View report page

57
Mr. Cripps' opinion was as follows:—
"In my opinion Section 94 of the Act of 1891 is imperative,
and there is no power to exempt from the operation of
bylaws for the registration of lodging-houses any
houses so occupied as to come within the lodging-house
definition. A bylaw in the Bethnal Green form which
enables the local authority to exempt any or all
lodging-houses within their district, is not a compliance
with the requirements of the Act, and I am unable
to agree with the view put forward by the Local
Government Board."
Observe now the absurdity of the contention of the
London County Council. The Lord Chief Justice, in
the Galinski case, declared such bylaws as required the
registration of all houses let in lodgings, and which
contain no clause giving the Sanitary Authority discretion
as to what particular tenement houses should be
registered, to be unreasonable. All this points to what
is really required, that is, such an amendment of the
Public Health (London) Act, 1895, as would definitely
give to sanitary authorities those powers erroneously
supposed to be conferred by the bylaws. No sensible
man disputes the necessity for such powers, but they
must be definite and not open to dispute.
The London County Council poses as the central
Health Authority of London; as a matter of fact their
powers in this direction are very limited (except in
default of the Borough Councils); that body, however,
enjoys the privilege of initiating legislation; theoretically
the Borough Councils have similar powers, with
the difference that Parliament is most unlikely to
agree to any partial legislation at the instance of the
Borough Councils, whereas the London County
Council, acting on behalf of the whole of the