View report page

185
on canal and railway companies the obligation of conveying it
from towns in boats or vans expressly contrived for the avoidance
of nuisance, and at a rate for carriage, which, while fairly
remunerative, shall not be oppressive to the ratepayers—power
to settle the rate, in case of dispute, to be vested in the Railway
Commissioners, or some similar tribunal having an equitable
jurisdiction."
The Report of the Society was forwarded in 1881 to the
several Sanitary Authorities of the Metropolis, and to many
members of Parliament who, it was thought, might be likely
to take an interest in the subject—but nothing came of it.
In 1883, as already mentioned, I directed your "Vestry's
attention to nuisances from " stenches arising from the
collection and storage" (I might have added removal also)
*' of fat and other animal matters in a putrid condition" on the
premises of marine store dealers. The representations made by
your Vestry to the Metropolitan Board at that time had no
effect, but the Board is now " quite satisfied that serious
nuisance does arise from this source," i.e., in the "collection
and conveyance through the streets of offensive substances,"
including " kitchen stuff and other refuse," and that " additional
legislative powers are necessary."
Whether this is so or not, I may remind your Vestry that
in a Special Report on " Sanitary, Nuisances Removal, and other
Cognate Acts " (dated March 13th, 1885), made at the request of
the Law and Parliamentary Committee, I called attention to
what I deemed to be latent powers vested in the Board (under
section 202 of the Metropolis Local Management Act, 1855),
enabling it to make bye-laws for " works of cleansing and of
removing and disposing of Refuse"—powers which Vestries do
not possess, unless inferentially under the 53rd section of
the Sanitary Act, 1866. This section, as I stated, gives
" the power . . . .to require the periodical removal of refuse
N