View report page

200
1903]
deal with this matter, and even for the consideration of the Local Government Board,
of whom we have heard so much, but whose approval cannot make that reasonable which
is not reasonable in itself, whether, if model bye-laws are to be framed, it would not
be wiser and would not make them much more satisfactory if the two perfectly different
classes of tenements were not attempted to be dealt with or comprised in the same legislation.
Mr. Justice Kennedy: I have come to the same conclusion, and I have come to
that conclusion with a great deal of reluctance from one point of view, and that is this:
that it is the health of the helpless that is very largely protected by these bye-laws, and
I cannot help thinking that a good many of the points that have been taken have been
points which do not occur in practice—which raise no difficulty in practice—and in
which no difficulty would arise if there was loyalty to the intentions of the Legislature
on the part of those who raise these difficulties.
I confess myself that I am unable to see, at the same time that the bye-law in either
case could be supported, for the reasons given by my Lord, and I think it is unfortunate
that that should have happened, because one knows perfectly well (it is not disputed
here, and cannot be disputed anywhere) that persons who do not want to face liabilities
which they incur by keeping property in an insanitary state, can raise a great many
difficulties if they will only employ intermediate agents, who they say are the only persons
in touch with the tenants. So it is very difficult, I believe, and I can quite understand,
to frame bye-laws which shall, on the one hand, really make the man who has got
the profits, as the law intended, (for I am only stating what I understand to be the law
under the statutes) who is really receiving the high rent for these properties,
responsible, and at the same time, of course, prevent a possible injustice,
which is equally to be deprecated, of a person who is loyally doing his best, but has
not the opportunity, from being attacked by summonses and found liable to penalties
which really he could not help. It is very difficult, no doubt, to recognise the two,
but I can only say for myself entirely that it does make one inclined, as far as one can
consistently do so, with justice, to take a liberal and generous view of the efforts of
public bodies who carry out this great sanitary legislation, and not allow either private
greed or private carelessness to maintain an insanitary property.
I cannot help thinking, speaking for myself, if I may, beyond doubt, that with regard
to the word "landlord" in the bye-law in the Stepney case, the word to be one
which does make it possible for a person who is merely a rent receiver, who has let to
a perfectly respectable tenant, who again sub-lets in lodgings, to make that ultimate
landlord responsible without notice for an unhealthy condition of the property. You see an
instance of the importance of doing something, because in this case, according to paragraph
3, when the appellant visited the house he found the rooms and staircases dirty, and he
again visited on the 14th April, and he found the same state of dirt in this place. All I
can hope is, that the Local authority will bear in mind what my Lord has said, and what
Brother Wills has said, and frame a bye-law which is in such terms as will avoid that
which makes the present one unjust, namely, making a person responsible who may be
simply landlord in the sense of the ultimate receiver of the rent, and apparently a perfectly
respectable tenant, who is anxious to see that the lodgings when he lets them are
kept in a good state, and takes care that his lodgers do their duty and keep them clean,
without fair notice to him of any failure on the part of those who are actually managing
the premises to do their duty.