View report page

185
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 dwelling houses, 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 Committeee, 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 slaughterhouses,
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,
the District Boards, &c. 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-andbone
dealer), and ultimately (in 1883) your Vestry resolved to
apply to the Metropolitan Board of Works to schedule this 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 of a rag-and-bone dealer to be ejusdem generis with the
businesses scheduled in section 3 of the Act. In November,
*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.