View report page

163
of contiguous districts naturally object. The refuse, moreover,
has little value now that building operations are being prosecuted
upon so limited a scale in, or within easy distance of, the Parish,
and other districts being able to supply the brickmakers' wants.
The land at Purfleet, on the river Thames, sometime since
acquired by your Vestry, and in connection with which a landing
pier has just been completed, will, it is hoped, ultimately furnish
a profitable outlet for all the refuse of the Parish, and so put an
end to our difficulties.
TRADE REFUSE.
In a Special Report, dated March 13th, 1885, on Sanitary,
Nuisances Removal, and other cognate Acts, made in connection
with an enquiry referred to the Law and Parliamentary Committee
(April 9th, 1884), I stated that your Vestry "have power
and indeed are required, when called upon, to remove the refuse
of any trade, etc., upon the application, and at the cost of, the
owner or occupier of any house, etc.;" and, I added, that "the
section (of the Act referred to) would apply in the case of trades
which lead to the production of 'refuse' of an offensive
character." This subject was fully dealt with in the said Report,
and also in my Annual Report for 1887 (pages 176-189), of
which copies were forwarded to every member of the London County
Council, in 1889. Beyond question, in my opinion, the sanitary
authority should undertake the removal of all such "refuse" matters,
of animal and vegetable origin, as may become, if kept too long
on the premises, injurious to health; and in the interests of public
health, moreover, the producer of trade refuse of an offensive
sort should be compelled to employ the services of the sanitary
authority for its removal. But, at present, it is precisely refuse
of an offensive character that the sanitary authority are not called
upon or expected to remove—viz., that produced by butchers,
fishmongers, fried fish dealers, poulterers, &c., who pay substantial
sums for the service, which is conducted, not seldom, in an