View report page

72
Among the reasons given for refusing or deferring the granting of certificates were non-compliance
with requirements to provide anti-syphonage pipes to the water-closets or to amend sink-water pipes (St.
Marylebone), absence of proper and sufficient water-supply and adequate washing accommodation
(Poplar), premises unsuitable or insanitary (Bethnal-green), drain pipes not watertight or gas stoves not
ventilated into the open air (Hampstead).
Underground Rooms.
The illegal occupation of underground rooms continues to occupy the attention of sanitary
authorities of numerous districts in London. The medical officer of health of St. Marylebone reports
that as a result of special inquiry and of a number of inspections by himself, he is of opinion that the
large majority of the underground rooms in that borough are illegally occupied. He learns from medical
practitioners of long experience in the locality that "rheumatism is exceedingly common amongst the
children inhabiting underground rooms, and rickets only slightly less prevalent." "The consequences
of rheumatism Dr. Meredith Young writes, ''are manifested in heart-trouble before very long and this
incapacitates sufferers from most forms of heavy physical work, which is usually the only kind of employment
open to persons of this class." It has not been found practicable to deal with more of these rooms
than those which are considerably below the standard required by the Public Health Act.
A case of some importance came before the Courts during the year, of which the following account
is given by Dr. McCleary, medical officer of health of Hampstead.
"On 27th May, 1908, an important point in the law relating to underground rooms was decided in the Divisional
Court on a case stated by the Hampstead Justices. The facts in this case were as follows :—The owner of a block of
residential flats in the Town Ward was prosecuted by the Borough Council for allowing the caretaker to occupy
three underground rooms that did not comply with the requirements of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, the
rooms being deficient in height, light, and ventilation, and in the provision of a proper area outside. Before the
Justices, counsel for the defendant admitted that the rooms did not comply with the Act, but he took the technical
point that the sanitary authority had known of the occupation for a period of more than six months, and therefore
that by Jarvis's Act they were debarred from taking proceedings. The Justices upheld this view and dismissed the
summons, but agreed to state a case. In the Divisional Court Mr. S. G. Turner appeared for the Council and Mr. W.
Stewart for the respondent. The Lord Chief Justice, in his judgment, said that the real point in the case was this:
Had the rooms been occupied at any time during the six months immediately preceding the issue of the summons? If
so, an offence had been committed for which proceedings could be taken. In this case it was admitted that the rooms
had been so occupied. The appeal, therefore, must be allowed with costs, and the case sent back to the Justices, Mr.
Justice Darling added that Jarvis's Act limited the time during which proceedings could be taken to six months from
the time when the matter arose. In this case the matter was continually arising. The six months' period was a moving
period, and as each night passed a fresh offence arose on the front of the period, and one went off at the end."

Overcrowding.
* Improved or dealt with.