View report page

77
So much for the history of the question. With regard to the circular letter (1903) of the
County Council, it only remains to say that the reply of the Borough Council was to the effect that
in their opinion "it should not be made obligatory upon the Sanitary Authority to remove trade
refuse of an offensive or obnoxious nature, but that the power to remove such refuse should be of a
permissive character, and should be subject to the provision as to payment contained in the fourth
clause, and, further, that the provision as regards the Sanitary Authority undertaking the cleansing
of receptacles should be expunged from the clause."
[Since the foregoing observations were written, a further communication (15th April, 1904)
has been received from the County Council intimating that "a number of the sanitary authorities
were opposed to the proposal (a) that it should be their duty to collect offensive trade refuse"; and
that" with a view to meeting their objection the clauses (printed above) had been redrafted, so as to
enable, but not to compel, sanitary authorities to undertake such collection." "With regard to
manure (it was further stated that) the Council was advised that a clause to give effect" to the
resolution (a) "would more properly be in the nature of an amendment of the Public Health
(London) Act, 1891, and the matter had therefore been noted for consideration in connection with
general amendments of that Act."]
This subject had engaged the attention of the Sanitary Committee of the late Vestry on
my recommendations; but without effect until 1892, when they reported that" in
considering general matters bearing upon the sanitary administration of the parish, they had
been led to discuss the question as to the difficulty experienced in securing the periodical
removal of manure and filth from stables and mews, and were of opinion that the time had arrived
when the Vestry should, on sanitary grounds, undertake such removal." The Committee recommended
a reference to the Wharves and Plant Committee, "to consider and report as to the practicability
of a scheme being adopted for this work to be undertaken by the Vestry." The reference
was made, and the Committee reported "that the expense of any scheme to give effect to the
collection and removal of the manure from the mews, would be so great as to render the proposal at
the present time impracticable," but the Sanitary Committee had not contemplated removal at the
public expense, having relied on the willingness of the occupiers of stables to pay (as in the case
of trade refuse) a reasonable sum for such removal. The report was adopted by the Vestry.*
In a special report dealing with the question of the utilization of the Council's depot at Wood Lane,
Shepherd's Bush, the Borough Engineer, in 1901, referred to the "great and increasing difficulty in
getting stable manure regularly removed," and expressed the opinion that "under skilful and energetic
management the manurial and refuse collection and disposal could be made to yield considerable
profit to the Borough." The special committee then dealing with the Wood Lane dept
question, after consideration of the Borough Engineer's report, did not endorse the recommendation
that "stable manure should be collected by the Council . . . and that steps should be taken to
get the law amended accordingly"; but, as it would be "necessary for railway sidings to be
constructed in connection with the general development of the land," they deemed it 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." They accordingly recommended "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.
Nuisance from Stable Refuse.—The subject of nuisance from offensive collections, or
delay in removal, of stable refuse, has found a place in these reports for nearly 30 years. Until
within a comparatively recent date, the principal cause of nuisance was the sunken dung-pits, now,
generally displaced by the iron cage-receptacles† recommended by me in 1875. More than a
* The subject was not new to the Vestry; for, apart from my reports, it had been considered in 1886 upon a report of the
Law and Parliamentary Committee on 'Sanitary, Nuisances-Removal and other Cognate Acts.' The Committee, whilst
recognising 'the necessity for making proper arrangements for the removal of manure and other refuse matter,' stated that
'the vestry had not depot accommodation or staff or plant adequate to cope with so large a work,' as I had recommended.
For this reason they considered that the Vestry was not then 'in a position to contract generally for the removal of manure and
other refuse matter.' In 1892 the circumstances were different, the Vestry not only having staff and plant, but also a depot, at
Purfleet, to which refuse could have been conveyed from the river and canal-side wharves, and where, doubtless, a market
would have been found for its use on the stiff clay lands in the vicinity. The depot has since been sold.
† About 1,600 stables in the Borough have been provided with these iron cage receptacles; whilst upwards of 700 brick
receptacles above ground, and nearly 600 sunken pits have been abolished in the mews, which are not far short of 200 in number.