View report page

London County Council
Public Health Department,
Spring Gardens,
22nd October, 1894.
Report by the Medical Officer submitting Summary of Reports by Dr. Young on
the collection and disposal of house refuse by London Sanitary Authorities.
(Ordered by the Public Health, &c., Committee to be printed.)
During the month of December, 1893, and succeeding months of the present year, Dr. Young
made enquiries concerning the collection and disposal of house refuse in the several districts of the county
of London. As the enquiry in respect of each district was completed, Dr. Young's report thereon was
presented to the Public Health Sub-Committee, and in particular instances communications were
addressed to the sanitary authorities concerned. The Committee have now instructed me to present to
them in a condensed form the results of Dr. Young's investigations, and the summary appended has
therefore been prepared by him for this purpose.
Considering first the collection of house refuse, Dr. Young found that of the 42 sanitary districts
in London, excluding the City, the collection was effected in 25 by the sanitary authority without the
intervention of a contractor, in 14 instances contractors were employed, and in 3 the collection was
made in some parts by a contractor, in other parts by the authorities themselves.
Dr. Young's report shows that the system adopted in connection with the removal of
house refuse differs in the several districts. The claim is usually made that this refuse is
removed at least once a week from all premises, but it is very doubtful whether this is really
effected unless, in all cases where a pail containing the refuse is not deposited on the pavement, an
actual call at each house is made for the purpose of such removal. In many districts, however, this is
not the practice. More frequently the dust collector perambulates every street once a week or more, and
the occupiers of houses indicate in some manner that they desire their dust to be removed. It is obvious
that in many cases this desire will not be expressed until inconvenience is caused by the amount of
accumulation. Frequent removal of house refuse is necessary, not only to obviate the inconvenience
caused by excessive accumulation, but also because the refuse, as a rule, contains vegetable and animal
matter liable to decomposition, and hence even when the quantity which has accumulated is small, it is
an objectionable practice to postpone its removal beyond a certain period. The requirement specified in
the Council's by-law that all house refuse shall be removed from all premises at least once a week,
should be strictly observed throughout London. There is no probability that this condition will be
fulfilled unless there is a definite house to house collection, i.e., unless all houses in the district are
called at for the purpose.
The results of each system can only be ascertained by direct inquiry at houses in the district.
Such inquiry has up to the present time been made in a few districts only, namely, Bethnal-green,
Newington, Marylebone, Islington, and Plumstead, by an inspector acting under the Committee's instructions.
It has thus been ascertained that excellent results are obtained in Bethnal-green, where there is
a bi-weekly call at all houses, except those where the occupier places the pail on the pavement. Inquiry
at nearly 800 houses showed that almost without exception the refuse was removed once or twice
weekly from every house in the district.
In Newington it is not professed to be the practice for a call to be made at every house, but
every street is visited on a given day in the week, the occupier making his wants known by the
exhibition of a card bearing the letter D, supplied by the vestry. The Council's inspector visited nearly
800 houses, and the results of his inquiries in this district contrasted unfavourably with those
obtained in Bethnal-green. In many instances it was stated by the inhabitants that the card in
the window was apparently unobserved by the dust collector, and undue accumulations of dust were
found in 64 instances, the dust having been allowed to accumulate for periods of from four to ten weeks.
In Marylebone Dr. Young was informed that the contract provides for the house refuse to be
removed once a week or more frequently from all houses in the district. Inquiry by the Council's
inspector at nearly 650 houses led him to the conclusion that an actual weekly call was only made
in respect of about one-third of the houses he visited. The remainder were dependent for the removal
of their refuse upon applications to the dust collector when in the street, or failing this at the offices
of the vestry. Accumulations of refuse were not infrequently found, and in 51 cases the accumulation
was stated to be due to neglect of removal for periods of from four to ten weeks.
Inquiry at 1,525 houses in Islington showed that in more than half the total number visited it
is the practice to place a card in the window, and as a rule this is attended to. In the remainder
Sold by Edward Stanford, 26 and 27, Cockspur Street, Charing-cross, S. TV.
No. 207. Price 2id. [869—3020