View report page

179
attention of the newly-created London County Council "to
the serious annoyance experienced by residents in Kensington,
from the obnoxious smells due to brick-burning carried
on in adjoining parishes," and urged that "decided steps
should be taken to prevent this offensive trade being carried
on within the Metropolitan area without restriction," and
requested the Council "to consider the desirability of their
obtaining the necessary powers from Parliament, for the
formation of bye-laws to regulate the trade, in the
same manner as other offensive trades are regulated."
Your Vestry at the same time urged the Hammersmith
Vestry "to take steps to compel the brick-makers to so
carry on their trade as to minimise the nuisance as far as
possible," but no action, beyond inspection, was taken by
this Vestry, who, indeed, have never acknowledged the
existence of any nuisance from brick-burning.
The view I had always taken was, that the trade of
brick-making should be scheduled so as to bring it within
the scope of the Slaughter-houses (Metropolis) Act, 1874,
which regulates other offensive businesses in the Metropolis,
and this view was pressed upon the Council, but did not find
acceptance. The Council however, in October, 1890, on the
recommendation of the Sanitary and Special Purposes Committee,
framed bye-laws "for the prevention of nuisances in
brick-burning, ballast-burning, tile-making, pipe-making, and
the burning of soft core," in "pursuance of section 16 of the
Local Government Act, 1888, and section 23 of the Municipal
Corporations Act, 1882," which I cited in my last Annual
Report (page 190). The bye-laws were in due course
submitted to the Local Government Board for confirmation.
They met with considerable opposition from the
brick-makers of London, and from the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners, with respect to whose objections the
Sanitary and Special Purposes Committee had communications
with the Local Government Board.