Great Dust Heaps in the Kings Cross area sold to Russia: fact or urban myth?
On the first floor of the London Canal Museum is a description of Victorian recycling which ends with the words, ‘a huge dust heap was cleared in 1848 to build the (Kings Cross) station’. That seems clear enough but is that actually all there is to the story?
A quick on-line search confirms the existence of several large dust heaps and an intriguing connection with Charles Dickens’ novel Our Mutual Friend and his character Nicodemus Boffin, the Golden Dustman, who became extremely wealthy, inheriting his own dust heap on the death of his master, and thought to be modelled on the real-life dealer in waste, Henry Dodd.
However, by delving a little further, I came across statements, put forward in seemingly reputable contemporary accounts, such as that in P. J. Pink’s mighty History of Clerkenwell (1880), to the effect that the dust heaps were sold to the government of Russia to help the re-building of Moscow after the war of 1812 with Napoleon! Similarly, a syndicated article that appeared in the Fife Herald on 17 May 1837 states, ‘it is a well-known fact that the dust-heap that was wont to grace the top of Gray’s-Inn-Lane is now a competent part of the city of Moscow, to which it was exported as a material for brick-making after the conflagration of that city’.
Figure 1 – The illustration above is an 1873 watercolour painting by E.H. Dixon of a dust heap located next to Battle Bridge and the London Smallpox Hospital and Weston Place, viewed from Maiden Lane (now York Way). An inscription below the painting inserted by an unknown hand, much later than the date of the painting, refers to the Great Ash Heap being cleared in 1848 to assist in the re-building of Moscow, Russia.
Coming from an engineering background, I feel the need to gain an approximate understanding of the sort of quantities of materials we are talking about. I have made an attempt to calculate the quantity, based on the Dixon watercolour shown in Figure 1 above and using the people and perimeter fencing shown in the painting as a scale. This suggests that there might be as much as 200,000 cubic metres of rubbish contained within this particular heap. If we assume conservatively that sixty per cent of this was composed of ash and clinker, that would give a quantity of material to be shipped of 120,000 cubic metres, enough presumably to assist with the rebuilding of at least part of Moscow. If we then assume that the volume of cargo that could be accommodated on a canal barge was 80 cubic metres, it would require 1,500 journeys from Kings Cross to Limehouse Basin. Allowing, say, five barge loads per day, it would require the best part of a year to complete the clearance.
The sale to Russia, if true, seems extraordinary and has some relevance to the Museum, as moving the considerable volume of material concerned would, no doubt, have involved loading the material onto barges at the most convenient point, possibly Battlebridge Basin, shipment along the Regent’s Canal to Limehouse Basin, followed by transport by sea-going sailing vessels across the North Sea, to the Baltics, more or less the reverse of the journey made by the ice consignments from Norway to Carlo Gatti’s ice storage warehouse in what is now the London Canal Museum.
The story appears to have aroused the interest of several modern researchers which I found in a wonderful paper compiled by the British Brick Society (2017) titled, ‘London’s Dust Mountains’. Much of what follows has been gleaned from this document.
Much of the content of the dust heaps was ash and clinker from the fires that were needed in every domestic residence. These materials were used to make bricks, with the ash being mixed with clay, and the clinker used to keep the bricks separate and provide additional heat for the firing of the bricks. This material would, therefore, have been useful to anyone undertaking building work, even in a location as far away as Moscow.
Much of Moscow was destroyed by a fire in 1812, started by the Moscow police as part of a scorched earth policy to frustrate Napoleon’s forces sacking of the city. We also know that a ‘Commission on Moscow Construction’ was set up in 1813 to coordinate the re-building activity, a plan for which was completed by 1817. The commission was disbanded in 1842. We know that the chief planner for the re-building works was a Scottish architect called William Hastie, confirming a British connection.
Russia had raised a large loan against its sovereign debt in 1822 of £3,500,000. Some of that money could have been used to purchase the dust heap(s).
There was a slump in economic activity in Britain after 1825 leading to a drop in the demand for building materials, which might have encouraged the owner of the dust heap to look for a market elsewhere.
A sea route from London to Moscow was feasible, with ships sailing through the North Sea and into the Baltic to St. Petersburg, entering the river and lake waterways where barges could have taken materials into the heart of Moscow. This route would only have been possible during the summer months when the waterways were ice-free. The alternative route, heading south through the English Channel, through the Bay of Biscay to the Mediterranean, and entering the Black Sea to the sea of Azov, east of Crimea and then overland, via the River Volta to the Moscow River, can most probably be discounted due to the number of transhipments required.
As mentioned earlier, there were several dust heaps in the Kings Cross area. A huge dust heap, referred to as Smith’s dust heap, was located close to the junction of Gray’s Inn Road and New Road (now Euston Road). This was cleared in 1825/26 which would be consistent with the period of rebuilding in Moscow. Of this, Pink’s History of Clerkenwell states, ‘the corner of Gray’s Inn Road was covered in a mountain of filth and cinders, the accumulation of many years, and which afforded food for hundreds of pigs. The Russians bought the whole of the ash-heap, and shipped it to Moscow, for the purpose of re-building that city after it had been burned by the French’.
Another dust heap, that illustrated in Figure 1, was located close to the site of Kings Cross station and it would seem likely that its clearance would be necessary to make way for the construction of the station. An inscription below the painting inserted much later than the date of the painting, refers to the Great Ash Heap being cleared in 1848 to assist in the re-building of the city of Moscow, Russia. The date of clearance in 1848 would seem to be later than the period of rebuilding of Moscow. However, it is possible that rebuilding work continued following the disbanding of the Commission on Moscow Reconstruction in 1842. The date of clearance would be in line with the date of construction of Kings Cross railway station (1851-52).
An article in Slavic Review, ‘The Restoration of Moscow after 1812’ by A J Schmit (1981), makes no mention of the dust heaps being sold to Russia. It does, however, mention Catherine the Great’s ‘masonry city’ and the scarcity of building materials at the end of the 18th century.
Prior to the fire, except for some of the public buildings and churches, most of the buildings in Moscow were of timber construction. Soon after its inauguration in 1813, the Commission on Moscow Construction established brickworks and set about opening quarries. It seems likely that from the fire, it had plenty of ash to call upon, although it would seem likely that clinker was scarce, as the fuel used in domestic fires in Moscow would have been wood rather than coal.
Some buildings were reconstructed using brick construction, but many properties, both public and domestic, were reconstructed using split logs covered in plaster, both inside and out, to provide insulation against the harsh Russian winter and the heat of the summer.
To clear up this mystery, it ought to be possible to check the bills of lading or cargo manifests held by the Lloyds Register of Shipping. Unfortunately, it appears that such records are only available from 1837 onwards.
From the hard evidence provided above, it seems likely that one or more dust heaps did go to Moscow. However, unless further research on this subject is carried out to confirm the fate of the Kings Cross dust heaps, I am left with romantic dreams of the Golden Dustman flogging his dust to the Muscovites. But for those who like conspiracy theories, there is another possibility. The absence of a transparent audit trail appears to be reminiscent of money laundering, for which London appears to be Moscow’s (and the world’s) favourite laundromat.