
- Published by:
- Boydell & Brewer
- Published online:
- 07 May 2022
- Print publication:
- 01 June 2016, pp 1-16
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
In 1815, the boundaries of health were very narrowly drawn, and property owners had little to fear from concerns about health. Individuals could not easily be forced to clean up their property, to pay for healthy infrastructure intended to benefit others, or to open their homes to sanitary inspection. By 1872, they could be forced to do all of these things, and many more. This book describes the evolution of the laws that permitted these developments in nineteenth-century England and Wales, and its argument may be simply stated. Between 1815 and 1872, local public servants and commissioners of one kind or another, using public health as their rationale, stimulated a threefold transformation in the nature of property, redefining its salubrity, liability, and sanctity. These changes displayed themselves in the creation of a statutory health hazard (chapter 1), in the minute control of private domestic arrangements (chapter 5), and most important, in a revolution in the financial responsibility for the health of others (chapters 2–4). Redefining the liability of property itself stimulated new and highly controversial ideas of community. Public health thus became an important, if contradictory, site in the creation of communities, enhancing the right to health for some while simultaneously restricting the privacy rights of others in the name of health. These transformations have been studied before, but not, I believe, in such a way as to highlight their common institutional and ideological roots, nor to highlight the way in which they build on recent changes in our understanding of the nature, locus, chronology, and legacy of early English and Welsh public health.
In the earliest and most conventional telling, the English public health movement dated from 1838 and was a story of bureaucratic and parliamentary initiatives, often under utilitarian inspiration. In that year, Edwin Chadwick, secretary to the Poor Law Commission and former secretary to Jeremy Bentham, ordered several pilot inquiries into the health of London's poor. These inquiries triggered a national study, the results of which Chadwick published in 1842 in his Report on the Sanitary Condition of the Labouring Population of Great Britain.
Contents
- James G. Hanley
-
- Book:
- Healthy Boundaries
- Published by:
- Boydell & Brewer
- Published online:
- 07 May 2022
- Print publication:
- 01 June 2016, pp vii-viii
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Acknowledgments
- James G. Hanley
-
- Book:
- Healthy Boundaries
- Published by:
- Boydell & Brewer
- Published online:
- 07 May 2022
- Print publication:
- 01 June 2016, pp ix-x
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
5 - Healthy Domesticity, 1848–72
- James G. Hanley
-
- Book:
- Healthy Boundaries
- Published by:
- Boydell & Brewer
- Published online:
- 07 May 2022
- Print publication:
- 01 June 2016, pp 111-131
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Previous chapters in this book have argued that local authorities actively and effectively used new or newly conceived concepts of the public's health to redefine healthy things, places, and properties. In this chapter, I explore the boundaries of healthy domesticity. I focus on quotidian practices of private rights, using the drainage of private property and the control of lodging houses as my examples. I choose these two examples because although in each case the state crossed a domestic threshold, it did so in different ways. Healthy drainage allowed the state into the home, as it were, shifting the boundary between the state and the individual, while healthy lodging houses drew a new if ill-defined boundary between individuals, demarcating those entitled to certain private rights from those not. Healthy boundaries were exclusive as well as inclusive.
I also choose these examples because they illustrate the different sorts of difficulties that the central and local state confronted in regulating aspects of domestic life. Active opposition in both cases was rooted in long-standing concerns over the sanctity of domestic arrangements and the rights of private property. But those anxieties were inflected by supplementary concerns. In the case of private drainage, opposition was exacerbated by the identification of house drainage as a private benefit. This fundamentally ideological identification was formalized for the first time in 1848. It structured and seriously limited the provision of house drainage for the entire nineteenth century, and it triggered, yet again, local debate about how the costs of delivering health to the poor were going to be distributed. Traditionally conceived private property rights also did not fully determine the boundaries of healthy lodging. The emergence of “common lodging houses” as the only houses with lodgers regulated at mid-century, and the form that regulation took, cannot be understood apart from an ideology of domesticity that simultaneously prohibited and permitted regulation, policing some domestic arrangements even as it protected others.
In the first three sections of this chapter, I focus on the history of private drainage. When looked at from a national perspective, this history is complex. Towns employed a wide variety of waste-management systems, from cesspits to dry conservancy to water carriage with water laid on or not, with each of these arrangements potentially inside or outside the house.
Abbreviations
- James G. Hanley
-
- Book:
- Healthy Boundaries
- Published by:
- Boydell & Brewer
- Published online:
- 07 May 2022
- Print publication:
- 01 June 2016, pp xi-xii
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
4 - The Benefits of Health: London, 1848–65
- James G. Hanley
-
- Book:
- Healthy Boundaries
- Published by:
- Boydell & Brewer
- Published online:
- 07 May 2022
- Print publication:
- 01 June 2016, pp 89-110
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
In order to build healthy infrastructure, Epsom's local board of health had to persevere through two defeats at quarter sessions, a hostile parliamentary select committee, and a hearing at Queen's Bench. Similar efforts in London were even more difficult. Aspects of this struggle, including the immense engineering and technical difficulties, are well known, and I do not intend to revisit them. My focus here is on the struggle to pay for them. I do not mean the political struggle of getting elected bodies to vote taxes; I mean the prior and in some ways more fundamental struggle to obtain the legal power to levy rates for metropolitan purposes or even for purposes beyond those benefiting individual properties. In the course of the effort to establish this power, various levels of London's government faced mass civil disobedience, powerful corporate adversaries, hostile metropolitan and parliamentary opinion, and skeptical judges.
Part of the problem in London was that there was no “London” on a map, apart from the City, and no administrative entity with oversight over the whole of it. There was no agreement even about where it ended. In 1840 the largest border belonged to the Metropolitan Police District, supervised by the Home Office, which spread out roughly fifteen miles from Charing Cross. In 1851, the Registrar General developed the much more compact metropolitan census district, but it was a statistical, not an administrative, entity. Even the metropolitan census district comprised parts of three counties (Middlesex, Kent, and Surrey), the City of London, forty-two Poor Law authorities, and more than sixty parishes, precincts, liberties, and extraparochial places. Within each of these boundaries, a wide variety of what the Webbs called statutory authorities for special purposes carried out a host of activities. From the perspective of this book, the most important statutory authorities were the ancient separate commissioners of sewers, sprawling over an ill-defined but large area of potential jurisdiction. But they made up only a fraction of the total; as Briggs notes, two hundred fifty local acts of Parliament controlled ten thousand commissioners of one or another kind in London.
This profusion of authorities, often exercising overlapping functions, was only partially reformed by the Whigs in the 1830s.
1 - The Laws of Nuisance Before 1846: Property, Health, and Democracy in the Age of Reform
- James G. Hanley
-
- Book:
- Healthy Boundaries
- Published by:
- Boydell & Brewer
- Published online:
- 07 May 2022
- Print publication:
- 01 June 2016, pp 17-38
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The following chapters make three principal claims. First, critical aspects of public health in nineteenth-century Britain, from the initial development of the health hazard to the liability of property for drainage, were driven as much by lay as professional people. Disease, especially epidemic disease, played a fundamental role, but the attempt to avoid disease was directed largely by local elites, only some of whom had medical training or relied on medical knowledge. Second, more important to these early developments than medicine was property. Public health and property were mutually constitutive, and the evolution of laws around public health cannot be understood apart from the concepts of property they were intended to inflect. A third claim is that we hear this healthproperty dialogue most clearly if we listen to local rather than central government actors, because local actors, including metropolitan actors, made many of the important decisions and forged many of the crucial concepts. Indeed, the central government was ambivalent about local experimentation.
The early development of the statutory health hazard is an example of this picture of public health. In 1846, Parliament created the first national statutory health hazard. The statutory health hazard remains one of the two limbs of British statutory nuisance law today. This law was passed in anticipation of a cholera epidemic and marked the third time Parliament or the central government responded to cholera by identifying a health hazard. Cholera was not the act's sole central inspiration, and passage of the law was also likely linked to a series of developments relating to the establishment of the early English public health movement. Foremost among these developments in the central government was Edwin Chadwick's inquiry (1839–42) into the sanitary condition of the laboring classes. In his Report on the Sanitary Condition of the Labouring Population of Great Britain, Chadwick argued that decaying animal and vegetable material was a primary cause of much surplus death, and these materials ended up being identified as health hazards.
In recent years, historians less inclined to take Chadwick's version of public health for granted have challenged this experiential and empirical account of the creation of the sanitary nuisance.
3 - The Boundaries of Health, 1848–70
- James G. Hanley
-
- Book:
- Healthy Boundaries
- Published by:
- Boydell & Brewer
- Published online:
- 07 May 2022
- Print publication:
- 01 June 2016, pp 65-88
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The previous chapter showed that the physical boundaries of drainage were increasingly controversial in both London and the provinces. In this chapter, I analyze boundary-making processes under the 1848 Public Health Act (PHA). I demonstrate that boundaries, for both opponents and supporters of the PHA, were not simply physical or administrative. They were simultaneously political, ideological, and financial, defining not only membership but responsibility and, more important, liability. In the course of boundary making, local PHA promoters and local boards of health developed a view of public health that amounted to a new view of community, integrating spatially, socially, and functionally distinct kinds of property into a common political and financial regime. In legal terms, this was controversial, but in contrast to the situation under the Tudor Law of Sewers, local promoters successfully persuaded the courts to expand the circle of liability. In this case, as in the creation of the statutory health hazard, public health activists changed the law of property's liability.
The PHA was one of several laws enacted in the first half of the nineteenth century that had significant boundary-making implications. The 1832 Reform Act, the 1834 New Poor Law, and the 1835 Municipal Reform Act also demanded spatial reorganization. These acts required some kind of physical boundary, often a novel one, for parliamentary constituencies, poor law unions, or municipal corporations. Boundary making was hardly the primary purpose of these acts, but it was inextricably linked to all of them. Parliament clearly recognized the importance and sensitivity of the matter, devoting significant parliamentary time to the discussion of boundaries and insisting for the 1832 and 1835 acts that it alone could establish or change them. As a result of these boundary-making exercises, spatial and hence political and financial relationships among the country's rural, urban, and suburban populations changed in highly significant ways.
It was, perhaps, predictable that boundaries emerged as a topic of parliamentary interest during the 1830s merely as a result of the growth of cities. Yet urban areas had experienced significant population growth for decades, and Parliament previously had discussed boundaries only infrequently. Rather, politics and especially parliamentary reform in 1832 drove the increasing parliamentary concern with boundaries.
![](http://static.cambridge.org/content/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:book:9781782047056/resource/name/9781782047056i.jpg)
Healthy Boundaries
- Property, Law, and Public Health in England and Wales, 1815–1872
- James G. Hanley
-
- Published by:
- Boydell & Brewer
- Published online:
- 07 May 2022
- Print publication:
- 01 June 2016
-
Argues that the legacies of Victorian public health in England and Wales were not just better health and cleaner cities but also new ideas of property, liability, and community.
Conclusion
- James G. Hanley
-
- Book:
- Healthy Boundaries
- Published by:
- Boydell & Brewer
- Published online:
- 07 May 2022
- Print publication:
- 01 June 2016, pp 132-136
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
One of the defining features of nineteenth-century urban development in Britain was the growth of public health. The centrality of public health to modern urban life derives from the effects it had on mortality rates, but these effects do not exhaust its significance. As I have argued in this book, among the most important legacies of the early English and Welsh public health movement were the redefinitions of property it promoted. I have framed these redefinitions as a series of boundary shifts between healthy and unhealthy things, between public and private services, between taxable and nontaxable property, between cities and suburbs, and last, between healthy and unhealthy domesticity. Parliament and the courts permitted or sanctioned all of these boundary shifts, but they were largely driven, I stress, by provincial and metropolitan local authorities of one sort or another.
This interpretation suggests a revision in our ongoing revaluation of local authorities in this period. Their current somewhat unfavorable reputation rests on the slow rate of change in urban death rates and the incremental progress made in building sanitary works. Although both observations are correct, they may not tell the full story. Public health measures may well have contributed to the decline of some infectious diseases, even if overall mortality did not decline. And the record of sanitary works, if taken as a metric for evaluation, needs cautious interpretation. We need to take stock not only of how many nuisances local authorities abated, how many privies they converted into water closets, or how many miles of sewer they laid but also of the fact that there was even a category of nuisance to abate, that they controlled private domestic arrangements in any way, and that they were able to build healthy infrastructure on a financially sustainable and more equitable basis than in the past. Each of these activities required some readjustment of the salubrity, sanctity, and liability of property. In some cases, decades of legal labor were necessary to achieve it. All of these legal accomplishments mattered. They set the stage for the more rapid growth of healthy cities during the last quarter of the century.
Contributors
-
- By Mitchell Aboulafia, Frederick Adams, Marilyn McCord Adams, Robert M. Adams, Laird Addis, James W. Allard, David Allison, William P. Alston, Karl Ameriks, C. Anthony Anderson, David Leech Anderson, Lanier Anderson, Roger Ariew, David Armstrong, Denis G. Arnold, E. J. Ashworth, Margaret Atherton, Robin Attfield, Bruce Aune, Edward Wilson Averill, Jody Azzouni, Kent Bach, Andrew Bailey, Lynne Rudder Baker, Thomas R. Baldwin, Jon Barwise, George Bealer, William Bechtel, Lawrence C. Becker, Mark A. Bedau, Ernst Behler, José A. Benardete, Ermanno Bencivenga, Jan Berg, Michael Bergmann, Robert L. Bernasconi, Sven Bernecker, Bernard Berofsky, Rod Bertolet, Charles J. Beyer, Christian Beyer, Joseph Bien, Joseph Bien, Peg Birmingham, Ivan Boh, James Bohman, Daniel Bonevac, Laurence BonJour, William J. Bouwsma, Raymond D. Bradley, Myles Brand, Richard B. Brandt, Michael E. Bratman, Stephen E. Braude, Daniel Breazeale, Angela Breitenbach, Jason Bridges, David O. Brink, Gordon G. Brittan, Justin Broackes, Dan W. Brock, Aaron Bronfman, Jeffrey E. Brower, Bartosz Brozek, Anthony Brueckner, Jeffrey Bub, Lara Buchak, Otavio Bueno, Ann E. Bumpus, Robert W. Burch, John Burgess, Arthur W. Burks, Panayot Butchvarov, Robert E. Butts, Marina Bykova, Patrick Byrne, David Carr, Noël Carroll, Edward S. Casey, Victor Caston, Victor Caston, Albert Casullo, Robert L. Causey, Alan K. L. Chan, Ruth Chang, Deen K. Chatterjee, Andrew Chignell, Roderick M. Chisholm, Kelly J. Clark, E. J. Coffman, Robin Collins, Brian P. Copenhaver, John Corcoran, John Cottingham, Roger Crisp, Frederick J. Crosson, Antonio S. Cua, Phillip D. Cummins, Martin Curd, Adam Cureton, Andrew Cutrofello, Stephen Darwall, Paul Sheldon Davies, Wayne A. Davis, Timothy Joseph Day, Claudio de Almeida, Mario De Caro, Mario De Caro, John Deigh, C. F. Delaney, Daniel C. Dennett, Michael R. DePaul, Michael Detlefsen, Daniel Trent Devereux, Philip E. Devine, John M. Dillon, Martin C. Dillon, Robert DiSalle, Mary Domski, Alan Donagan, Paul Draper, Fred Dretske, Mircea Dumitru, Wilhelm Dupré, Gerald Dworkin, John Earman, Ellery Eells, Catherine Z. Elgin, Berent Enç, Ronald P. Endicott, Edward Erwin, John Etchemendy, C. Stephen Evans, Susan L. Feagin, Solomon Feferman, Richard Feldman, Arthur Fine, Maurice A. Finocchiaro, William FitzPatrick, Richard E. Flathman, Gvozden Flego, Richard Foley, Graeme Forbes, Rainer Forst, Malcolm R. Forster, Daniel Fouke, Patrick Francken, Samuel Freeman, Elizabeth Fricker, Miranda Fricker, Michael Friedman, Michael Fuerstein, Richard A. Fumerton, Alan Gabbey, Pieranna Garavaso, Daniel Garber, Jorge L. A. Garcia, Robert K. Garcia, Don Garrett, Philip Gasper, Gerald Gaus, Berys Gaut, Bernard Gert, Roger F. Gibson, Cody Gilmore, Carl Ginet, Alan H. Goldman, Alvin I. Goldman, Alfonso Gömez-Lobo, Lenn E. Goodman, Robert M. Gordon, Stefan Gosepath, Jorge J. E. Gracia, Daniel W. Graham, George A. Graham, Peter J. Graham, Richard E. Grandy, I. Grattan-Guinness, John Greco, Philip T. Grier, Nicholas Griffin, Nicholas Griffin, David A. Griffiths, Paul J. Griffiths, Stephen R. Grimm, Charles L. Griswold, Charles B. Guignon, Pete A. Y. Gunter, Dimitri Gutas, Gary Gutting, Paul Guyer, Kwame Gyekye, Oscar A. Haac, Raul Hakli, Raul Hakli, Michael Hallett, Edward C. Halper, Jean Hampton, R. James Hankinson, K. R. Hanley, Russell Hardin, Robert M. Harnish, William Harper, David Harrah, Kevin Hart, Ali Hasan, William Hasker, John Haugeland, Roger Hausheer, William Heald, Peter Heath, Richard Heck, John F. Heil, Vincent F. Hendricks, Stephen Hetherington, Francis Heylighen, Kathleen Marie Higgins, Risto Hilpinen, Harold T. Hodes, Joshua Hoffman, Alan Holland, Robert L. Holmes, Richard Holton, Brad W. Hooker, Terence E. Horgan, Tamara Horowitz, Paul Horwich, Vittorio Hösle, Paul Hoβfeld, Daniel Howard-Snyder, Frances Howard-Snyder, Anne Hudson, Deal W. Hudson, Carl A. Huffman, David L. Hull, Patricia Huntington, Thomas Hurka, Paul Hurley, Rosalind Hursthouse, Guillermo Hurtado, Ronald E. Hustwit, Sarah Hutton, Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa, Harry A. Ide, David Ingram, Philip J. Ivanhoe, Alfred L. Ivry, Frank Jackson, Dale Jacquette, Joseph Jedwab, Richard Jeffrey, David Alan Johnson, Edward Johnson, Mark D. Jordan, Richard Joyce, Hwa Yol Jung, Robert Hillary Kane, Tomis Kapitan, Jacquelyn Ann K. Kegley, James A. Keller, Ralph Kennedy, Sergei Khoruzhii, Jaegwon Kim, Yersu Kim, Nathan L. King, Patricia Kitcher, Peter D. Klein, E. D. Klemke, Virginia Klenk, George L. Kline, Christian Klotz, Simo Knuuttila, Joseph J. Kockelmans, Konstantin Kolenda, Sebastian Tomasz Kołodziejczyk, Isaac Kramnick, Richard Kraut, Fred Kroon, Manfred Kuehn, Steven T. Kuhn, Henry E. Kyburg, John Lachs, Jennifer Lackey, Stephen E. Lahey, Andrea Lavazza, Thomas H. Leahey, Joo Heung Lee, Keith Lehrer, Dorothy Leland, Noah M. Lemos, Ernest LePore, Sarah-Jane Leslie, Isaac Levi, Andrew Levine, Alan E. Lewis, Daniel E. Little, Shu-hsien Liu, Shu-hsien Liu, Alan K. L. Chan, Brian Loar, Lawrence B. Lombard, John Longeway, Dominic McIver Lopes, Michael J. Loux, E. J. Lowe, Steven Luper, Eugene C. Luschei, William G. Lycan, David Lyons, David Macarthur, Danielle Macbeth, Scott MacDonald, Jacob L. Mackey, Louis H. Mackey, Penelope Mackie, Edward H. Madden, Penelope Maddy, G. B. Madison, Bernd Magnus, Pekka Mäkelä, Rudolf A. Makkreel, David Manley, William E. Mann (W.E.M.), Vladimir Marchenkov, Peter Markie, Jean-Pierre Marquis, Ausonio Marras, Mike W. Martin, A. P. Martinich, William L. McBride, David McCabe, Storrs McCall, Hugh J. McCann, Robert N. McCauley, John J. McDermott, Sarah McGrath, Ralph McInerny, Daniel J. McKaughan, Thomas McKay, Michael McKinsey, Brian P. McLaughlin, Ernan McMullin, Anthonie Meijers, Jack W. Meiland, William Jason Melanson, Alfred R. Mele, Joseph R. Mendola, Christopher Menzel, Michael J. Meyer, Christian B. Miller, David W. Miller, Peter Millican, Robert N. Minor, Phillip Mitsis, James A. Montmarquet, Michael S. Moore, Tim Moore, Benjamin Morison, Donald R. Morrison, Stephen J. Morse, Paul K. Moser, Alexander P. D. Mourelatos, Ian Mueller, James Bernard Murphy, Mark C. Murphy, Steven Nadler, Jan Narveson, Alan Nelson, Jerome Neu, Samuel Newlands, Kai Nielsen, Ilkka Niiniluoto, Carlos G. Noreña, Calvin G. Normore, David Fate Norton, Nikolaj Nottelmann, Donald Nute, David S. Oderberg, Steve Odin, Michael O’Rourke, Willard G. Oxtoby, Heinz Paetzold, George S. Pappas, Anthony J. Parel, Lydia Patton, R. P. Peerenboom, Francis Jeffry Pelletier, Adriaan T. Peperzak, Derk Pereboom, Jaroslav Peregrin, Glen Pettigrove, Philip Pettit, Edmund L. Pincoffs, Andrew Pinsent, Robert B. Pippin, Alvin Plantinga, Louis P. Pojman, Richard H. Popkin, John F. Post, Carl J. Posy, William J. Prior, Richard Purtill, Michael Quante, Philip L. Quinn, Philip L. Quinn, Elizabeth S. Radcliffe, Diana Raffman, Gerard Raulet, Stephen L. Read, Andrews Reath, Andrew Reisner, Nicholas Rescher, Henry S. Richardson, Robert C. Richardson, Thomas Ricketts, Wayne D. Riggs, Mark Roberts, Robert C. Roberts, Luke Robinson, Alexander Rosenberg, Gary Rosenkranz, Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal, Adina L. Roskies, William L. Rowe, T. M. Rudavsky, Michael Ruse, Bruce Russell, Lilly-Marlene Russow, Dan Ryder, R. M. Sainsbury, Joseph Salerno, Nathan Salmon, Wesley C. Salmon, Constantine Sandis, David H. Sanford, Marco Santambrogio, David Sapire, Ruth A. Saunders, Geoffrey Sayre-McCord, Charles Sayward, James P. Scanlan, Richard Schacht, Tamar Schapiro, Frederick F. Schmitt, Jerome B. Schneewind, Calvin O. Schrag, Alan D. Schrift, George F. Schumm, Jean-Loup Seban, David N. Sedley, Kenneth Seeskin, Krister Segerberg, Charlene Haddock Seigfried, Dennis M. Senchuk, James F. Sennett, William Lad Sessions, Stewart Shapiro, Tommie Shelby, Donald W. Sherburne, Christopher Shields, Roger A. Shiner, Sydney Shoemaker, Robert K. Shope, Kwong-loi Shun, Wilfried Sieg, A. John Simmons, Robert L. Simon, Marcus G. Singer, Georgette Sinkler, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Matti T. Sintonen, Lawrence Sklar, Brian Skyrms, Robert C. Sleigh, Michael Anthony Slote, Hans Sluga, Barry Smith, Michael Smith, Robin Smith, Robert Sokolowski, Robert C. Solomon, Marta Soniewicka, Philip Soper, Ernest Sosa, Nicholas Southwood, Paul Vincent Spade, T. L. S. Sprigge, Eric O. Springsted, George J. Stack, Rebecca Stangl, Jason Stanley, Florian Steinberger, Sören Stenlund, Christopher Stephens, James P. Sterba, Josef Stern, Matthias Steup, M. A. Stewart, Leopold Stubenberg, Edith Dudley Sulla, Frederick Suppe, Jere Paul Surber, David George Sussman, Sigrún Svavarsdóttir, Zeno G. Swijtink, Richard Swinburne, Charles C. Taliaferro, Robert B. Talisse, John Tasioulas, Paul Teller, Larry S. Temkin, Mark Textor, H. S. Thayer, Peter Thielke, Alan Thomas, Amie L. Thomasson, Katherine Thomson-Jones, Joshua C. Thurow, Vzalerie Tiberius, Terrence N. Tice, Paul Tidman, Mark C. Timmons, William Tolhurst, James E. Tomberlin, Rosemarie Tong, Lawrence Torcello, Kelly Trogdon, J. D. Trout, Robert E. Tully, Raimo Tuomela, John Turri, Martin M. Tweedale, Thomas Uebel, Jennifer Uleman, James Van Cleve, Harry van der Linden, Peter van Inwagen, Bryan W. Van Norden, René van Woudenberg, Donald Phillip Verene, Samantha Vice, Thomas Vinci, Donald Wayne Viney, Barbara Von Eckardt, Peter B. M. Vranas, Steven J. Wagner, William J. Wainwright, Paul E. Walker, Robert E. Wall, Craig Walton, Douglas Walton, Eric Watkins, Richard A. Watson, Michael V. Wedin, Rudolph H. Weingartner, Paul Weirich, Paul J. Weithman, Carl Wellman, Howard Wettstein, Samuel C. Wheeler, Stephen A. White, Jennifer Whiting, Edward R. Wierenga, Michael Williams, Fred Wilson, W. Kent Wilson, Kenneth P. Winkler, John F. Wippel, Jan Woleński, Allan B. Wolter, Nicholas P. Wolterstorff, Rega Wood, W. Jay Wood, Paul Woodruff, Alison Wylie, Gideon Yaffe, Takashi Yagisawa, Yutaka Yamamoto, Keith E. Yandell, Xiaomei Yang, Dean Zimmerman, Günter Zoller, Catherine Zuckert, Michael Zuckert, Jack A. Zupko (J.A.Z.)
- Edited by Robert Audi, University of Notre Dame, Indiana
-
- Book:
- The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy
- Published online:
- 05 August 2015
- Print publication:
- 27 April 2015, pp ix-xxx
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Health-Related Quality of Life after Intensive Care Unit Discharge: A Comparison between 2 Standard Antibiotic Regimens
- Mamoon A. Aldeyab, Mary P. Kearney, Michael G. Scott, Joanne Hanley, James C. McElnay
-
- Journal:
- Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology / Volume 30 / Issue 8 / August 2009
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 02 January 2015, pp. 807-808
- Print publication:
- August 2009
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
The metropolitan commissioners of sewers and the law, 1812–1847
- JAMES G. HANLEY
-
- Journal:
- Urban History / Volume 33 / Issue 3 / December 2006
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 02 January 2007, pp. 350-368
- Print publication:
- December 2006
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
This article explores the statutory limitations faced by the metropolitan commissioners of sewers. It is largely based on an analysis of judicial decisions in cases involving the commissioners and their taxation policy from 1812 to 1845. It argues that the commissioners pursued a potentially radical agenda for sewers financing and taxation, but that their agenda was resisted by ratepayers and thwarted by a generally though not completely hostile judiciary. This article thus contributes to the ongoing revaluation of the metropolitan commissioners of sewers and illustrates the constructed nature of statutory limitation.
![](/core/cambridge-core/public/images/lazy-loader.gif)