View report page

10
After perusing the Tables in the Appendix, which set out roughly the
work performed by the Sanitary Staff, you will agree with me that your
Inspectors have well carried out most useful and beneficial operations.
The increased number of notifications of Infectious diseases, as well as the
extra work demanded by the Workshops' Acts of Parliament, have strained
the energies of your staff. They have, however, thrown themselves into
the work with a will that calls for recognition. I am obliged to do them
this justice, because people who are not acquainted with their work are
apt to undervalue the services which are rendered by them. As an
illustration, you may remember how the Mansion House Council on the
Dwellings of the Poor, through their local agent, proceeded against the
owners of Booth Street Buildings under the Public Health (London)
Act, 1891. It was alleged that your Officers had not performed their
duty. The case was heard upon two occasions by Mr. Cluer at the Worship
Street Police Court. The evidence for the prosecution was heard by me
with great astonishment. I was present upon subpoena and gave evidence.
The best comment upon the whole case is the summing up of the learned
magistrate which I introduce here. "I do not see I have any option but
"to dismiss this summons, I shall not be entitled to make an order
"against the owner of these premises, unless they were in such a state as
"to be injurious to health, and that was in the information set out.
"With reference to the water-closets, the evidence as to that satisfies me
"that though not perhaps such as would be seen in King's Palaces, at
"the same time it is said by Dr. Willoughby that they are such as would
"be put in by Sanitary Authorities. The principal point made with
"reference to them was, that they were not fit for children, but if that is
"so, I am afraid I shall have no power, so far as I can see, to order any
"special class of water-closet to be put into buildings, so that children
"can use them. It is the duty of parents to see that children use them;
"if they are in accordance with Sanitary regulations. It is the duty of
"parents to see that the children use the ordinary utensils, and not
"commit a nuisance. Therefore, I cannot find that these premises are in
"such a state as to be injurious or dangerous to health. I thought at
"first that if it were true that there were no dust-bins at all all this time
"on these premises, it would be impossible not to come to the conclusion
"that the owner had been neglecting his duty, but it has now been
"explained to me that dust-pails were supplied by the Vestry.
"Mr. Easman says he gave notice to Mr. Reekie. It might be that
"it was not given so soon as it might have been, but it is quite
"clear that Mr. Reekie gave orders to replace them. It is quite
"clear, therefore, that he did his best to replace them, because had
"notice been given to the defendant with reference to those, it seems
"to me he would at once have remedied that defect. The sinks on the
"ground floor: as far as I can see, the defect in reference to them is
"not that the water makes the place damp, but at one place it runs over.
"That is an inconvenience that the owner would remedy of himself, but I
"cannot say I should be justified in finding that that is injurious or
"dangerous to health. If it were pointed out to the owner that there was
"a defect, he would put it right, and you have someone on the premises
"like Mr. Reekie, to whom you can apply at once. Under the present
"circumstances he appears to have known nothing before about it, and
"the injury is unnecessary if the people take care. Now, as to the fenders
"upstairs, there is conflicting evidence as to that, and considering this,
"that on the last occasion, the whole of the contention as to that point
"was—and I was rather surprised at it being put forward by the prosecu"tion—that
they were being stuffed up by the tenants who would empty
"carrot peelings, tops of vegetables, etc., into these sinks and so fill them
"over. I was rather surprised at that being taken as something for which
"the owner was responsible. It was clearly a misuse by the tenants, not