View report page

Houses let in Lodgings.
No inspections for the purpose of enforcing the Bye-laws made
under Section 94 of the Public Health Act have been made during the
year owing to the penalty clause in the existing Bye-laws being practically
identical with that contained in the Bye-laws of the Boroughs of
Islington and Stepney which the High Court declared to be unreasonable,
owing to the absence of a provision for the service of a notice before a
person became liable to a penalty.
On the 12th July, the Public Health Committee referred the
question of these Bye-laws to a Sub-Committee consisting of Councillors
Lyell (Chairman), Gard and Hendrick.
The matter is still the subject of negotiation with the Local
Government Board.
Sanitary Bye-laws.
Administration by Bye-law is one of the essentials of local
government.
This being so, and in view of the fact that all Bye-laws have to be
confirmed by the Local Government Board or one of the other
Departments of State before they take effect, it seems to me that this
confirmation should be accepted as sufficient guarantee that their
provisions are reasonable.
To frame a Code of Bye-laws which could be relied upon to
survive all attacks likely to be made upon them on the ground of their
being unreasonable, does not appear to be within the range of possibility,
especially when it is remembered that the penalty clauses to which
exception was successfully taken in the cases of Nokes v. Islington
Borough Council and Stiles v. Galinski were based upon the directions of
Parliament, laid down in Section 183 of the Public Health Act, 1875,
and made applicable to the Metropolis by the First Schedule of the
Public Health (London) Act, 1891.
The set back to sanitary administration and progress which results
from the Bye-laws of a Sanitary Authority being declared invalid, by a
decision of the High Court, is so serious as, in my opinion, to demand