View report page

57
matter, to require by by-law the adoption of this course. The Committee was, however, advised that
legislation would be required for this purpose. I was instructed to learn from medical officers of
health whether their experience indicated the desirability of this course being taken, and the majority
of their replies were in the affirmative.
In a number of instances prosecutions were instituted by the sanitary authorities for failure to
comply with the requirements of the Council's by-laws as to the removal of offensive matter. Thus, in
Fulham, prosecutions were instituted in five cases, in Chelsea in three, in Marylebone in four, in
Hackney in seven, in Bermondsey in eight, in Lambeth in two, in Battersea in three, in Wandsworth
in six, in Greenwich in one case.
Removal of house refuse.
The by-laws of the Council made under the Public Health (London) Act require the removal
of the house refuse from all premises not less frequently than once a week. The efficiency with which
this work is carried out depends upon the willingness of the sanitary authority to provide a sufficient
administration for this purpose and upon the co-operation of householders. The Council has
endeavoured, by inquiry in different parts of London as to the results obtained, and by representations
to sanitary authorities, to secure due compliance with the provisions of the by-laws. The scavenging
of London at the present time shows a vast improvement upon that of former years. The effect of
the introduction into a district of a system of weekly calls at each house for the purpose of removal of
refuse instead of the old method of the dust-cart perambulating the streets and calling only at houses
in which the need for collection is manifested by the exhibition of a D-card or on request of the householder,
is shown by the reduction in the number of " complaints" dealt with by the sanitary
authorities. The medical officer of health of Islington includes in his report a table showing that the
number of complaints has in that district fallen from 10,138 in 1891 to 262 in 1899. The principal
difficulty which is met with is due to the unwillingness of householders to permit the dustman to
remove the refuse when he calls for this purpose.
In Hackney where the complaints numbered 220 in 1899, there were, the medical officer of
health states, as many as 458,770 refusals in that year by the householders to permit their dust
receptacles to be emptied. It is evidently necessary that steps should be taken to overcome this
unwillingness, which adds materially to the cost of collection and is unfair to the ratepayers who give
facilities to the dust collector to perform his duty. Such refusal constitutes " obstruction " under the
Public Health (London) Act, and the person guilty of it is liable to penalty. There is little doubt if
this penalty were recovered in certain cases, and the intention of the authorities to prosecute were
made known in the district, the obstruction would cease and the work of the scavenger be greatly
facilitated. It is much to be desired that this course should be adopted.
Facilities for successful scavenging would be increased if householders would provide themselves
with movable receptacles in substitution for the old fixed receptacles which cannot be emptied
without difficulty, and which retain large quantities of refuse. The Council's by-law requires that all
new receptacles shall be of the movable variety, and the reports of medical officers of health
show that these have in large degree replaced fixed receptacles. In Chelsea the medical
officer of health states, " metal pails for the reception of house refuse are now very
largely in use in place of fixed brick bins, and are not only far more cleanly, but must
materially lighten the labour of dust collection by the vestry's workmen." The Council's by-law
has now been in force for seven years, and the question may well be considered whether the time has
not come when all houses throughout should be provided with movable receptacles. It would
probably be found that the number of persons who would be affected by such requirement would not
be so large as to render its enforcement impracticable. A further power is needed to enable sanitary
authorities to require the removal of fixed where movable receptacles have been provided. There
appears to be no power to make a by-law for this purpose, and legislation is therefore needed. The
Council has exercised such power as it does possess by making a by-law prohibiting the further use of
a fixed receptacle under these circumstances.
It is deserving of notice that the St. Giles District Board has endeavoured to institute a
system of bi-weekly collection of house refuse during the summer months. The result appears not
to have been altogether satisfactory, owing to the disinclination of the contractor's employees to
comply with the Board's desires, as they were paid piece work, and found that the time required to
get a load was greater than before. The contractor raised the payments to them, but their
unwillingness continued. Another difficulty arose from the householders', or rather it is stated their
domestics', unwillingness to give facilities for the removal. The Board is wisely continuing its efforts
to secure this better scavenging, and it is obvious that they can overcome the first difficulty by
abandoning the system of employing a contractor and the taking of the work into their own hands.
The second difficulty is no doubt in the main due to custom, and may be regarded as temporary.
In Plumstead the record is less satisfactory. The medical officer of health thus reports on the
dust collection of that district—
There was no improvement in the dust collection as regards method, it having been done, as before,
in a slovenly manner. As regards regularity, it quite broke down again at Christmas. 261
complaints were received during the year of non-removal, and, unfortunately, the poorer class of
tenants, at whose houses there is likely to be most harm from accumulation of dust, do not usually send
complaints. For the discovery of neglect to collect from these we have to depend, in the absence of a
dust inspector, on the chance call of a sanitary inspector.
For some weeks after Christmas the vestry had to supplement the dust collection by direct labour,
the organisation of which mainly fell on the chief sanitary inspector. The contractor having been
mulcted in £132 2s. 7d. costs of work done, and £114 fine for breach of contract, a new contractor has
recently been appointed at £2,660 a year, compared with £1,100 which was paid to the late contractor.
[8]