View report page

75
"their consent in writing to such removal." The Committee of the Council are,
however, advised that the Sanitary Authority has no power to charge for this
service, and they are considering the question whether, with a view to facilitating
the removal of manure, it is desirable to seek an amendment of this section, so as
to give each Sanitary Authority posver to charge for the removal of manure, when
required by the owner or occupier of any premises to remove it, similiar to that
whioh it now has under Section 33 in respect of trade refuse, and have asked if the
Vestry would be in favour of such proposed amendment of the law.
The London County Council have been informed, in reply, that the Vestry of
Saint Pancras is in favour of power being given to Sanitary Authorities to charge
for the removal of manure, when required bv the owner or occupier of any premises
to remove it under Section 36 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, in &
similar manner to that provided for trade refuse under Section 33 of the same Act.
There is no difficulty in the removal of manure except about July and August,
when market gardeners and farmers are too busy to fetch it and do not want it, contractors
have their hands full and their vans and carts fully occupied, and railway
companies avoid taking it, although by law they are required to, because their
trucks and lines are already crowded. The manure then accumulates and gives rise
to nuisances, which Sanitary Authorities attempt to abate by bringing pressure
to bear upon the owners of the accumulated manure who are the occupiers of the
premises.
The occupiers find that, whereas during the rest of the year they could obtain
removal of their manure either at a profit or without cost, or at least at trifling cost,
during the months mentioned they cannot obtain the removal of their manure
except at considerably increased cost; and under the pressure of Sanitary
Authorities they turn round and endeavour to throw the onus upon these
Authorities of removing their manure.
It then becomes a question of weighing the advantages and disadvantages of
removing manure by public bodies rather than by private individuals. The question
of cost is the only one that makes a serious difference, and this resolves itself into
a question of whether it is or is not desirable that the whole community should pay
for the removal of the manure and other refuse of those who keep horses, donkeys,
or cows for trade purposes, or for their private enjoyment. Sewage, domestic
refuse, and road sweepings, the whole community help to produce more or less
equally and they are collected and removed at public expense, but with regard to
manure and trade refuse the whole community are not producers and those that
are producers are not so to an equal extent. It is therefore more equitable that
the removal of manure should be paid for by the owner and not by the community,
and the charge should include not only the cost of the contractor, but also the cost
of organising, supervision, and financing by the Sanitary Authority and its Officers.
The question is a serious one because it includes the omnibus companies' stables,
job masters' and livery stables, carrier companies' stables, railway companies'
stables, and the mews and stables of many large firms and businesses. Now it
happens that the nuisances are mainly caused by these large undertakings, and are
due directly to the disturbance of large masses of manure and litter, which in the
summer weather ferment in a few hours. If the masses of manure are not disturbed
little nuisance is complained of, and it is my custom to advise the large
Companies to make use of a movable receptacle on wheels, such as an old cart, for
the purpose of storing and removing the manure without disturbance, and it has