View report page

198
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. Probably many persons would be willing to do so,
and thus relieve themselves of an anxious responsibility. 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 wellorganized
system of collection and removal to the country.
Section 35 authorises a sanitary inspector to serve a notice on
the owner of any accumulation of manure or other obnoxious
matter, requiring him to remove it, and if the notice is not
complied with within forty-eight (the Bill read 24) hours
from the service thereof, the " matter" becomes the
property of the Sanitary Authority, and may be
removed and disposed of by them at the cost of the
former owner. This provision is not likely in practice to
supersede enforcement of the regulations by proceedings
for recovering penalties. A better prospect of success in the
way of abatement, or rather prevention of nuisance from
stable manure, is held out by section 39, which requires the
County Council to make bye-laws "with respect to
receptacles for dung, and the proper accessories thereof,"
which I trust will have the effect of abolishing sunken dungpits.
It will be remembered, moreover, that by section 2 any
dung-pit so foul, or in such a state as to be a nuisance, or
injurious or dangerous to health is a nuisance liable to be
dealt with summarily under the Act. Thus, in one way or
another, it may be hoped that we shall be enabled to do
something to control a very offensive form of nuisance.
I may be permitted to add that in the Special Report
already adverted to, on "Sanitary, Nuisances Removal, and