View report page

175
"The Nuisance Authority should have power and obligation to collect,
remove, and dispose of such refuse, and should receive reasonable compensation
for so doing. In any case the refuse should be collected daily,
and conveyed in properly constructed covered receptacles, or in vehicles
expressly adapted for the prevention of effluvium nuisance."
The report was forwarded to the several sanitary authorities
of the metropolis, and widely circulated, but without apparent
effect.
The subject was dealt with in 1884, by the law and
parliamentary committee in a report on "Sanitary, Nuisance
Removal, and other Cognate Acts." I had submitted that
"the power of the Vestry to require the periodical removal of
refuse matter . . . from premises" (under Section 53 of
the Sanitary Act, 1866) might extend to the case of other
refuse than stable refuse, etc., and to other premises than
mews, stables, etc.: e.g., to the refuse matters of the trades,
and on the premises, of fishmongers, poulterers, greengrocers,
etc. The committee thought it "possible that the section
might be wide enough" to enable your Vestry to deal with
the matter in the way suggested, and recommended that
"proceedings be taken to give practical effect to this opinion
but no action was taken.
To come to more recent times, I may remind your
Vestry that the subject was again raised in 1895, in connection
with my report to the sanitary committee (29th October) on
a communication from a fish and game dealer, who stated that
his contractor for the removal of trade refuse had intimated to
him that "he was forbidden to collect the refuse on Saturday
night," the consequence being that "the refuse would have to
remain on the premises from Saturday morning till Monday
morning, fermenting and poisoning the adjoining houses," as
well as his own: "a serious matter . . as during the game
season the offal is very objectionable." The difficulty in which