THE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE QUESTION. 
557 
in the night. No putrefying substance is allowed to enter 
the sewers, and the use of carbolic acid and constant white¬ 
washing render the well-kept slaughter-houses at the West- 
end less offensive than ordinary stables. They are licensed 
at a special yearly Court of Petty Sessions, and any infringe¬ 
ment of regulations can be punished with forfeiture; and 
slaughtering without a licence involves a heavy fine. 
Dr. Stevenson, in his report for the year 1871 of the health 
of St. Pancras, says that there are eighty-seven licensed 
slaughter-houses in that parish, and that they have been on 
the whole well kept, and few complaints made of them. He 
says that— 
“ Now, the entire removal of all the private slaughter¬ 
houses will undoubtedly be attended with many inconve¬ 
niences, and these can only be met by the establishment of 
public abattoirs within easy distance of one another, in 
addition to the central abattoirs at present provided at the 
Metropolitan Market and elsewhere. Failing this, a wise 
course would be a more stringent application of the powers 
under which slaughter-houses are now licensed. . . All 
slaughter-houses should in any future legislation be required 
to be fifty feet from a dwelling-house. They should be pro¬ 
perly constructed, well ventilated, well supplied with water, 
properly drained, the walls lined with glazed tiles, slate, or 
zinc, and they should have an impermeable floor of asphalte. 
Such a slaughter-house would be a great convenience to a 
district, and entail little more nuisance than a butcher's 
* shop." 
Dr. Stevenson is not disposed to allow existing slaughter¬ 
houses to be kept up, if within the above distance from dwell¬ 
ings ; and argues that there would be no injustice in this, 
since the Metropolitan Building Act, 1844, expressly pro¬ 
vides for the disuse of such places after August, 1874; and 
persons who have rented them, or who have taken places 
near them, have done so in the faith that the Act would be 
adhered to. Therefore, “ to allow the present slaughter¬ 
houses to continue under existing restrictions, would be to 
put money into the slaughterman's pocket at the expense and 
loss of comfort of his neighbours." Bearing in mind what 
Dr. Stevenson has said of the inconveniences to which the 
225,000 inhabitants of St. Pancras may be exposed if 
deprived of eighty-seven places in which food'is prepared, we 
may see what choice of plans there is. 
In the first place. Dr. Brewer proposes simply to repeal the 
clause of the Building Act which provides that existing 
slaughter-houses shall cease to be used as such in August, 
