View report page

18
Sanitary administration.
On a review of the conditions, found as the result of inspection, it is obvious that while
Kensington compares favourably with London districts generally in certain particulars, it compares
unfavourably in others. The former class of particulars includes, for the most part, matters which
have engaged the attention of London Sanitary authorities for a considerable number of years, and
which once taken up and dealt with, to a greater or less extent leave a lasting impress upon the
sanitary condition of a district, constituting a permanent indication of good work done. The most
striking of the particulars included in the latter class are those conditions of dirt and dilapidation,,
which, even if once remedied, are so apt to recur in the absence of an effective system of supervision
by the sanitary authority.
There are also other indications which point to the conclusion that for a long period of time
Kensington had no reason to fear comparison with other London districts in regard to its sanitary
administration. In "A Retrospect—1871-89," Dr. Dudfield has referred to some of the improvements
effected in these years. Thus already in 1889 he was able to write " A system of voluntary
notification of infectious disease has been introduced. Baths and washhouses have been erected,
a public mortuary and a coroner's court have been provided. Efforts have been made to enlist
the co-operation of medical men and ratepayers generally, of public bodies, and of all other available
agencies, in the disclosure of nuisances and infectious diseases, and generally in the work of
sanitary administration. Whatever good has been done became possible only through the confidence
and the full liberty of action bestowed upon me by the Vestry." It may be pointed out,
moreover, that from an early period attention was specially directed in Kensington to the control
of the use of slaughter-houses and cowsheds, to the regulation of bakehouses, to the methods to be
adopted in dealing with stable refuse and in the conveyance through the streets of offensive substances,
to the need of enforcing regulations dealing with houses let in lodgings and to many other
matters of importance in connection with sanitary administration. Again, to Kensington belongs
the credit of being the first London authority to take up the question of the inspection by women
of workplaces in which women are employed.
In recent years, however, an unmistakeable reaction in regard to sanitary administration
has taken place. For example, the excellence of the work which was being carried out by the
health department of the Vestry, in connection with structural alterations of drainage, up to four or
five years ago is sufficiently evident. It is a rare occurrence in Kensington to find defective traps,
sink wastes, etc., and in some parts of the parish it is quite exceptional to note that the drain of a
house is not ventilated and trapped from the sewer. Towards the close of 1894, however, "objections
were raised by certain members of the committee to the issue of reconstruction notices, and
these objections having been allowed to prevail thenceforth notices were issued to "repair and
make sound" defective drains. Dr. Dudfield writes: "The service of notices to repair drains that
were obviously incapable of being made sound—excepting by taking up and relaying the pipes—
caused general inconvenience, and led to not a little unpleasantness," and, again, he refers to cases
in which "the drain was repaired and made sound (in other words patched up) under the supervision
of the sanitary inspector, sometimes at a cost little less than would have been entailed by
reconstruction." Again, in his annual report for 1895, Dr. Dudfield wrote, "the work of sanitation
was hindered throughout the year owing to differences of opinion which arose in the Sanitary Committee
as to your Vestry's powers to require the reconstruction of defective drains, and the trapping
of old drains not intercepted from the sewer." This work had been done for years under notices,
and no difficulty had been experienced in giving effect to the notices. As regards trapping, for
ten years it had been the practice in Kensington for the inspectors when inspecting dwellinghouses,
under the Vestry's instructions, "to test the drain with water or smoke and to see that it
was trapped from the sewer. In several thousands of cases this had been done and without
appreciable difficulty." Dr. Dudfield goes on to state that at the beginning of 1895 objections were
raised to regarding an untrapped drain as "a drain in such a state as to be a nuisance or injurious
or dangerous to health." "These objections were allowed to prevail."* Finally, in July, 1896, the
sanitary inspector ceased to exercise supervision over works of underground drainage, inasmuch as
it was resolved by the Vestry that " all works of repair or alteration to the underground drains
of any premises be supervised by the surveyor's department, provided that this instruction shall not
apply to such works of repairs or alteration as the fixing of gullies or drain inlets apart from other
underground work."
Again, a great deal has been done in the past in Kensington in connection with houses
let in lodgings. A large number of houses were registered, and at the cost of much labour particulars
concerning these houses were ascertained. Few other London districts compare with Kensington
in respect to the number of such houses registered. Unfortunately, however, insufficiency
* In the same annual report—that of 1895, the following passage appears—
"The question of the powers of the Sanitary Committee in these matters was, at the committee's request,
submitted to counsel, who, after long delay, submitted an elaborate "opinion" on a somewhat complicated
"case." Amongst other things, counsel stated that "The Public Health Act applies only when a drain is a
nuisance" [or dangerous] "or injurious to health": adding that "it will be a question of fact in every case,
whether, under the circumstances, a drain is a nuisance" &c. Counsel moreover, whilst holding that "a drain
which is not trapped or ventilated, may, undoubtedly, be within the Act." was of opinion that "the nuisance or
danger [or injury] to health must be proved as a fact." I may mention that the words in brackets, not being in
the original opinion, were added by counsel upon my calling attention to their omission in a letter I addressed
(November 1st) to the Law and Parliamentary Committee, wherein I expressed the view that " it is only necessary
to show, as a matter of expert opinion, that the defect" (e.g. absence of a trap) "involves danger to health
without the necessity of proving injury to health arising therefrom." Counsel moreover, having received a copy
of this communication, stated that he "entirely agreed" with me; it was "sufficient if there is danger, without
injury, to health." It "had not occurred" to him (he had not been told) "that anything turned on the distinction
"(between the words "dangerous" or "injurious" ), though, from my point of view, it is vital to the point at
issue."