View report page

54
contract, which requires a call to be made not less frequently than once a week at all premises in the
district, and the removal of the refuse secured, and they state that they have called upon their
contractor to strictly observe the terms of the contract, and that if any persons absolutely refuse (as
the contractor says they do) to allow the house refuse to be removed, proceedings will be taken against
such persons and penalties asked for. In view of these assurances we have adjourned the consideration
of the matter for three months, when we propose that a further inquiry shall be made in the district.
In the Lambeth case proceedings were, in accordance with the Council's resolution, taken at the
Lambeth police-court before Mr. Denman, Mr. Avory appearing for the Council and Mr. Bodkin for the
vestry. Evidence was submitted on behalf of both bodies, and the case was adjourned from time to
time, several days being occupied with the evidence. During the course of the proceedings it transpired
that the vestry had made arrangements which would comply with the Council's by-laws and meet the
object which the Council had in view, and several of the witnesses testified to the improvement which
had taken place in the collection of the refuse. At the vestry's suggestion a conference was arranged
between representatives of the vestry and the Council, and as a result the vestry suggested that the
proceedings should be discontinued by the Council, as the vestry were doing everything that the Council
had ever asked to have done for the removal of the dust, and as in the new contract made this year with
the contractor for the outer parts of the parish not only were the positive words of the by-law inserted
amongst the requirements he had to fulfil, but he was also specially required to knock at the door of
every house in his district once in each week.
On receipt of this letter we instructed the solicitor to state that we should be prepared to apply to
the magistrate for leave to withdraw the summons if the vestry would give a proper undertaking by
their counsel in open court to the effect that the vestry were now carrying out the Act and by-laws in
accordance with the Council's wishes. We at the same time gave instructions that if the summons
were withdrawn a statement should be made in open court by counsel for the Council to the effect
that it was not until the case was proceeding before the magistrate that the vestry intimated their
readiness thus to carry out the Act and by-laws, but that the vestry having now commenced to do this,
and the Council's object having been attained, the Council did not wish to continue the proceedings
merely for the purpose of obtaining a penalty and costs.
The vestry clerk, in June last, wrote that he was instructed to give an undertaking, on behalf of
the vestry, that a call not less frequently than once in every week was being and would be made at each
house in the parish for the collection of house refuse, and that in all future contracts an obligation would
be thrown upon the contractor (as in the existing contract of March, 1896), to call weekly at each house
within his district in like manner for the collection of such refuse.
On receipt of this letter we instructed the solicitor to apply to the magistrate for leave to withdraw
the summons, and the circumstances having been explained in court on the 6th instant, the summons
was then, by leave of the magistrate, withdrawn.
We may, in conclusion, point out that before the case first came on for hearing we gave authority to
the solicitor to ask for the adjournment of the summons sine die if a statement were made on behalf of
the vestry in open court that they would do what they have now undertaken to do.
The medical officer of health of Holborn writes in his annual report—
" During the six months ending December 31st, 1895, 805 notices for the removal of house refuse
were received and attended to; during the first six months there were 1,309, makiug 2,114 during the
year. I have found that this method is most unsatisfactory, for I have often seen large quantities of
offensive refuse that had been accumulating for several weeks. Many of the old dustbins are very
large, and frequently the occupiers will not give notice for the removal of the refuse until the dust-bin
is full. I am glad that the board has made a new contract, which came into operation on the 25th of
March, 1896. This provides for the removal of house refuse at least once a week."
The use of movable receptacles is gradually extending in London. The medical officer of
health of the Strand reports that fixed dustbins are gradually being disused and abolished. The
medical officer of health of the City says that great benefit has accrued from the skip system. In
Whitechapel " the pail system has been now so far extended that practically a daily collection of
refuse takes place" In Woolwich "the pail system" continues to work most satisfactorily. An increase
in the number of pails in use in the district is reported in St. Olave and Rotherhithe.
It is not matter for surprise that the weekly visits of the dust collector are not always received
by the householder with satisfaction. Reference to this subject is made in the report of the medical
officers of health of Islington, Hackney, and St. Olave. This, however, has not proved a serious
hindrance, and householders are rapidly becoming accustomed to the new system which is designed in
their interest; thus, the medical officer of health of Hackney shows that the number of refusals in the
course of a few weeks materially declined.
The question, however, has been decided in the Court of Queen's Bench by the Lord Chief
Justice and Mr. Justice Wills, that the refusal to permit house refuse to be removed by the officers of
the sanitary authority is an obstruction of these officers in the performance of a duty under the
Public Health (London) Act, 1891. This decision will go far to remove any difficulties that have
been previously experienced.
Regents-canal.
The medical officer of health of St. Pancras writes that " since the diversion of the drainage
of the Zoological Gardens from the canal into the main sewers of the district, and the removal of a
large amount of deposit from the water-way, lay-byes, docks, and basins of the canal, no complaints
have been received of nuisances from this source."
Combined Drains.
In my last report I referred to the difficulty experienced by sanitary authorities in London in
dealing with old combined systems of house drainage, and to the report of the Main Drainage Committee
to the Council on this subject. The Committee at the time did not see their way to recommend the
Council to promote legislation with the desired object. In February, 1895, the Committee reported
to the Council that they had received a deputation on the subject, and that they were of opinion
"that a grievance exists, and that a heavy responsibility is thrown upon the local authorities to
repair combined drains, which it was pointed out were laid down for the benefit of the owners of the
houses, and with the intention, as the deputation contended, that the owners should be held responsible
for their maintenance." The Council adopted the recommendation of the Committee, " That