View report page

116
each district should provide the means of destroying animal
refuse. It appears doubtful whether vegetable refuse could be
properly utilized in London by the process of ' carbonisation,'
but the destruction of such refuse by fire could be effected
without difficulty or nuisance.
"2. With respect to the collection and disposal of house
refuse. It is almost superfluous to observe that the Committee
cannot approve of the refuse being deposited in large
heaps or 'tips' in or near towns or inhabited dwellings :
its use for levelling land for building purposes is now very
properly forbidden by the bye-laws regulating the foundations
of buildings,* and its destruction in the open air, creating an
intolerable nuisance, is impractable.
"The refuse, moreover, is not without value—the 'breeze,'
for instance, being almost indispensable to the brickmaker.
The value, however, has decreased of late years, for the
growth of London has led to the production of the refuse in
larger amount, while the increased distance to the brickfields
has greatly increased the cost of carriage.
"Formerly contractors were willing to pay large sums for
the privilege of removing the contents of dust bins. Now they
invariably receive payment. The expense to the Nuisance
Authority, however, is not so great as it would be were not
the refuse capable of utilization for various trade purposes.
Of these, the manufacture of bricks is the most important;
and it is, perhaps, not to much to say that the diligence of
the contractor in carrying out his contract is governed to no
inconsiderable extent by the season of the year and by the
demands of the brickmaker, so that the dust bins are apt to
be neglected when their contents are not in requisition in the
brickfield.
"The Committee consider, however, that the removal of
house refuse ought not to depend upon its pecuniaiy value,
* Vide Bye-laws made on Oct. 3rd, 1879, by the Metropolitan Board of Works,
under the provisions of the Metropolis Management and Buildings Act, 1878,
sec. l6,