View report page

82
in the foundations of houses, and to neglect precautions against the
rising of damp hut it has been a too common practice to excavate the
natural or virgin soil—e.g. brick-earth, sand, gravel, &c., and to fill up
holes so made with refuse matters, such as slop, and the contents of dustbins.
Happily these practices can no longer be adopted with impunity,
the Metropolitan Board of Works having recently framed, and the Home
Secretary approved, bye-laws under the provisions of the Metropolis
Management and Building Acts Amendment Act, 1878, to put a stop
to them.
These bye-laws are too lengthy for literal quotation, but it may be
briefly stated that they make provision for the entire removal from
any site of a proposed house of any improper deposit whatever
before the house can be erected; and the holes caused by this excavation
must be filled in with hard brick or dry rubbish. If the site of the
house be not gravel, sand, or natural virgin soil, it must be covered
with concrete. And if the site be not upon a natural bed of gravel,
the foundation of the walls will have to be formed of concrete, and
provision is made to ensure the concrete being composed of proper
materials.
Provision is further made to ensure the use of good and sound
stone, or bricks, and mortar or cement, in the construction of all walls,
above and below ground, and for the construction of an efficient
"damp course." The top of every party wall and parapet wall,
moreover, will have to be finished in waterproof and fire-resisting
material properly secured.
These bye-laws, honestly carried out, cannot fail to be attended
with good results, and it is only to be regretted that we have had to
wait so long for legislation, the necessity of which has been recognized
by Sanitarians and Nuisance Authorities alike.
PUBLIC BATHS AND WASH-HOUSES.
The negotiations for the purchase of a site at Ladbroke Grove,
Notting Hill, for the erection of public baths and wash-houses, to which
I alluded in my last annual report, fell through, mainly owing to an
impression on the part of your Vestry, that the price demanded was
excessive. Substantially, therefore, no progress was made in 1879
towards the realization of a scheme which, on theoretical grounds,
commends itself to public approbation. I understand that the