View report page

56
existence of old brick dust-bins, which are usually allowed to be completely filled before being emptied.
The result of the inquiry was communicated to the district board.
There is no power to require the removal of a fixed brick receptacle, even when a moveable
receptacle has been provided, under such circumstances the Council's by-law prohibits the use of the
fixed receptacle, but power to require its removal is desirable.
In April, I presented to the Public Health Committee the results obtained by inquiry at
houses in Marylebone. From a very limited number of houses there was a daily collection, pails containing
the house refuse being placed outside the house and emptied every morning. In certain of
the better class streets a weekly call was made at every house. In 730 houses visited by the Council's
inspector there were 70 accumulations of two or more weeks. In the poor streets there was no house
to house call, D cards were exhibited, and the administration was very inefficient. In 1,556 such
houses in the southern part of the district visited by the Council's inspector, 681 accumulations of
from 2 to 12 weeks were found. In many of these cases the dust was overflowing from the receptacles
and lying on the ground.
In May the results obtained by inquiry in the northern part of the district were presented to
the Committee. In 975 houses at which the dust collectors profess to call weekly there were found
135 accumulations of two weeks and upwards, or 13-8 per cent., and 1,274 houses in which the occupiers
depended upon the exhibition of a D card or upon hailing the collector in the street, there were 617
such accumulations, or 48.4 per cent.
The action taken by the Council upon these reports is shown in the following reports which
the Committee presented to the Council.
We have for some considerable time been in correspondence with the Vestry of St. Marylebone on
the subject of the arrangements for the collection of bouse refuse in the parish. The system of
employing contractors for the purpose is adopted in this parish. The by-laws made by the Council
under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, require each sanitary authority to cause to be removed not
less frequently than once in every week the house refuse produced on all premises within its district;
and so long ago as 9th May, 1894, we pointed out to the vestry that it did not appear to be the practice
to call at all houses in the parish at least once a week for the purpose of effecting the removal of the
refuse, and we asked the vestry to arrange for this to be done. The vestry replied that they were
unable to secure the due removal of house refuse in this manner, as no penalty against the occupier was
enforceable, and that they considered that the removal was satisfactorily effected in St. Marylebone.
Inquiry made by the Council's inspector at a large number of houses in the parish having proved
that the arrangements were still unsatisfactory, a further letter was addressed to the vestry on 4th
October, 1894, and the vestry's attention was at the same time called to section 116 (a) of the Public
Health (London) Act, 1891, which provides for a penalty against any person who wilfully obstructs
any member or officer of a sanitary authority or any person duly employed in the execution of the Act.
The vestry stated, in reply, that they did not consider this section to be applicable in relation to the
removal of house refuse. Any doubt which might exist on this point has been since removed by the case
of Borrow v. Howland, in which it was held on appeal that persons refusing to allow the scavengers of
the sanitary authority to enter premises for the purpose of removing house refuse are liable to the
penalty for "wilfully obstructing" within the meaning of the section in question. Particulars of this
case were communicated to the vestry on 9th June, 1896.
After the proceedings by the Council against the Lambeth "Vestry respecting the removal of house
refuse had terminated (the Council's object having been attained so far as that parish was concerned),
we thought it well that the Council's inspector should make further inquiries in the parish of St.
Marylebone, in order to ascertain whether any improvement had been made in the vestry's arrangements
for the collection of the refuse. Inquiry during the present year was first made in the southern
part of the parish, and we regret to say that the result is to show that there seems to be no regular
method of collection of house refuse uniformly in operation. It appears that as regards the poorer
streets there is no regular day for even visiting them, and no house-to-house call seems evor
attempted. In some few cases D cards appear to have been provided and are put up, but no notice
seems to be taken of them ; in some other cases the householders hail the men when they see them in
the street, but the men are said to usually make some excuse and not go, and it is generally necessary
to write or send to the vestry each time before the dust is removed, and even then the requests are not
always attended to. One hundred and fifty persons complained of having had to write to the vestry
several times, and there were many complaints of dustmen demanding money.
A very large number of accumulations of refuse due to non-removal for periods of from two to
twelve weeks were observed, and in many of these cases the dust was overflowing from the receptacle
and lying on the ground.
We at once informed the vestry of the result of the inquiry, and stated that we felt that ample time
had been given to it in which to make satisfactory arrangements to secure the removal of house refuse
in the manner required by the Act and by-laws. We also stated that unless an intimation was received
from the vestry within one month that it had taken steps to secure a house-to-house call being made at
all premises in the parish not less frequently than once a week, and to ensure the removal of the refuse,
we should feel it our duty to recommend the Council to apply to the Local Government Board for its
consent to the Council taking proceedings against the vestry.
The month has now expired, and the only reply we have received is a letter from the vestry clerk to
say that the vestry, being in recess, might not be able to come to a decision in the matter before the
expiration of the period indicated, in which case it was presumed that the Council would not proceed
before hearing the vestry's views.
Meanwhile, the results of the inquiries made by the Council's inspector in the northern part of the
parish have been submitted to us, and they show a similar state of affairs to that in the southern portion.
In all the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the fact that proceedings cannot be taken
after the expiration of six months from the time of the inquiries, we think the Council should at once
apply to the Local Government Board for its sanction to proceedings against the vestry under the Act.
We accordingly recommend—
(a) That application be made to the Local Government Board for its sanction to the Council
taking proceedings against the Vestry of St. Marylebone under the Public Health (London) Act,
1891, for not securing the due removal at proper periods of house refuse from premises in the parish.
(b) That, in the event of the sanction of the Local Government Board being obtained, the
solicitor be instructed to take proceedings against the vestry under the Act.
The above recommendations of the Committee marked (a), (b) were subsequently withdrawn for
reasons which appear in the following report submitted to the Council on the 1st June, 1897.
On the 18th instant we submitted to the Council a report recommending that application should be
made to the Local Government Board for its sanction to the Council taking proceedings against the