View report page

57
for the removal of refuse from every house every week. The collection is made by a contractor who is
required to report to the medical officer of health every instance in which he fails to effect removal.
The liability to prosecution of persons, who refuse to deliver to the dust collector their refuse when this
is demanded, is pointed out.
Islington.—The annual report shows that in this district there were 245 applications in 1896 for
the removal of house refuse.
Hackney.—The medical officer of health writes " In my last year's report I announced the fact
that a weekly house to house collection had been on trial during the greater part of the year with
encouraging results. The system has been continued since with increasing success, not only have large
accumulations of house refuse become rare in the parish, but the number of requests by householders to
remove dust has decreased to an almost insignificant number. The requests, which in the year 1894
were 893, declined in the year 1895 to 552, and last year to 297. I am hopeful that this number will
further lessen during 1897; but it can hardly be expected that requests will entirely vanish, for, on
very rainy days, the dustmen are unable to complete their allotted rounds, and on bank holidays they
do not, of course, visit."
A tabular statement shows the number of persons refusing each week to permit their house
refuse to be removed, this number frequently amounting to upwards of 10,000, or one-third of
the houses at which call is made. The medical officer of health recommends that householders be
informed by notice that they are liable to penalty. The adoption of this course and the institution of
proceedings before the magistrate in some cases would no doubt materially reduce the number of
refusals.
Strand.—" Under the Board's system of dust collections, fixed bins are gradually being disused
and abolished."
Iiulborn.—" The Board made a contract, which came into operation on the 25th March, 1896,
which provided for the removal of house refuse at least once a week, in accordance with the by-laws of
the London County Council. However, during the year ending December 31st, 1896, 1,361 notices
for the removal of house refuse were received and attended to. During the first six months of 1895,
there were 1,309, and during the second 805 notices, making 2,114 during the year. This
large number of notices, although considerably less than the number last year, shows that the
contract has not been strictly carried out. Soon after the new contract this year the contractor
appointed a special foreman to superintend this branch of the work, and see that a call is made for
house refuse at each and every house or premises in the district in accordance with, and on the days
mentioned in, the regulations for that purpose, once in every week at the least. Since the appointment
of this additional foreman there has been a great reduction in the number of notices received for the
removal of house refuse. A daily collection of house refuse in the Italian colony has been carried out
since June last year. It now works very satisfactorily. The sanitary pails were provided at the
expense of the owners (a building society). It is desirable that all the old large house dustbins, and
public dustbins in courts and alleys, which are a constant source of nuisance, should be demolished and
replaced by sanitary galvanized iron dust-pails. These can easily be moved, and at once emptied by
the dustmen, with much less labour and nuisance to the occupiers and neighbours. Many such bins
have been demolished during the year."
Clerkenwell.—The medical officer of health writes—" In connection with the subject of diarrhoea,
I have already pointed out the necessity for improvement in the matter of house refuse removal.
Again and again, in visiting the district, one comes upon the familiar sight of a dustbin full to overflowing,
with a rapidly-growing heap of refuse by its side. Clerkenwell houses used to be provided in
nearly every case with a brick-built ash-pit, generally of a considerable size. While these were in
existence the accumulation of refuse was not so much noticed, though the evils of such accumulations
were not altered. Since these porous filth-saturated structures have been largely replaced by nonporous
metal bins of smaller size, the defects of the present system have been brought into greater
prominence. The emptying of every dust-bin in the parish, at least once a week, is essential to a
satisfactory state of the public health, and should at once be arranged for. I am afraid this cannot be
done without increased expenditure, but it is questionable if this need be at all considerable if the
present insanitary and clumsy method of cartage of the dust to Lambeth, sorting and sifting by hand
labour, and the removal of the refuse by barges, were replaced by a well thought-out scheme of dust
destruction and utilization of heat, carried out in the parish."
City.—The medical officer of health reports—" Respecting the collection of house refuse, great
benefit has accrued from the extension of the ' skip system,' which has enabled us to take away most
of the public bins from courts and alleys, where they were found to be a source of nuisance. We have
now 741 skips in use, and many more will be wanted."
Poplar (Bromley)—"At the beginning of the year the Board resolved to erect a destructor to
destroy the refuse of the district."
St. Olave.—" This important service continues to be carried out regularly and efficiently, as, for
the third year in succession, not a single complaint of neglect or inattention has been received. On
the contrary, 432 visits have been made to houses where the dustmen reported failure to obtain the
refuse at appointed hours, and in 19 cases where the occupiers refused the dustmen's request to permit
the removals, notices were served, but no further proceedings were necessary. 113 new sanitary
dust-pails were provided in the place of old brick or wooden dust-bins."
Rotlierhithe.—During the year a sub-committee appointed by the vestry inspected 15 destructors
at work, and 2 in course of erection. Of the 15, 13 were in provincial towns, and 2 in the metropolis.
The destructors were situated in Liverpool, Warrington, Oldham, Leeds, Leicester, Cambridge, Hornsey,
St. Luke, Leyton, Whitechapel and Lewisham, and a report containing information relating to each
was presented to the vestry. The committee also reported that they had given careful consideration to
the various plans prepared by the surveyor and in the first instance they expressed their preference for
a plan which showed a four-celled destructor with a boiler placed between each pair of cells, arranged
[ 8 ]