London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972

View report page

Westminster 1857

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Westminster, The United Parishes of St. Margaret and St. John, Westminster]

This page requires JavaScript

9
co-operation from the Inhabitants, will tend to improve the
sanitary state of the District, while adding to the convenience
and comfort of the Public.
Street Watering.
9. The Board, being strongly impressed with the desirableness
of Street Watering during hot and dry weather, on sanitary
and economical grounds to the Inhabitants, as well as on those
of convenience to the Public, took advantage at the earliest opportunity
of the powers afforded by the " Metropolis Local Management
Act" to change the system of partial Watering formerly in
force, for one of general and thorough Watering throughout the
District: a change which the Board believes to be fully appreciated
by the Inhabitants.
The Board having found that, by entering into separate Contracts
for the supply of water and for the furnishing of horses,
carts, and labour, a considerable saving in this branch of the
public service could be effected, has entered into such separate
Contracts accordingly—the first by agreement with the Chelsea
Water Works Company, the latter by open public competition.
Sanitary Measnres, and Removal of Nuisances.
10. As the Act provides that the Reports of the Officer of
Health are to be annexed to this Report, the Board considers
it unnecessary to allude here to the matters reported upon by
him, but desires to draw particular attention to the Report itself.
By the "Smithfield Market Removal Act," 14 and 15 Victoria,
cap. 61, sec. 30; and the "Metropolis Local Management Act,"
sec. 131, the duty is imposed on the Board of showing cause, before
the Court of Quarter Sessions, against the grant of licenses to such
Slaughter-houses as, in the opinion of the Board, shall be unfit for
the purpose. The Board, in pursuance of such powers, having
received 45 notices of intended applications, determined to oppose
17, out of which number 16 were refused by the Court. In this
proceeding the Board incurred some considerable expense, as it
was necessary to oppose such applications at the Court of Quarter