View report page

5
In his Report Dr. Hamer states that he attempted " to learn whether or
not the putting in force of a code of By-laws or regulations enables conditions
to be dealt with which are not capable of being remedied, or can only with
difficulty be remedied, under the general provisions of the Public Health Act."
He refers to the evidence given before the Royal Commission on the Housing
of the Working Classes in 1885, by the late Dr. Tripe, Medical Officer of
Health, Hackney, where 5,000 houses were on the Register, who stated that
the great advantage of having regulations was that proceedings could be taken
for breach of regulations, and that it was not necessary in each instance to
convince the magistrate that what was complained of was a nuisance injurious
to health. He points out that, in the matter of cleansing, the specific requirements
of the By-laws have been most useful. That, in the matter of overcrowding,
the By-laws define overcrowding, that they enable penalties to be
more easily obtained, and that they enable inspection to be made at other
times than those specified in the general Act, that placing houses on the
register tends to cause owners to reduce the number of occupants of tenements,
but that in proceeding by notice to abate overcrowding " presumably what
happens in many cases is that the persons merely transfer themselves from one
tenement to another, while the amount of overcrowding in the district remains
unaltered. That, in the matter of proceeding without notice, as regards cleansing,
the experience is entirely favourable, and, as regards overcrowding it is also
favourable, but full use has not hitherto been made of the power to proceed
straightway for penalty on proof of infringement. Other matters can be
dealt with by By-laws, but cleansing and overcrowding are the main questions.
He concludes by indicating some difficulties, the first being that of insufficient
staff for the systematic inspection of registered houses, the demand of other
work upon the time of Sanitary Inspectors having prevented even Chelsea
(with 1700 registered houses), and Hackney (with 5000 registered houses),
these two authorities having regulations prior to 1885, from keeping their
registers up to date; the second difficulty being that in Court the procedure
is somewhat complicated, formal proof of registration is required, and change
of ownership may delay proceedings, and in sub-letting, questions as to the
person liable may arise.
The Vestry of St. Pancras adopted By-laws for the regulation of tenement
houses on the 16th July, 1890, and they were confirmed by the Local Government
Board on the 30th of the following August.
After the passing of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, and the adoption
of By-laws by the County Council for various purposes, and by the Vestry for
various other purposes, it was deemed advisable to repeal the old and to adopt
a revised set of By-laws. The revised By-laws were approved by the Vestry
on the 27th September, 1893, and allowed by the Local Government Board on
the 13th November following.
In the revised By-laws certain provisions of the old By-laws were
eliminated, namely,—
1. A provision as to the amount and kind of water-closet accommodation
to be provided and maintained (clause 11), and as to the
cleansing thereof (part of clause 16), these being provided for in
By-laws of the London County Council under Sec. 39 (1)