View report page

53
£471 19s. 5d. than the disposal of the same quantity by the destructor. He adds that the destructor
having been erected on land belonging to the Board, the value of the land is not included in the statement
of the cost of the destructor.
During the year the Public Health Committee had under consideration complaints as to the
deposit by two contractors, of house refuse in Plumstead and Charlton, such deposits being made at
a distance from inhabited houses, contravening the Council's by-law. After communication with the
Plumstead Vestry and the District Board in whose districts these deposits were respectively made, the
Committee were authorised by the Council to institute proceedings in default of the sanitary authorities
concerned. Information was later obtained from which it appeared the suggested proceedings could
not be taken against one of the contractors, and the necessary notices were served upon the other who
thereupon stopped the deposits and covered them in with earth, and informed the Council that he had
done so. On liis giving an undertaking to the effect that there should in future be no deposit of
offensive refuse upon the land, and that the present deposits should be left covered up for two years,
the Committee decided not to take further proceedings. The medical officer of health of Plumstead
made frequent visits to various dust shoots, and reported to the Committee on those that were within
the 300 yards limit. He writes—
" The principal shoot has been on land specially purchased for this and other objects on the levels.
This shoot came within the prescribed distance, but it was far enough away from houses not to cause
any nuisance from smell. There was, however, a complaint from the nearest houses of a plague of flies,
which was no doubt a result of the contiguity of this shoot. Special efforts were made to burn the
worst of the refuse, and cover the surface with soil turned up in the field. I think, however, the only
satisfactory remedy is to provide a shoot much farther away, which can be easily procured on the
levels."
In Battersea the vestry took steps which led to the abandonment of sorting and sifting of
house refuse on Hudson's wharf, where such refuse was deposited for a longer period than 24 hours,
contrary to the provisions of the Council's by-law.
Considering the subject of collection of house refuse, it is evident that London is making
progress. Thus the Committee reported to the Council on May 21st as follows :—
" On the 18th of December last we submitted to the Council a printed report by the medical officer
of health, showing the result of the inquiry made by Dr. Young, one of the Council's assistant medical
officers of health, into the arrangements for the collection and disposal of house refuse in the various
sanitary districts in London. We pointed out that the report emphasised the need that existed in many
districts for a definite house-to-house collection of refuse to be made weekly from all premises as required
by the Council's by-laws, irrespective of whether the occupier indicated by placing a card in his window,
or in any other way, his desire for a call to be made. We have since been in correspondence with the sanitary
authorities for these districts, and are glad to report that the Vestries of St. George, Hanover-square,
St. George-in-the-East, and St. James, Westminster, have assented to the Council's suggestion that all
houses should be called at not less frequently than once in every week, and have taken the necessary
steps for the purpose. The arrangements in other districts are still under our consideration.
The medical officer of health of Islington reports in detail the arrangements in that district,
and shows a large reduction in the number of complaints concerning non-removal of dust which has
resulted from the adoption of a weekly call at every house. The need of a better system had been urged
upon the vestry by him since his appointment in 1892, and in that year a scheme was prepared with this
object. He writes that "nothing further was heard of the scheme till November, 1894, when the
London County Council wrote asking the vestry to arrange according to the by-laws for a weekly
removal of dust." On January 19th, 1895, " a second letter from the Council was received, asking the
vestry whether they proposed to make arrangements for the removal of house refuse as required by
the Council's by-laws," and the medical officer of health was directed to formulate a scheme, concerning
which he reports that " the success of the system is now beyond dispute." The medical officer of
health of Hackney writes that the giving effect to the Council's by-law was in 1895 attended with very
good results. In the first place, the weekly house-to-house visit led to the detection and removal of
large accumulations of house refuse ; secondly, it led to a great diminution in the number of written
requests to remove the house dust. The reports also show that in St. George-in-the-East every house
is called at once a week; in Lewisham, the call is made once a week as far as practicable; in Woolwich
the dust is removed weekly from every house in the district, and from some of the streets in the poorer
parts of the town, twice or thrice weekly; in riumstead arrangements have been made by the
contractor for the dust to be collected weekly from every house.
In two instances the Committee thought it well that proceedings before a magistrate should bo
instituted against authorities for neglect to secure the removal of house refuse at proper periods,
viz., against the authorities of Holborn and Lambeth. For this purpose, however, the consent of the
Local Government Board had to be obtained, and in the case of Holborn was not received until more
than six months had elapsed since the dates at which the Council's inspector had made his inspection.
Proceedings, therefore, in respect of Holborn had to be abandoned, but a summons was taken out
against the vestry of Lambeth, and the result is shown in the following report presented by the
Committee to the Council, and adopted by the Council on the 1st December, 1896—
On 19th November, 1895, we informed the Council that the consent of the Local Government Board
had been given to the Council taking proceedings against the Holborn District Board and the Lambeth
Vestry, under section 30 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, for not securing the due removal, at
proper periods, of house refuse from premises in their districts. We at the same time stated that a
summons had been taken out against the Lambeth Vestry, but that as the inspection in the Holborn
case was made before the middle of April, 1895, and consequently more than six months had elapsed, it
was too late to take proceedings against the district board. Since that time we have been in
correspondence with that board, who intimated in March last that a clause had been inserted in their
contract, which would come into force after the 25th of that month, requiring compliance with the
Council's by-law. As, however, a further inquiry we recently caused to be made in the Holborn
district showed that at a large number of houses the house refuse was not regularly removed once a
week, we addressed a further letter to the board, and in reply they now forward an extract from their