View report page

114
the refuse would be of value sufficient to defray the cost of removal. Since the date of the aforementioned
report, the question was not again seriously entercained until 1901, when the Borough
Engineer, in a report dealing with the utilisation of the Council's land at Wood Lane,
adjoining the West London Railway at Shepherd's Bush, stated that—
' Great and increasing difficulty is experienced in getting btable manure regularly removed.
'On the one hand, sanitary officials are pressing and prosecuting for more frequent removal, and
on the other hand the occupiers of stables have the greatest difficulty in getting market gardeners
and others to send for the manure. Take the Council's case, relative to then- own stud of (about)
125 horses : a few years ago market gardeners were contracting to clear the manure regularly
twice a week and pay £100 per annum for it: now it costs the Council a small sum per annum
to get rid of the said manure, with a good deal of attendant bother to ensure regularity of
removal. Stable manure ahould, in my opinion, be regularly collected by the Council, and
should become their property, in the same way as tbe statutes deal with house refuse, and steps
should be taken to get the law amended accordingly.
' I am of opinion (he added) that under skilful and energetic management, the manurial
refuse collection and disposal could be made to yield considerable profit to the Borough, with
good results in the country districts absorbing the refuse.'
It was gratifying to me that an officer of such wide practical experience as the Borough Engineer
should thus corroborate the views expressed in these reports during the last quarter of a
century, and I hoped that our common, and independent, advice would have prevailed.
The report of the Special Committee dealing with the Wood-lane depot utilisation question
was to the following effect—
"In the report of the Borough Engineer of the 23rd September, 1901, allusion is made to the
increasing difficulty experienced by the owners of horses in getting stable manure regularly
removed, and a suggestion is put forward that such manure should be collected and
disposed of by the Council in a similar manner to that adopted in regard to house refuse.
"Under section 36 (1) of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, the Council are empowe ed to
remove manure from any stables and cow-houses within their district, the occupiers of
which signify their consent in writing to such removal, and the Borough Engineer suggests
that this law should be amended so that all stable manure shall become the property of the
local authority of the district, and be collected by them accordingly.
" With the merits of this question we do not propose to deal, but we consider that, as it will be
necessary for railway sidings to be constructed in connection with the general development
of the land, it is expedient that provision should be made for the necessary sidings which
would allow of the Council, should they think fit, at any time, in the future to do so, to
undertake the removal of manure from the stables in the Borough.
" We therefore recommend—
" ' That in the plans to be prepared for the utilisation of the depot, railway sidings be
included, at an estimated cost of £2,500.' "
The report was adopted by the Council.
The Borough Engineer in his report proclaimed the need of legislation to place stable refuse
in the same category as house refuse, both as regards the obligation to remove it, and as to property
rights in the collected matter. It may be useful, therefore, to recall the fact that the subject, in
these aspects, received special consideration in the annual reports for 1897 (p. 156) and 1898
(p. 142). Having regard to the practical uselessness of the enactment in the Public Health
(London) Act, 1891, section 36 (2), the Public Health Committee of the County Council, in 1897,
had caused a communication to be addressed to the Metropolitan Medical Officers of Health, in
which it was stated that they ' from time to time, received complaints of nuisance arising from
accumulations of manure at various premises in London.' Reference was made to the provisions of
section 36 ; but, finding that the sanitary authority had no power to charge, they were considering
whether, with a view to facilitating removal, it was desirable to seek an amendment of the section,
so as to give the said authority power to charge for the service, when required by the owner or the
occupier of any premises to remove the refuse ; similar to that which they now have under section 33
in respect to trade refuse. The enquiry addressed to me was, Whether I was in favour of such a
proposed amendment of the law ? In replying, I stated that, in reports during many years, I had
advocated the view that not only should the sanitary authority have power to remove accumulations
of manure, but also that, in the interests of public health, it should be made their statutory duty to
do so, and that they should be authorised to charge the owner of the refuse a reasonable sum for
the service.