View report page

78
quarter of a century ago, the late Vestry made regulations with a view to secure the removal of the
refuse three times in each week, on alternate days; and on the whole, the work of clearance has
been effected of late years in a fairly satisfactory manner. Nuisance now arises most frequently
in connection with the removal of peat refuse. The County Council, appreciating the gravity of
the complaints on this score, made a new by-law in 1901, requiring removal of this description of
refuse under the conditions applicable to the removal of offensive matter generally. But
nuisance will not cease so long as peat refuse, on removal from stables, is placed in a fixed receptacle
from which it must needs be transferred to the carriage provided for its conveyance through the
streets. Intolerable stink arises in the turning over of the refuse, and the only remedy, long practised
in the borough, is by the immediate deposit of it in. the vehicle in which removal is to be effected.
I fear, however, that nuisance in connection with peat refuse will never be wholly prevented until
sanitary authorities shall have obtained power, and be required, to remove stable refuse at the cost
of the owner. In the (now repealed) Sanitary Act of 1866, power to do this, at their own cost, was
given to the sanitary authority, but only with the consent of the owner; and in many of these
reports the late Vestry were advised to undertake the duty. As the law now stands, the occupier
of any premises may "require" the sanitary authority to remove any trade refuse on payment
(Public Health Act, 1891, section 33); but the sanitary authority need only, "if they think fit,"
collect and remove "manure and other refuse matter from any stables . . . the occupiers of which
signify their consent in writing to such removal"—a consent which may be withdrawn or revoked
after one month's previous notice (section 36). The owner of such refuse cannot "require" the
sanitary authority to remove it,* nor is he under any obligation to pay for the removal; although,
doubtless, many occupiers of stables would willingly do so, and be quit of a troublesome responsibility,
and of liability to fine for non-compliance with the regulations.
GLANDERS.
A communication was received last year from the Council of the Borough ot St. Pancras,
asking the Council to support action they had taken by addressing a communication to the President
of the Board of Agriculture, requesting that a Departmental Committee might be appointed to
"investigate the subject" of Glanders, with the view of ascertaining the manner in which the disease
is communicated to people and animals, and also as to the best method of stamping out the disease.
This important subject—referred by the Council to the Public Health Committee,—was
brought to the attention of the St. Pancras Council by their Medical Officer of Health, who, in an
appendix to his report, furnished a Return of Glanders in the nine years, 1894-5 to 1902-3, supplied
to him by the chief officer of the Public Control Department of the London County Council.
The Return shows the distribution of Glanders in London from 1st April, 1894, to 31st
March, 1903, nine years, the number of cases recorded during that period being 10,582, an annual
average of 1,176 cases; the number ranging from 832 in 1898-9, to 1,857 in 1901-2. The
number in the Western District (which comprises the Boroughs of Kensington, Fulham and
Hammersmith), in the same nine years, was 892, an annual average of 99, the number
ranging from 53 in 1899-1900 to 155 in 1901-2. The cases recorded in Kensington were 131; an
annual average of 14.5; the number ranging from 6 in 1897-8 to 30 in 1894-5. The number
in 1902-3 was 10.
The Council complied with the request of the St. Pancras Council by addressing a
communication of like import to the Board of Agriculture. Nothing however came of the intervention,
the Board being "disposed to think that the information already available as to the mode
in which Glanders is communicated to men and animals, is sufficient to enable the disease to be
dealt with administratively under the Diseases of Animals Acts 1894 to 1903.''
This subject had a considerable interest for me owing to the facts that Glanders had proved
fatal to two residents of Kensington in 1879, and that the disease had seriously invaded the late
Vestry's stud in 1879-80. [References to these matters were set out in the 10th and 13th monthly
reports 1903, pp. 152 and 203.]
* It is open to question, however, whether the refuse of an omnibus yard or cab yard may not be deemed 'trade refuse'
which the occupier of the premises may 'require' the sanitary authority to remove on payment; certainly fish offal and the
offal from slaughter-houses comes within the definition 'trade refuse,' and it is surprising that fishmongers and butchers
should not have 'required' the sanitary authority to remove it.