View report page

156
A second midnight inspection of the same street was made on
February 25th, 1902. We visited 25 houses, comprising 129
occupancies or tenements, containing 314 adults and 157 children,
or a total population of 471. Judged by Bye-law 4, we found 78
out of the 129 tenements overcrowded. This gives a percentage
of overcrowding of 59.6 as against 73.4 two months previously.
In both of these inspections we found that the overcrowding was
more of adults than of children, but fairly equally distributed
between front and back rooms and on different floors. The
second inspection confirmed my previous opinion, that, in many
cases, the overcrowding was of such a degree and character that
it could not but have grave effects both physically and morally.
With few exceptions the tenements are one-roomed. The matter
was reported in detail to the Council and I was authorised to
issue summonses against the owner of the worst cases. Nine
were issued under the Bye-laws for Houses Let in Lodgings and
the defendant was convicted, and fined £5 and £2 2s. costs on
the first, and £1 and 2s. costs on each of the other eight, total
£15 18s.
The third night inspection of the same houses was made on
November 18th, 1902. We visited 20 houses comprising 116 tenements.
Only 87 of these were occupied, as the result of the clearances
made by the owner. These 87 tenements contained 205 adults
and 119 children, or a total population of 324. Judged by Byelaw
4, we found 38 out of the 87 tenements to be overcrowded,
yielding a percentage of 43.6. The overcrowding which was
present on this third occasion was of a much less serious character
than formerly. In December 84 per cent, of the overcrowding
was of a considerable degree, in February 68 per cent, of the overcrowding
was of a considerable degree, and in November less
than 50 per cent, of the overcrowding was of a considerable
degree. The matter was fully reported to the Council and I was
instructed to proceed against the owner again. On this second
occasion four summonses were issued, and he was again convicted
on each and fined £10 8s.