View report page

10
19. The want of good paving in many of the courts and streets.
20. The want of good paving in the yards and cellars of many of the
houses occupied by the poor.
21. The deficient supply of water.
22. The use of water, of a bad quality, such as is taken from the public
pumps, or from the uncovered butts and cisterns; especially where these
receptacles are not frequently cleansed, and are situated in close proximity to
the privies.
23. The nuisance arising from the smoke of factories.*
How muck each of the above enumerated causes, taken separately,
influences the health of the population, I cannot estimate: but I have no
hesitation in saying, that everything which is disagreeable and annoying to
the senses, if long continued, is injurious to health, unless the individual
become acclimatized to its influence. Our senses are given to warn us of
danger, and if we neglect or disregard the warnings we receive, through the
medium of our sensations, we must pay the penalty in suffering and ill health.
Dr. Letheby, in his report upon the injurious effects of intramural burial,
(1855) remarks thus, "all that exists in the air we breathe, excepting
nitrogen, oxygen, and aqueous vapour, is positively hurtful to us."
If the remark above cited be true, and if there exist in the air an
unpleasant odour, or any thing which produces a painful sensation, I do not
think it can be disputed, it certainly behoves every one who carries on a trade
which is a nuisance or an annoyance to the neighbourhood, to adopt every means
which experience has pointed out, to mitigate, if not entirely prevent, its deleterious
influence. If the nuisance cannot be remedied, it ought to be suppressed;
for the atmosphere is common to all, and no man has a right to contaminate
it; neither has any man a right to injure the property of his neighbour, by
carrying on a business, whereby the land in the vicinity may become depreciated
in value. The absurdity of the common remark, that "if persons come
to a nuisance, they must therefore put up with it," is so obvious that I need
not attempt to refute it. It was laid down by Chief Justice Abbott, in the
case of Rex v. Neil, that "It is not necessary that a public nuisance should
be injurious to health; if there be smells offensive to the senses, that is
enough, as the neighbourhood had a right to fresh and pure air." The
number of years that a nuisance has existed, through the forbearance of
neighbours, affords no prescriptive right for its continuance. It was declared
by Lord Ellenborough, in the case of Rex v. Cross, that "It is immaterial
how long the practice may have prevailed, for no length of time will
legitimate a nuisance." Again, Lord Mansfield, in the case of Rex v. White,
held that " It was not necessary that a smell should be unwholesome; it is
enough, if it renders the enjoyment of life and property uncomfortable."†
* It was enacted in the reign of Edward 1st, That no person should be allowed to
light any furnace near the Tower of London during the stay of the Queen and Nobles at
that fortress.
† The Laws of England, relating to Public Health, by Toulmin Smith.