View report page

55
five for other conditions, these were all successful, but
in each instance we were sure of our ground and a
penalty was inflicted. In view of the disputed legality of
several of the bylaws, the Chief Inspector, in consultation
with the Solicitor to the Council, has preferred to
proceed under the Principal Act, after service of
statutory notice. The definition in the Public Health
(London) Act, 1891, as to what actually constitutes a
house let in lodgings is misleading, and gives rise to
frequent disputes. Cases recently decided in the Courts
(Weatheritt v. Cantley, etc.) leave very little doubt that
many of the Bethnal Green tenements are illegally
registered.
The London County Council looks upon the rigorous
enforcement of tenement house regulations as a panacea
for all sorts of evils including overcrowding and insufficient
housing accommodation. Personally, I never
had a high opinion of the bylaws, but was always
anxious to give them a trial as I believe good would
result if we were able, by means of night visits, to detect
overcrowding; the power (supposed to be) given by the
bylaws to require periodical cleansing, etc., is also most
valuable. Unfortunately recent decisions in the Law
Courts have shewn that night inspections are ultra
vires* and that periodical cleansing, etc., cannot be
enforced without notice (Stiles v. Galinski and Nokes v.
the Islington Borough Council). Since the publication
of these decisions I sent a circular letter to all the Medical
Officers of Health in London asking for their opinions
as to future methods of procedure.
From the answers I received I gather that thirteen
do not attempt to make night visits, and only one
* Sec. 10 (a) Public Health (London) Act, 1891.