View report page

190
I may add that I had, of course, myself carefully examined the
partition which had been erected, and I considered it unsuitable on
the following grounds:—
(a) It was not a solid partition of brick or other similar
materials, but consisted of a ¾-inch single match lining.
(b) It was not accurately fitted to the walls at the side, and to
the ceiling at the top, and
(c) The consistence of the panelling was such that in the course
of time it might probably warp, and become in every way
wholly unsuitable.
I may say that this opinion of mine is based upon our practice in
Finsbury during the past, and on the practice of other Metropolitan
Borough Councils. We hold that such a partition is not "a solid
wall" within the meaning of the Bye-law, and that the term "other
materials" in the Bye-law means other similar materials to brick.
It is, of course, a matter of great importance that these sanitary
conveniences in factories and workshops shall be properly constructed
within the meaning of the Bye-laws, otherwise any sort of
temporary and unsuitable structure will be erected by unscrupulous
persons. So that whilst the case appears to be one concerning a
small and unimportant point, viz. : the suitability or otherwise of a
partition to a sanitary convenience, it is in point of fact a matter of
importance. On the whole, the somewhat exceptional judgment of
the learned magistrate (exceptional, i.e., in accordance with previous
judgments on this point), indicates that it would be desirable to
obtain such amendments to the Bye-law as will make it clear what
the term "other materials" really means, and not leave the matter,
as it is at present, for each Sanitary Authority in London to define
in accordance with its own view.
I reported the full facts of the case to the London County
Council, and the following is a copy of the letter sent by the Clerk
of the London County Council, to the Town Clerk of Finsbury, on
September 10th, 1904:—