View report page

81
promote legislation to give the desired powers. Constant service, advocated in the Annual Report
for 1872, is now universally given. Strenuous efforts were made to deprive the Companies of their
power to cut-off the supply to an inhabited house, the Vestry's contention being that they should be
left to their remedy, as traders, to recover payment of the rate as a debt; or should exercise their
power to require payment in advance. Cutting.off was a frequent practice, houses being left
without water, often for lengthened periods, without the knowledge of the sanitary authority.
The Vestry, in 1882, urged that the Companies should be required to give notice of the cutting.off,
and such notice is now given, having been made compulsory by Section 49 of the Public Health
(London) Act, 1891, under a heavy fine for default. The Vestry petitioned in favour of Mr. (now
Sir) Forrest Fulton's Bill, Water Companies (Regulation of Powers), which became law in 1887,
and prohibits the cutting.off of the water of houses inhabited by persons who pay for supply in
rent. The Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes, in their report (1885) had
recommended that the Companies be deprived of their summary power to cut.off the water supply,
their attention having been called to the matter by the Vestry, on the occurrence of a striking
example of the misuse of this power, whereby eighty persons living in a mews, were deprived of
water, the landlord having failed to pay the rate. Cutting.off powers are seldom exercised now,
and some of the Companies have generally ceased to exercise them ; notably the East London
Water Company.
Licensed, Slaughter Houses.—The fifty.fifth section of the Metropolitan Buildings Act, 1844,
made provision for the abolition, in 1874, of private slaughter.houses in London. These establishments
were numerous in 1873, and were admittedly unsatisfactory in nearly every respect; but no
provision had been made of public abattoirs to take their place. In Kensington, out of 48 slaughter
houses, only one had been built for the purposes of the business. In 1873 a Select Committee of the
House of Commons, appointed to consider the subject of "noxious businesses "generally, reported that,
subject to proper regulations, the slaughter.houses might be allowed to continue. In view of
probable legislation, I had read a paper before the Society of Medical Officers of Health (March 21st,
1874), on " Private Slaughter Houses considered with reference to the report of the Select Committee
on Noxious Businesses," in which I specified the requirements essential to a sanitary slaughterhouse
; indicated the conditions necessary to be enforced by bye.laws; predicted that suitable
regulations would lead to the closing of many of the existing premises, and insisted on the necessity
for a heavy and irreducible penalty for breach of the regulations. The Slaughter Houses (Metropolis)
Bill was introduced in the House of Commons towards the end of the Session (1874), but failed to
excite interest: there was, practically, no discussion on it; and, to use a common expression, the
Bill was "rushed" through the House. The Vestry, almost alone, took steps to obtain amendments
to the Bill, in the Upper House—not without a measure of success. The Metropolitan Board of
Works, the constituted Local Authority for carrying out the Act, subsequently framed regulations,
practically embodying the conditions the Vestry had previously adopted as suitable to be enforced
by the Justices, the then licensing authority. The regulations, however, were by no means perfect:
no provision was made for separate lairage, nor for an entrance to the slaughter.house independent
of the dwelling.house or shop. The Vestry contended successfully for these and other points before
the Justices, and the Local Authority subsequently adopted their views. In 1875 I made proposals
for amendment of the bye.laws, which were approved by the Society of Medical Officers of Health ;
and in 1891 a new and improved code was framed by the Local Authority, the County Council.
The main defect of the Act was, that it ignored the sanitary authorities, whose medical officers of
health and sanitary inspectors should have been mode available for the purposes of inspection and
supervision. Such inspection and supervision were maintained in Kensington, although the Vestry
had no statutory authority, excepting such as was indirectly derived from power to oppose the
renewal of the annual licence of the premises. The granting of the licence was transferred in 1889
to the County Council. In 1898 the Public Health Committee of the County Council made a
strenuous effort to obtain the substitution of a limited number of public abattoirs for the private
slaughter.houses. But the influence of the Butchers' Trade Protection Society, so efficiently
exercised before the Select Committee in 1874, again proved too strong, and the question was
shelved by the Council. London in sanitary matters generally lags behind the great provincial
towns! As foretold in 1874, the enforcement of the regulations led to a great reduction in the
number of licensed premises. In 1874 some 1,500 were licensed, in 1900 only 397; in Kensington
59 were licensed in 1869, and 48 in 1873; now there are only 13 slaughter.houses; and the
business has not been established anew since 1874. The Act of that year was superseded by the
Public Health (London) Act, 1891. The London Government Act of 1899 endows the Borough
Council with authority to inspect the premises, and enforce the bye.laws.
Licensed Cow.Houses, Dairies, &c.—In 1875 I called attention to the cow.houses and dairies,
in a paper read before the Society of Medical Officers of Health. I urged the necessity, in the
interests of public health, of regulating the structure of the premises and the conduct of the
businesses by bye.laws uniform for the Metropolis, and submitted a draft code of bye.laws.
Legislation was shown to be necessary, and it was recommended that the Metropolitan Board of
Works should be the "Local Authority" for the purpose of making bye.laws uniform for the whole
of London; but that the duty of supervision should devolve upon the local sanitary authorities.
The proposed code, with slight modifications, was adopted, and published by the Society as "Model