Part 5

6. It should have attached to it ample and separate lairage, constructed with a due regard to sanitary and other requirements.

7. It should be effectually separated from any lair, stable, dung-pit, w.c., &c., so that the meat may not be exposed to any offensive effluvia.

8. It should be of adequate size, and should not be used for any other purpose than that for which it is licensed, and particularly it should not be used as a stable, a lair, or a cow-shed.

Upon viewing the several slaughter-houses by this standard, so many were found defective in one or other respect that it was thought best to give the formal notice of opposition required by the Act, in every case, but your Clerk and myself were directed to oppose the renewal of the license in those cases only that did not come up to the standard. We did this, but the justices overruled our objection in every case, on the ground that the premises, however faulty, had been licensed in former years, and time must be allowed to put them in proper order. At the same time, the justices gave the assembled licensees notice that at the next licensing day (in October of the current year, namely) they would not renew the license in any case that was not up to the standard. With reference to the decision of the magistrates, and the ground on which it was based, it is, perhaps, hardly necessary for me to state the fact, so well known already, that the existing slaughter-houses, were, without exception, licensed before I entered upon the duties of my appointment, and that the reason your Vestry did not oppose the renewal of the licenses in either of the subsequent years was that, in common with myself, you believed that the private slaughter-houses would be finally closed in 1874, under the operation of the Building Act, 1844. It only remains to add that the slaughter-houses will now have to be judged by the standard of the bye-laws; and it may therefore be useful to state in what respect the bye-laws differ—either in excess or defect—from the standard adopted by your Vestry in 1874. As regards new slaughter-houses, the requirements of the “local authority” are fully up to that standard; and, as regards existing slaughter-houses, the only material differences between the bye-laws and the standard relate to the points dealt with in clauses 1 and 6 (_supra_). The bye-laws do _not_ require that a slaughter-house shall have an independent entrance, or be at all removed from other buildings; and they do _not_ require provision to be made for housing cattle previous to slaughtering; but it is enacted that no animal shall be detained on the “premises” for a longer time than “absolutely necessary” previous to slaughtering, and that the “slaughter-house” (which is only a part of the “premises”) shall not be used for “any other purpose than that for which it is licensed,” viz., killing. It follows, then, that the slaughter-house itself may not be used as a lair, and the question arises—Where shall the animals be kept, if there be no lairage? It appears to me that the existence of lairage is assumed, and that the absence of this necessary accommodation would form a reasonable cause for opposition even under the bye-laws. But whether this is so or not, I venture to think that your Vestry would be fairly entitled to oppose the renewal of a license in the case of premises so obviously defective, and that you would be fully justified in taking the opinion of the justices as to the suitability of premises for a slaughter-house to which there is no access save through a butcher’s shop or dwelling-house.

(The Vestry subsequently adopted these views. I here subjoin a synopsis of the bye-laws, which I have prepared for the guidance of the Sanitary Inspectors.)

OBJECTS OF THE BYE LAWS:—To regulate the conduct of the business of a slaughterer of cattle, and the structure of the premises on which such business is carried on, and the mode in which application is to be made for sanction to establish such business anew.

DEFINITIONS.—The Metropolitan Board of Works, as the “Local Authority,” is styled the “Board.” “The premises” include the Slaughter House and all the premises used for the business of a slaughterer of cattle. The “Slaughter House” means the portion of the premises used for the slaughtering and dressing of cattle. The “Occupier” means the occupier of premises where the business of a slaughterer of cattle is carried on; and “Slaughterer of cattle” means a person whose business it is to kill any kind of cattle for the purpose of its flesh being used as Butchers’ meat.

BYE-LAWS AS TO THE STRUCTURE OF THE PREMISES, (Nos. 15 to 21 inclusive.)—The slaughter house to be well paved with asphalte or flagstone set in cement, laid with a proper slope and channel towards a gulley, and effectually drained by an adequate drain of glazed pipes communicating with the public sewer. The gulley to be trapped by an appropriate trap and covered with a grating, the bars of which to be not more than ⅜ of an inch apart (16).

The inner walls of the Slaughter House to be covered with hard, smooth impervious material, to the height of four feet at the least, and to be always kept clean, and in good order, and repair (17).

No room or loft to be built by owner or occupier over any Slaughter House (20).

An adequate tank or other proper receptacle for water and water supply to be provided, and so placed that the bottom of the same shall not be less than 6 feet above the floor level (15).

The Slaughter House to be well and thoroughly ventilated (15).

No water closet, privy, cesspool, urinal, or stable to be within, or to communicate directly with the Slaughter House (19).

The occupier to cause all needful works and repairs to the premises to be forthwith done and executed, as and when the same shall become requisite, and not to make any alteration in respect of the paving, drainage, ventilation, or water supply, to, or in the premises, without the consent of the “Board” (18).

PENALTIES.—For breach of any of the bye-laws, 15 to 20 inclusive, whether by omission, commission, or neglect, £5; and in the case of a continuing offence, the sum of £1 for every day during which such offence is continued after a conviction for the first offence (21).

BYE-LAWS AS TO THE CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS NOS. 1 to 14 INCLUSIVE:—The inner walls of the Slaughter House to be always kept clean and in good order and repair; and the internal surface of the roof and upper portions of the walls to be washed with quick-lime at least once in every three months (6).

The Slaughter House to be thoroughly washed and cleansed within three hours after the slaughtering is completed (7).

A sufficient number of tubs, boxes, or vessels, formed out of proper non-absorbent materials, with tight and close fitting covers thereto, to be provided for the purpose of receiving and carrying away all manure, garbage, offal and filth, and these products to be placed in the tubs, &c., immediately after the killing and dressing of any cattle. Blood to be put into similar but separate tubs, &c., and all such tubs, &c., with their contents to be removed from the premises within 24 hours (5).

The fat of any animal slaughtered to be kept freely exposed to the air until its removal from the premises; and all such fat, and also hides, skins, and tripes to be removed within 24 hours after the slaughtering is completed (9). Carcase, bone, hide, skin, and all meat, fat, offal, blood, garbage, and other articles, to be removed before the same have become putrid or offensive (10).

Every covered and other receptacle used in the Slaughter House to be kept cleansed and purified so as to avoid any offensive smell (8).

Cattle not to be kept in the “premises” except for the time absolutely necessary previous to slaughter (1). The Slaughter House not to be used for any purpose other than that for which it is licensed; and slaughtering not to be conducted within public view (4).

No animal that is not intended or fit for human food to be slaughtered in the premises (1); and if any diseased cattle should be brought to the Slaughter House, the occupier to give information thereof, forthwith, to the “Board,” and to the cattle inspector for the district, with all particulars in his knowledge as to where, from whom, and from what place it was received (11).

No fowl, pig, or other animal used for human food (except cattle about to be slaughtered), and no dog to be kept in or about the premises (2).

No room situated over the Slaughter House to be inhabited under any pretence whatsoever (3).

All persons lawfully entitled to admission to have free access to the premises during the times of slaughter and at all reasonable hours (12).

PENALTIES.—For breach of any of the Bye-laws, 1 to 12 inclusive, whether by omission, commission, or neglect, £3; and in the case of a continuing offence, £1 for every day during which such offence is continued after a conviction for the first offence; and every Court of Summary Jurisdiction, having Jurisdiction to hear and decide complaints of the breach of the Bye-laws, may by Summary Order suspend or deprive any occupier of a Slaughter House altogether of the right of carrying on any such business, as a penalty for the breach of any one of these Bye-laws (13–14).

AS TO THE MODE IN WHICH APPLICATION IS TO BE MADE FOR SANCTION TO ESTABLISH ANEW THE BUSINESS OF A SLAUGHTERER OF CATTLE.—THE APPLICANT to furnish the “Board” with a plan of the premises and sections of the building in which it is proposed to carry on such business, drawn to a scale of a quarter of an inch to the foot, and showing the provision made, or proposed to be made, for the drainage, lighting, ventilation, and water supply of the same; and also to furnish a key plan of the locality, showing the buildings and streets within 100 yards of the premises, drawn to a scale of five feet to the mile (22).

_Notes_.—It is required that the Slaughter House, in respect of structure, be brought into conformity forthwith with the Bye-laws (15 to 20); when this has been done, the Bye-laws, (1 to 12), which relate to the conduct of the business, will principally engage attention. The points to which attention will have more especially to be given are those that apply to—

1. The daily and quarterly cleansing.

2. The provision and condition of impermeable and covered vessels for the reception and removal of blood, offal, &c.

3. The exposure to air of fat, and the regular removal of all parts of animals, including blood, offal and manure, before the same become putrid or offensive.

4. The exclusive use of the Slaughter House for slaughtering. (It may not be used as a lair, or as a stable, or as a cart shed).

5. The exclusion from the “premises” of fowls, pigs, dogs, &c.

6. The detention in the premises for so long only as absolutely necessary of animals about to be slaughtered. The “Occupier,” it may be added, is the party responsible for the due execution of the Bye-laws.

LICENSED COW-SHEDS.

The licensed cow-sheds, 33 in number—viz., 17 in the North and 16 in the South district—have been regularly inspected. Your Vestry, after a careful consideration of the subject, and after making enquiries as to the practice adopted in other districts, have adopted a standard of capacity to be complied with in respect of cow-sheds, viz., an allowance of 800 cubic feet of space for each cow, no height of shed above 16 feet to be reckoned in the computation of cubic space; each single stall to be 4 feet, and a double stall for two cows, 7½ feet in width. It is to be desired that steps should be taken to obtain powers to frame bye-laws for regulating the structure of cow sheds, the same as slaughter-houses. Great improvements are necessary in many of the cow-sheds; some of the sheds are, in fact, ill-adapted for the purpose, and in the category I would include those that are not open to the roof—being, in fact, imperfectly ventilated stables. The importance of properly constructed—which means well drained, well paved, well lighted, and well ventilated—cow-sheds, is becoming better understood every year, and events to which reference has already been made (p. 10 _ante_) are likely to give an impetus in the direction of bringing cow sheds under much more strict supervision, as to construction and management than heretofore. It is not uncommon to hear complaints of offensive smells from cow-sheds, even where the premises are very well kept, and where the smell is really not greater than must needs be expected, regard being had to the number of cows kept, and the removal of manure, &c. Should cow-sheds become the subject of legislation, and precise regulation thereunder, it would be desirable to provide for a notice being posted, outside the premises, some days before the annual licensing day, the same as is done in the case of public-houses, and as ought to be done in respect of slaughter-houses, so that householders in the vicinity might, if necessary, attend and show cause against the renewal of the license.

BAKEHOUSES.

The bakehouses, 108 in number—viz., 60 in the North and 48 in the South district—have been regularly inspected during the year, and the provisions of the Act relating to them carried out as efficiently as circumstances would admit.

Complaints arising out of the neglect of Contractors to fulfil the duty of

DUST REMOVAL

occupied, as usual, an inordinate amount of time in the way of inspection, correspondence and clerical work, the letters, and other communications received during the year being 5,891, viz., 2,560 in the North, and 3,331 in the South district. The actual number of complaints was 1,010, viz., 357 in the North, and 653 in the South contract district; while the orders issued for the removal of dust were 10,177, viz., 3,868 in the North District, and 6,309 in the South. The vexatious difficulties attending this important question led your Vestry to consider again the possibility of dispensing with the assistance of contractors; but no result has hitherto come out of the trouble that was taken by a Committee and by the Clerk of the Vestry to solve the difficulty. The same as with respect to the mortuary and the disinfecting chamber, the lack of a suitable site for the storing of the dust in the intermediate stage between the dust-bins and the final disposition of their contents, has practically rendered nugatory all the labour bestowed on the question. Towards the close of the contract year the complaints became so numerous that your Vestry not only employed a staff of horses, carts, and men to make up for the deficiencies of the contractor (and at his expense) but, also, imposed heavy pecuniary penalties. A somewhat curious result of this strictly equitable and, in fact, unavoidable severity was, that the new contractors for the North district expressed unwillingness to sign the contract, and did not sign it for a period of three months, during which time, as they preferred to set about their work in their own way, which only brought matters right after a considerable interval, the complaints in this district became very numerous, and the difficulty experienced in the first quarter of 1875 in the South district, was, in the second quarter, transferred to the North. But as not seldom happens, so in this case—out of evil came good, for your Vestry temporarily appointed, at my request, a Dust Inspector, whose services having given satisfaction, and proved very useful, have been permanently retained, thus affording a very much needed accession to the strength of the sanitary staff at my disposal.

DOMESTIC WATER STORAGE.

Next to the unwholesomeness of houses arising from the neglected state of dust bins—to whatever cause the neglect may be attributable—no subject, perhaps, so often engages the attention of Sanitary Inspectors as that of water supply and the neglected state of cisterns. It would almost seem as if many householders thought that the water supply needed no more attention than that of gas, which is usually comprised in a quarterly settlement with the collector. Months and probably years elapse in some cases without any attention being paid to the condition of cisterns which, I need hardly say, ought to be cleaned out periodically, and not less frequently than once a month. It is true that the inconvenient position in which the cisterns are sometimes placed occasions difficulties in getting at them, which may in some measure account for the neglect. But in other cases where no such difficulty exists the result is the same. One among the “water regulations” by which the Companies are almost constituted a sanitary authority, and which might be enforced with public advantage, relates to the position of cisterns which are required to be placed in accordance with their views. This regulation is of a retrospective character, but so far as I know it is not carried out. Another valuable regulation would abolish the “waste pipe”—a fertile and unsuspected cause of foul water, and, in many cases of illness, being often untrapped and then serving as a ventilator to the drains, giving exit to noxious gases which the water absorbs freely. But I cannot say that I have heard of any instance in which the Companies have exercised their powers in this respect—powers, be it understood, claimed by and conceded to them, not on sanitary grounds, but simply to prevent the waste of water. It is one of my most often repeated instructions to the Inspectors to view the apparatus for water supply when making a house inspection, and to abolish waste pipes whenever practicable. Another regulation has for its object, to prevent waste of water, by the intervention of a service box for the supply of the water closet, thus limiting the discharge at each elevation of the lever to a maximum of two gallons. This regulation I have no doubt is carried out in the case of new houses; but it is perhaps of even more importance in old ones, in which, as too often happens, the domestic and the closet service are drawn from one and the same cistern. In a special report (November 20, 1872) I referred to all these points, and to many others, and I have seen no reason to modify the expressions of regret with which I then had occasion to speak of the stringency of the regulations, which is, I apprehend, the main, if not the sole cause of our being still without the constant system of water supply which it was supposed the Act of 1871 would give us. The stringency to which I allude has reference principally to the costliness of the apparatus and fittings on which the companies insist as a condition of constant service; and not to the exercise of the powers they possess, but do not as a rule employ, to improve the present system by insisting on the due carrying out of the really useful and valuable regulations quoted above. The adoption of this constant system would enable us to get rid of our cisterns, if not altogether, yet so far as the supply of water for culinary use and drinking is concerned. The neglect of cisterns to which I referred above, would then be a matter of less moment; and as the pipes would be always charged, we should be less liable, than we are now, to the contamination of water, for such an accident as I am about to mention would be almost impossible.

Complaint was made that the first portion of water entering certain cisterns in a street and mews at Notting Hill, each time the water was turned on, was of a disgusting character; and this happened at a time when there was an obstruction of the sewer in the mews, the effect being to saturate the ground and flood the surface with sewage and surface drainage. I surmised that the main was defective, and that when the water was turned off the sewage was sucked into the pipe to fill the vacuum, and then forced through the service pipes so soon as the water was turned on. It turned out, so I was informed by the Company, that the defect really existed in a service pipe of one of the houses; the effect, however, was the same, and dangerous nuisances of this kind may occur at any time, or in any locality, under similar circumstances, so long as the intermittent system of water supply is continued. In the present instance several cases of illness were traced to this fouling of the water, and had the sewer contained typhoid excreta, the results might have been lamentable in the extreme, and of the same kind as at Over Darwen, and at Lewes during the recent epidemics of Enteric Fever. As I have remarked in another place, we seem as far off as ever from the constant system, the only gleam of hope in respect of it being that the companies have made, and are making extensive preparations, so as to enable them to supply their districts when called on to do so. They are enabled to give a constant supply even though it should not be required of them by the Metropolitan authority, and they would be gainers by so doing, if the prevention of waste is really of any moment to them, which may be reasonably doubted. The Metropolitan authority is the Metropolitan Board of Works, a body which it is well known are unwilling to execute the authority conferred on them by the Act, strongly disapproving, as they do, of the regulations, the stringency of which they did their utmost, but in vain, to modify.

MORTUARY.

I cannot allow the subject of a mortuary to pass without a brief reference, and an expression of my great regret that the parish is still unprovided with one. As I have stated in former reports, the burials, at the public expense, of poor persons, occupants in life of single rooms, are reckoned by hundreds every year; and I cannot doubt that in a large proportion of these cases the survivors would avail themselves of the privilege of depositing their dead in a public mortuary of suitable construction, and in a suitable locality. Poor persons in somewhat similar circumstances, but above the pauper class, would, in all probability, also use the mortuary. The law provides for the removal of the bodies of those who have died of an infectious disease, viz., on medical certificate and by Justice’s order. Bodies of persons found dead or accidentally killed, and not identified, would be received as a matter of course. A properly-designed mortuary would embrace a room for conducting _post-mortem_ examinations, which are now often made under painful and distressing circumstances, to say nothing of the inconvenience to which the operator is put—and there were 154 such examinations last year by coroner’s order. It should also embrace a suitable Court for the due and proper execution of the coroner’s office.

No progress in this matter has been made since my last report, a conference with a Committee of the Board of Guardians, with a view to the appropriation of a portion of the stone yard at the Dispensary Buildings, Mary Place, Potteries, having proved abortive. I cannot say I regret this result, as I do not consider the site a desirable one. The mortuary should be quite distinct from any association with pauperism, and though privacy of site is desirable, I hold that it should be placed in the most respectable and the most central locality that can be obtained, in order to ensure its being used. I am still of opinion that the

DISINFECTING CHAMBER