View report page

52
House refuse.
The subject of collection and disposal of house refuse has for some years engaged the attention
of the Council's Public Health Committee. As a step preliminary to making inquiries, and when
necessary to making representations to sanitary authorities in London whose administration failed to
ensure the removal of house refuse with sufficient frequency, it was necessary to ascertain how far
the method of destruction of house refuse by fire, practised in a number of towns in the north of
England, was adapted to the requirements of London, and which of the several forms of destructor
existing had been productive of the best results. Inquiry for the Committee, made by Mr. Santo Crimp
and Dr. Hamer, satisfied the Committee that this method of disposing of refuse was deserving of
adoption, and that the destruction of house refuse by fire, while relieving authorities of the difficulties
which militated against the regular removal of refuse from bouses, might be effected without the
production of nuisance. A copy of this report was communicated to each of the London sanitary
authorities.
The publication of this report was followed by the making of by-laws under the Public Health
(London) Act of 1891, one of these by-laws requiring that "The sanitary authority shall cause to be
removed, not less frequently than once in every week, the house refuse produced on all premises within
their district." These by-laws were confirmed in 1893.
In the following year I was instructed to report on the collection and disposal of house refuse by
London sanitary authorities, and during that year I presented to the Public Health Committee a
series of reports by Dr. Young showing the practice of sanitary authorities in connection with this
branch of administration. In October of that year I submitted to the Committee a summary of this
reports, and referring to the requirements of the by-law pointed out that there was no probability that
this regular removal would be effected unless there was a definite house to house collection, i.e., unless all
houses in the district were called at for the purpose (see Appendix to Annual Report for the year 1894).
Dr. Young's inquiries were supplemented by inquiries made by an inspector especially appointed for
the purpose, who visited numerous houses in a number of districts, and who reported how far the bylaw
was complied with, and communications were addressed to numerous authorities pointing out that
the system which so generally prevailed in London of making the collection of refuse depend upon the
householder hearing the dustman's cry or upon the exhibition of a card in the window of the house
invariably failed to secure the removal of the refuse at proper periods. The work which was then in
progress in 1894 was continued in 1895.
Considering first the subject of disposal of refuse, it is evident that the need of better opportunity
for this purpose is leading to fuller consideration by sanitary authorities of the method of
destroying this refuse by fire. Reference to the subject of dust destructors is found in the reports
relating to Paddington, Kensington, Fulham, Hackney, the City, Whitechapel, Lewisham and Woolwich.
The medical officer of Paddington, referring to the collection of house refuse on the wharves in
that district, says :—
" The past year has made it clear that the canals cannot be relied upon at all times as channels for
the removal of refuse out of the parish. For six weeks in the first quarter of the year not a boat left
the canal basin, yet all this time the refuse of this and certain other parishes was being brought to the
wharves. The last of the accumulation was not got away much before June. If there had been a
destructor at work in the parish there would still have been an accumulation of clinker to deal with,
but such clinker would be quite innocuous, and would have amounted to only a fraction of the bulk of
the sorted refuse. A committee was appointed during the year to consider the subject of the erection
of a destructor. The Committee have had several sittings on the question and inspected certain of the
destructors in use in the metropolis."
The medical officer of health of Kensington thus concludes a reference to the report of the
Council's officers on dust destructors—" I concluded by commending the report to the favourable consideration
of the Committee, believing that the erection and utilisation of dust destructors in this
parish would be a distinct advantage from the public health point of view." The medical officer of
health of Fulham reports that " the vestry have now under their consideration a scheme for the erection
of a dust destructor, which, if carried out, will, in my opinion, be of distinct advantage to the
parish." In Hackney the vestry had under consideration the recommendation of a committee that
the system of disposal of house refuse by dust destructor be adopted. The vestry decided that the
matter should be considered later in connection with a combined system of electric lighting and dust
destruction. The medical officer of health of the City writes that " the destructor apparatus at Letts'
Wharf has not shown the same satisfactory results as obtains in some cities, owing, I believe, to the
small quantity of carbonaceous matter left in domestic dustbins in London, where coal is dear, as
compared with northern districts, where it is less than half the price." The report of the medical
officer of health of Whitechapel contains the statement that " I would express satisfaction
with the works carried on at the destructor yard, associated as they are with the systematic
removal and destruction of house refuse." In Leivisham the District Board had before it
a report by a committee stating that they had considered an offer by Mr. Willoughby to
erect, at his own expense, a dust destructor on an improved principle. " Mr. Willoughby offers
to erect this destructor at his own expense, on ground to be provided by the Board, and to
remove it should it fail to realise the results promised from its use. If, however, the trial prove
satisfactory, the Board is to purchase the apparatus for the sum of £3,000. The sub-committee visited
several towns where destructors were in use ; they also visited Calstock to see the special principle of
Mr. Willoughby's machine in operation destroying ore. The sub-committee reported in favour of
Mr. Willoughby's offer being accepted." This report was adopted and Mr. Willoughby is proceeding
with the erection of his dust destructor. The medical officer of health of Woolwiclt states that " the
destructor provided by the Board works very satisfactorily, both by night and day." In a report by
the surveyor it is stated that the cost of removal of refuse by barges would have been greater by