View report page

40
COMMON LODGING HOUSES.
Of these there are only three in Fulham. By the Lodging
Houses Acts, 14 and 15 Vic., c. 28, and 17 and 18 Vic., c. 41, the
control of common lodging houses was entrusted to the Police. These
Acts were repealed except so far as relates to the Metropolitan Police
District, by the Public Health Act of 1875, and Sanitary Authorities
throughout the country have consequently been exercising powers of
control over such houses which in London was vested in the Police.
In the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, there are no clauses
corresponding to Clause 76 to 89 of the Public Health Act, 1875,
which deal with common lodging houses, but that the Sanitary
Authority have right of entry and consequent power to deal with any
insanitary condition of the premises they may find is clear from the
following case:—
On 30th May last Sanitary-Inspector Grigg applied to be admitted
to inspect a common lodging house 541a King's Road. He was
refused admission unless he had the police officer with him. He
informed the deputy in charge that unless he was admitted freely to
perform his duties under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, he
should apply to the magistrate at the West London Police Court for a
warrant empowering him to enter. Admission was still refused and he
accordingly applied to Mr. Curtis Bennett, the sitting magistrate at the
West London Police Court for a warrant to enter. The application
was opposed by two Inspectors of lodging houses, who contended that
under the Common Lodging Houses Acts only the police officers duly
appointed by the Chief Commissioner, were entitled to inspect. The
Sanitary Inspector explained that he did not apply for admission under
the Common Lodging Houses Act but under the Public Health
(London) Act, 1891, which requires that every house in the district
should be inspected, and as there was no exemption in respect of
Common Lodging Houses. The magistrate upheld this view and in
granting the warrant of entry said that the Sanitary Inspector not only
had a right to inspect Common Lodging Houses in his district, but it
was his duty to do so.
On endeavouring to execute the magistrate's warrant, the Sanitary
Inspector was again refused admission and the Vestry issued a
summons against the deputy for penalties for obstructing their Inspector
jn executing the warrant. The case was heard by Mr. Curtis-