View report page

56
constructed, was the subject of proceedings in several districts, thus, in Hammersmith, Fulham,
Chelsea, St. Pancras, Hackney, Mile-end Old-town, Poplar (Bromley), Limehouse, Lambeth, Battersea,
applications were made to the magistrates for penalties for infringement of the Council's by-laws.
Such applications were almost always successful.
The medical officer of health of Mile-end Old-town, writing of fish offal, says—" The removal
of this refuse through the streets was, up to the last year or so, a standing disgrace ; but after the
by-laws regulating this matter came into force we took action against a number of owners of vehicles
who created a nuisance by reason of the imperfect construction of their vans; this had a very good
effect on most of the removers of this offal. Although during last summer we were on the look-out
for any breach of the by-laws being committed. we only succeeded in finding one van that was not
in a proper condition; the owner was summoned at the police court, and fined £1."
The medical officer of health of Kensington states that the prevention of nuisance in connection
with the storage, the collection, and the conveyance through streets of offensive substances coming
under the general description " refuse," which was formerly a matter of no little difficulty, has been
made more easy by the County Council's by-laws made in 1893 under the provisions of section 16 of
the Public Health (London) Act, 1891.
He again refers to difficulty experienced by a fish and game dealer, owing to the by-law
prescribing the hours of removal of offensive matter. The contractor declined to remove the offal on
Saturday night, with the result that the refuse remained on the premises until Monday morning.
The Commissioner of Metropolitan Police has, at the request of the Council, given directions to
police constables to bring to the notice of sanitary authorities any cases of infringement of the by-law
coming to their knowledge.
Removal of house refuse.
During the year inquiry was made in a number of London districts by an officer of the
Council's Public Health Department, with a view to ascertaining how far there was compliance with
the requirement of the Council's by-law that house refuse shall be removed from every house not less
frequently than once a week; thus, this inquiry was made in Camberwell, Clerkenwell, Greenwich,
Holborn, Mile-end Old-town, Newington and St. Luke. In all cases in which there was necessity,
communications were addressed to the sanitary authority concerned.
In my last report I referred to a decision by the Lord Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Wills in
the Queen's Bench division of the High Court of Justice in which it was held that the refusal to allow
the scavengers to come on to premises to remove house refuse " constituted obstruction " within the
meaning of section 116 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891. This decision was the subject of
report by the Public Health Committee to the Council in June, and a copy of this report was communicated
to every London sanitary authority for their information.
The subject of the removal of house refuse was discussed in the annual reports of medical officers
of health as follows—
Paddington.—" The collection of house refuse is not within the jurisdiction of the department
and is only under its notice when complaint is made of non-removal. Such complaints have been
rarer during the past year, showing that the system of house-to-house collection recently inaugurated
has been successful. As to the final disposal of the collected refuse, no changes have been introduced.
During the year a special committee had the subject of the erection of a dust destructor under its
consideration. A very complete report was issued in December last, strongly recommending that the
refuse of the parish should be cremated but the proposal was rejected by the vestry. The present system
of 'manufacturing' cannot persist much longer, as the markets for the sundries salvaged are shrinking, and
land for shoots becoming every year more difficult to secure. The extra metropolitan authorities
object to the deposit of house refuse equally to that of manure. . . The chief objections put forward
against the committee's proposals were the loss of the return for sundries obtained from the manufacturing,
and the nuisance likely to be created in the process of burning. As to the former the present
return is likely to be a vanishing quantity, and what now brings in a set-off against the cost of collection
may be expected to become an additional expense. The fear of nuisance from the process of burning
is not supported by the experience of other towns."
Kensington.—The medical officer of health after referring to the opinion he had expressed that
" the process of cremation would appear to offer, in existing circumstances the most effectual and
economical and the only sanitary method of dealing with the refuse of the parish," states that the
Wharves and Plant Committee on the reference of the vestry " as to the possibility of securing, on
advantageous terms, a suitable site for the erection of a cremator for the disposal of the refuse of the
northern portion of the parish " reported (in October) that looking to the possible development of electric
traction at an early date it is not advisable to take further action in the matter at present. Account
is given of proceedings instituted by the Orsett Rural District Council against the Vestry of Kensington
for nuisance caused by the deposit of the refuse of Kensington at Purfleet. The hearing of the case by
the bench of county magistrates was adjourned with a view to enabling the medical officers of health of
the Orsett Rural District of the County of Essex, of Kensington, and of the Port of London, to agree as
to the steps which should be taken for the prevention of nuisance, and on the presentation of a joint
memorandum on this subject the summons was withdrawn. The medical officer of health of Kensington
reports that " the Purfleet depot has not since been used by your vestry, the house refuse having been
more economically transferred, under contract, to another place."
Fulham.—The service for the collection of house refuse has been fairly satisfactory, and there
have been comparatively few complaints of non removal excepting after holidays, which somewhat
dislocate the arrangements. The vestry have not yet definitely decided on the erection of a dust
destructor but a committee have been appointed to visit destructors at work in various places, and advise
the vestry as to the most suitable.
Pancras.—A detailed account is given of the system of collection in this district which provides