View report page

153
Removal Act, disregard of the local authority's notice, which
implies continuance of nuisance, with consequent injury to
health, to say nothing of the trouble and loss of time to public
officers, would be infrequent—always supposing the power were
exercised. That our cases are proper to be brought before the
Justices is obvious from the fact that dismissal of a summons
is a rare occurrence. Proceedings were taken in six cases for
disobedience of the Justices' Orders, and penalties were inflicted
to the aggregate amount of seven pounds nineteen shillings.
SLAUGHTER-HOUSES (METROPOLIS) ACT, 1874.
Section 55 of the Metropolis Buildings Act, 1844, provided
for the abolition of slaughter-houses in London in 1874.
These establishments were then numerous, and for the most
part unsatisfactory in nearly every respect. Few of them had
been built for the purpose—only one in Kensington out of 48.
Parliament, upon the report of a Select Committee of the House
of Commons, appointed, in 1873, to consider the subject of this
and other "noxious businesses," decided that, subject to proper
regulations, slaughter-houses might be allowed to remain, and
so the above-named Act was passed. In view of probable legislation,
I had read a paper before the Society of Medical Officers
of Health (March 21st, 1874), on "Private Slaughter-houses
considered with reference to the Report of the Select Committee
on Noxious Businesses." In this paper, after describing the
unsatisfactory state of the slaughter-houses, and expressing my
preference for the abattoir system, I specified the requirements
of a sanitary slaughter-house; indicated the conditions necessary
to be enforced by bye-laws; foretold that suitable regulations
would lead to a large reduction in the number of slaughter
houses, and insisted on the necessity for a heavy and irreducible
penalty for breach of the regulations. The Act was passed; the
Metropolitan Board of Works was constituted "local authority"
for carrying it out, and regulations were framed practically
embodying my views. The regulations, however, made no