View report page

209
sanitary inspectors having failed to keep the nuisance within
bounds, I thought it desirable to have a return prepared, shewing
the kind and number of the receptacles actually in use in the mews
in the respective districts. This return I submitted, in March,
1890, to the Works and Sanitary Committee, by whom it was
ordered to be printed for the information of your Vestry, and with
a view to consideration of steps for dealing with the matter,
thoroughly and effectually; as, in 1888, nuisances in connection
with public-house urinals were dealt with.
It may be mentioned that the "Nuisance Authority" (i.e.,
your Vestry) have power to contract with the occupiers of stables
and cow-houses for the collection and removal of manure or other
refuse matter from such stables and cow-houses. But at present
the Nuisance Authority can remove it only " with the sanction of
the owner." The necessary sanction would be forthcoming,
probably, in most cases, once it came to be known that, otherwise,
the requirements of the law would be enforced, in case of neglect
on the part of the owner to comply with the regulations. In
many, if not in the majority of cases, money is now paid by the
owners for the removal of the refuse, and I see no reason why
they should not be required to pay to the Local Authority a
suitable fee for the service. At the same time it is not improbable
that the large amount of refuse produced in some 180 mews
in this parish would have an aggregate value sufficient to pay
the cost of a well-organized system of collection and removal to
the country.
In my Special Report (March 25th, 1885) on "Sanitary,
Nuisances Removal, and other cognate Acts," I placed my views,
as above, before your Vestry. The Law and Parliamentary
Committee, to whom the Report was referred, recognized "the
necessity for making proper arrangements for the removal of
manure and other refuse matter," but stated that "the Vestry
had not depot accommodation or staff or plant adequate to cope
with so large a work." For this reason, they considered that the
Vestry was not then " in a position to contract generally for the