View report page

49
In Betlmal-green it was found to be the practice of the dust collector to call bi-weekly for the
removal of refuse, and in some parts to remove daily the refuse which was placed in pails on the pavement
by the house occupier for that purpose. The result of Mr. Williamson's inquiry at nearly 800
houses showed that excellent results were obtained.
In Newington the result of inquiry showed that the method of exhibiting a card in the window
adopted in the district was unsatisfactory and did not secure the necessary result.
Inquiry in Marylebone, Islington, and Plumstead showed that the first two districts, in which no
systematic house to house call was made, were less efficiently scavenged than Plumstead, where it was the
practice of the inhabitants to place outside their houses, once a week, a pail containing their house refuse.
Communications were addressed by the Public Health Committee to the several sanitary
authorities on this subject.
Special reference to the subject of collection of house refuse is made in the reports of the
medical officers of health of the following districts—
Kensington.—The medical officer of health discusses this subject in detail, and refers to the law
which supports the dust collector in his endeavour to secure the removal of refuse from a house.
Difficulty has been experienced in finding accessible "shoots" for house refuse, to the deposit of which
within their boundaries the sanitary authorities of other districts naturally object. The medical officer
of health makes reference to his previous reports and to a report issued by the Council on the subject of
destruction of such refuse by fire, and reminds the vestry of the opinion he had before expressed to
them "that the erection and utilization of dust destructors in this parish would be a distinct
advantage from the public health point of view."
Fulham.— "A weekly visit is made to all premises for the collection of house refuse, and the
service has been fairly satisfactory. 620 complaints of non-removal of dust were received, but a very
fair proportion of these were due to the refusal of the servants to allow the refuse to be removed when
the usual weekly call was made."
St. James, Westminster.—"The London County Council having called the vestry's attention to the
desirability of making arrangements for all houses in their district to be called at, not less frequently than
once in every week, for the removal of house refuse, the vestry assented to the suggestion, and referred it to
the sanitary committee to make the necessary arrangements for carrying the proposal into effect."
St. Pancras.—The medical officer of health gives account of the number of complaints as to
non-removal of house refuse in several years, and shows how this number, which in 1891 equalled
18,645, and in 1892, 10,335, was in 1893, 122, and in 1894, 224. He discusses the duty of the authority
and the householder, and states that the destructor erected by the vestry will shortly come into use.
Hackney.—During the year the sanitary committee of the vestry resolved to enforce the
Council's by-laws relating to the carriage of house, trade or street refuse across or along any footway,
pavement or carriageway, and as to the removal of house refuse not less frequently than once in each week.
Strand.—Fixed bins are gradually being disused and abolished.
City.— "Great benefit has accrued from the extensions of the 'skip system,' which has enabled
us to take away most of the public dust-bins from courts and alleys where they were found to be a
constant source of nuisance and complaint."
The reports relating to other districts show the gradual substitution of moveable for fixed
receptacles.
The medical officers of health of Plumstead and Lee refer to deposits of house refuse within
the distance prohibited in the Council's by-laws.
On February 27th the Public Health Committee reported to the Council on the application of
the Wandsworth District Board for a loan for the purchase of a site for a dust depot. The Southwark
and Vauxhall Water Company objected to this use of the site on the ground of its proximity to their
pumping station. The Committee, after inquiry, decided not to offer any objection to the granting of
the loan, provided the Council's by-laws, as to the deposit of offensive matter, were not infringed.
Regent's and Grand Junction Canals.
In my last annual report I gave account of the proceedings of the Council in reference to
the Regent's and Grand Junction Canals. It will be recollected that on February 13th, 1894, the
Council resolved that the opinion of counsel should be taken whether it would not be competent for
the Attorney-General, if called upon by the Council, to proceed against the Regent's and Grand
Junction Canal Companies for creating a public nuisance by their neglect of the proper management
of their canals and basins within the metropolis. On July 3rd, the Council declined to receive the
report of the Public Health Committee, which stated—
(a) That Mr. Poland, Q.C., was of opinion that this was not a case in which the Government
would be likely to instruct the Attorney-General to take up the prosecution until after
every effort had been made to put a stop to the nuisance under the Public Health (London)
Act of 1891.
(b) That the Council cannot pay expenses of a prosecution by indictment out of the County
fund, but he suggested that the Council should obtain the necessary powers from Parliament.
(c) That there was no case against the Grand Junction Canal Company.
(d) That the Public Health Committee had addressed a communication to the sanitary
authorities concerned asking information as to the scavenging of the canal, and as to the
steps taken for diverting the drainage of the Zoological-gardens from the Regent's-canal.
On Oct. 9th, the Public Health Committee presented the following report:—
Regent's and Grand Junction Canals.
In the report which we made to the Council on the 3rd of July last we stated that we had
addressed a communication to the sanitary authorities through whose districts the Regent's and
Grand Junction canals passed, inquiring what action had been taken since the conference at the
County Hall in December last, whether any mud deposits had been removed from the canals, and
whether the surface of the water was periodically or regularly scavenged. Replies have now been
7