View report page

15
bad conditions which prevailed. As for the objection taken against
their abolition, on the ground of the difficulty of transit in hot
weather, he (Dr. Carpenter) thought there would be no harm done if
at such a time meat were not eaten at all. Much of the disease that
prevailed then was produced by eating animal food in a state of
change, and people would be much better without it. The law
required to be altered to meet the requirements of the case in many
ways. He hoped this Society would make a strong effort against
the continuance of such places. The evidence of the Parliamentary
Committee which sat upon the subject was entirely one-sided—
no one was heard adverse to them.
Dr. George Ross (Medical Officer of Health for St. Giles') supported
the views contained in the paper. Nothing was more abominable
than the condition of the slaughter-houses, and there could be
no doubt that if they were abolished it would be a great boon to
the public. He was opposed to any compromise, because he could
see no way to improvement short of entire abolition. There was
a much greater difficulty in dealing with the subject in this
metropolis than in small towns. There would be a great difficulty
in providing for four abattoirs for the metropolis as proposed, and
in his opinion it would be better that Copenhagen Market should be
supplied with accommodation adequate to the wants of the whole
metropolis. Under proper regulations for the prevention of
nuisances, if this were the case, there would be no more then
than there are now connected with the live cattle.
Mr. Charles V. Game looked upon the paper as entirely theoretical,
and denied that private slaughter-houses Avere necessarily
injurious, he having lived for twenty years, and brought up a
family, over one, and they were as healthy a family as any in London.
The present slaughter-houses ought to bept in a cleanly and
creditable manner.
Mr. 11. C. Greatorex said that immense supervision was
necessary, and that was one reason why private slaughter-houses
should be abolished. Their position was bad, and all sanitary science
agreed that they were injurious to the health of the people. On
economical and other grounds he advocated the abolition of the
private slaughter-houses.
The Chairman said he had taken much interest in the subject,
and a year ago had felt it his duty to take such parliamentary action
as led to the defeat of Dr. Brewer's bill. Something more precise in
the definition, and more stringent in the remedies, was required to
meet the condition of the slaughter-houses in our large towns. The
matter, as it concerned them, should not be left till found to be a
nuisance, but taken as being, in a degree, a nuisauce per se. And
the only question was whether these places should be under strict
regulations in the heart of towns, or entirely forbidden. He had
taken note of the evidence offered before the Select Committee of
the House of Commons of 1873, on this subject, and of the