View report page

5 7
Gas-ivorks—The medical officer of health of Kensington, reports that complaints were
received of nuisance from gas-works at Kensal-green. The Law and Parliamentary Committee
advised the Sanitary Committee that " if there be evidence of a substantial public nuisance
caused by the Gas Light and Coke Company, the vestry are entitled to proceed by indictment, or
for an injunction to secure its abatement." A communication was thereupon addressed to the Gas
Company on the subject of the nuisance, and in reply it was stated that while objectionable smells
did proceed at times from the company's works at Kensal-green—such smells being caused by
the elimination of sulphur impurities from the gas, according to the stringent requirements of the
Metropolitan Gas Referees—every known appliance for the prevention of nuisances was adopted by
them. The Company expressed willingness to adopt suggestions for improvement. Dr. Dudfield
expresses the opinion that the cause of nuisance is more or less within control. Nuisance was also
experienced in Bromley from coal-dust scattered by a mechanical coal-grabber employed at the
Bromley Gas-works, and from tar pits at the Nine Elms Gas-works, "the products passed into the
pits being at such a temperature as to give off a certain amount of steam, being more or less
offensive." It was suggested that the covering in of the pits would provide a remedy. In
Battersea nuisance was investigated which appeared to be due to the manufacture of oil-gas for the
lighting of the London and South-Western Railway Company's railway carriages. The gas is
produced from shale oil, passed into retorts which are heated by coke. The gas is purified
principally by lime, and then stored in stationary vessels. The nuisance, it was thought, was due
to the escape of gas.
Petroleum engines—Effluvium nuisances from petroleum engines were experienced in two
instances in Lambeth. In one the petroleum engine was replaced by a gas engine, and in the other
the nuisance was " effectually abated by intercepting the fumes and treating them in a kind of
scrubber, or purifier, containing chemicals and asbestos."
Salt-glazing in pottery works—The medical officer of health of Lambeth reports that the
fumes from pottery works in that district were stated by Earl Stanhope, one of the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners, to be destroying the exterior of Lambeth Palace, which is situated near the
potteries. The medical officer of health reports that the best known means for preventing or
minimising the nuisance are adopted, and that he has no reason for supposing that the fumes are
injurious to the health of the inhabitants of that particular part of Lambeth.
Chemical works—Complaints of nuisance arising from the manufacture of cyanide of
potassium were investigated in Battersea, it being stated that premises in the neighbourhood of
the works were discoloured thereby. The works were kept under observation both by day and
night, but no serious nuisance was observed. In Poplar, nuisances were dealt with which arose
from the escape of gas from nitric acid works, and from escape of acid vapours from sulphuric
acid works.
In Poplar, nuisances were investigated and dealt with due to the escape of vapours from oil
boiling in oil works, to the burning of damaged cocoa-nuts in cocoa-nut oil works, to the escape of
vapours from the mastic cauldrons of asphalte works, to the escape of fumes from the gum pots of
varnish works, to the escape of vapours from the boiling apparatus of india-rubber works, to
nuisances from the oil-boiling plant of printing ink works, from the boiling of whalebone, from
cork burning, from the burning of old meat-tins, and from the emptying of tins of decomposed
meat. Other nuisances dealt with in Poplar arose from fish curing, bone boiling, tallow melting,
and manure works.
The sorting of kitchen and hotel refuse—Nuisance was caused by this work on premises in
Battersea, the premises being improperly paved and drained.
Smoke nuisances.
The failure of the supply of Welsh coal, owing to a strike, led, in many instances, to the use
of inferior coal, and to the production of considerable smoke nuisance in London during 1898.
Proceedings in the police-courts were in numerous instances instituted by sanitary authorities,
and account of these proceedings is given in the reports of medical officers of health. In some cases,
as in St. Giles and Holborn, the magistrates appear to have held the view that the inability of the
defendants to procure Welsh coal afforded grounds for the dismissal of the summonses; in other
cases the magistrates held that the emission of black smoke from a chimney, other than the
chimney of a dwelling-house, was a nuisance per se. In a case of smoke nuisance in Shoreditch
" expert evidence was called by the vestry, as it was contended by the defendant that he had done
everything in his power to prevent the emission of black smoke, and that the furnace concerned
was so constructed as to consume, as far as practicable, its smoke.' A penalty was inflicted, the
magistrate pointing out " that it was not a question as to whether the furnace was so constructed
as to consume its smoke or not, the offence was the emission of black smoke, which is a nuisance,
and liable to be dealt with summarily under the Public Health (London) Act.'
Smoke nuisances in London did not arise only from the various manufacturing premises on
shore, but also from steamboats on the river, and the Port Sanitary Authority was communicated
with by the Vestry of Westminster and the Strand and Poplar District Boards. The medical
officer of health of the Port of London states that 265 notices were served, and in two instances
proceedings in the police-court were instituted, and the defendants fined. The chief officer of the
Public Control Department of the Council reports that in the twelve months beginning the 1st
April, 1898, 1,338 cases of smoke nuisance were brought to the notice of the sanitary authorities
by that department, and that the Council, in default of the Vestry of Lambeth, instituted proceedings
before the magistrate in respect of two owners of premises giving rise to such nuisance, and
in both cases fines were inflicted. The reports of medical officers of health show that proceedings
were instituted in Paddington in two instances, in Westminster in five, in Marylebone in one, in
Hackney in two, in the City in four, in Shoreditch in five, in Poplar in six, in St. Olave in one,
in Bermondsey in one, in \V andsworth in three, and in Greenwich in five instances.
[8]