View report page

151
letter to the Privy Council, for their inaction, were, that they
did not possess the means for carrying out the Order, and
that it was not a part of their duty to lay down regulations
over the enforcement of which they had neither superintendence
nor control. They said that the duty could only be performed
by the police, and the police were in the hands of the Secretary
of State. The Council averred that they were powerless to
enforce the provisions of the Order, so that, while willing
and desirous to perform their obligations, they felt that they
had no alternative but to decline a responsibility which they
could not enforce. Functions such as those involved in the
present instance, should, they added, be performed by the police,
who alone possessed the necessary power; and, under the circumstances,
the interference of the County Council would be as
needless as it would be futile. In a letter to the Chief
Commissioner of Police, the Council stated that, under the
circumstances of the case, they were not in a position to draw
up regulations. In the result, the Privy Council appointed an
officer to carry out the provisions of the Order at the cost of
the County Council, the active duty, of course, being performed
by the police, under the provisions of the Dogs Act, 1871,
which are still in operation. It may be mentioned that the number
of dogs killed by the police in the Metropolitan Police District
in the three years 1887-88-89 were 141, 190, and 330
respectively. Of these dogs 27, 49, and 123 in the consecutive
years were found to be rabid. The deaths from hydrophobia
were 2, 3, and 7 respectively.
COMMITTEE FOR CARRYING OUT THE
NUISANCES REMOVAL ACTS.
With the view of accelerating proceedings in cases of
nuisance, your Vestry, in February, 1885, appointed the Works,
Sanitary, and General Purposes Committee, to be a Committee
to "receive notices, take proceedings, and in all respects
execute the Nuisances Removal-Act for England, 1855, and