View report page

139
condition on the premises of "marine-store dealers." Other
businesses, such as those of fishmonger, poulterer, etc., may be,
and often are, the cause of nuisance and annoyance in connection
with the production of refuse matters of an objectionable
nature; which, useful in their proper place, are liable, when
stored or dealt with in private habitations, to become a source of
injury to the health of the community.
This subject was reported on by me to your Vestry
in 1878, under the heading of Filth Removal, and in 1880
I brought it before the Society of Medical Officers of Health,
who referred it to a Committee, of which I was the chairman.
The report of the Committee embraced consideration
of the best modes of dealing with animal and vegetable
trade refuse, e.g., from slaughter houses, fishmongers', poulterers'
and greengrocers' shops, etc., with a view to its harmless storage,
removal, and ultimate disposal, by utilization or destruction. It
also treated of house refuse, stable refuse, and cowshed refuse.
The Society forwarded the report to the (late) Metropolitan
Board of Works, the Vestries and District Boards, etc. The
report was also circulated largely among Members of Parliament;
the Society sharing my view that the subject could not be
effectually dealt with save by legislation. For some years I had
been directing attention to the question, especially as it bore upon
the nuisance arising in the conduct of the business of the so-called
"marine-store keeper" (rag-and-bone dealer), and ultimately (in
1883) your Vestry resolved to apply to the Metropolitan Board of
Works to schedule this particular business as an "offensive
business" under the provisions of the Slaughter Houses (Metropolis)
Act, 1874. The Board declined to do this, upon the
ground that the business was not such as the legislature intended
to be dealt with under that Act. The High Court of Justice
(Queen's Bench Division), however, in an appeal case,* subsequently
came to a different conclusion, and declared the business
* Passey (Appellant) v. Oxford Local Board (Respondents). The subject
was dealt with in my Annual Report for 1883 (page 94-97, inclusive), in which the
(original) views of the Metropolitan Board and my own views are fully set out.