View report page

71
from 300 to 400 cubic feet in rooms occupied exclusively as
sleeping-rooms, and from 400 to 500 cubic feet in rooms not
used exclusively for that purpose; the standard for a child
under 10 years being in each case one half that for an adult.
In July, 1903, a letter was received from the Local
Government Board in which no objection was raised to the
proposed amendments, except the omission of the exemption
clause. The Board suggested that the administrative
difficulties which had induced the Council to omit this clause
might be met by an amendment of the clause rather than by its
omission. The Council in reply proposed a clause which would
have had the effect of exempting all houses except those that the
Council had decided to place upon the register. An exemption
clause to this effect formed part of the bye-laws then in
force in the following Boroughs:— Bethnal Green, Chelsea,
Hampstead, Islington, Lambeth, Lewisham, St. Pancras and
Shoreditch; and this clause would have given the Council the
freedom of registration which was desired. The Board,
however, replied that this was a clause to which they had had to
take exception in recent years in several cases, and that they
were not prepared to assent to it, and they suggested that the
matter might be discussed at a conference between their officials
and the Council's officers. After this conference, which was
held on 1st December, 1903, the Board suggested a clause
exempting all houses except those "where the keeper resides
on the premises and where in addition to such keeper and his
family there are not more than two persons lodging in such
house." The Council accepted this alteration and submitted
the amended bye-laws to the Board for confirmation on
14th January, 1904.
On 3rd February, 1904, two important decisions were
given in the High Court which made it necessary again to
revise the bye-laws. In these cases, Stiles v. Galinski, and
Nokes and Nokes v. the Mayor, Aldermen and Councillors of
Islington, it was held that bye-laws relating to houses let in
lodgings were bad if they did not provide that a notice should
be served on the landlord before he could be held responsible