London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972

View report page

Holborn 1902

Report for the year 1902 of the Medical Officer of Health

This page requires JavaScript

Holborn Sub-Division.

Locality and Numbers of Houses.Total Number of Houses. Registered.Locality and Numbers of Houses.Total Number of Houses Registered.
Baldwin's Place, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 88Leigh Street, Nos. 4, 82
Castle Court, Nos. 5, 62Little Bath Street, No. 91
Cbarles Street, No. 4a1Little Saffron Hill, No. 131
Devonshire Street, Nos. 4, 522Mount Pleasant, Nos. 47, 49, 633
Dove Court, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 44New North Street, Nos. 2, 20, 21, 224
Drake Street, Nos. 9, 102Portpool Lane, Nos. 19 and 211
Eagle Street, Nos. 9, 20, 28, 45, 46, 536Princeton Street, Nos. 22, 242
Emerald Street, Nos. 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 246Red Lion Screet, Nos. 26, 582
Evelyn Buildings (47 tenements)1Red Lion Passage, No. 51
Fulwood's Rents, No. 211Verulam Street, Nos. 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 218
Half Moon Court. Nos. 6, 7, 8, 94
Lamb's Condnit Passage, No. 171Warner Street, Nos. 32 and 34, 38, 40, 42, 44, 48, 50, 528
Leather Lane Buildings (48 tenements)1

Some of these houses have been closed for demolition during the year.
The following' is the Report of the Public Health Committee, after the interview of the
Chairman (C. Fitz-Roy Doll, Esq.) and the Town Clerk, with the Local Government Board repecting
the proposed new Bye-Laws as to Houses let in Lodgings :—
It will be within the recollection of Members of the Council that some time since, at the
request of the Local Government Board, we prepared a set of Bye-Laws as to houses let in
lodgings or occupied by members of more than one family with the view to the code of bye-law,
being similar over the whole of the Borough. At the present time the registration of tenement
lodging-houses is effected under bye-laws made respectively by the Board of Works for the
St. Giles and Holborn Districts, which bye-laws the Town Clerk points out to us still remain in
force by virtue of the London (Miscellaneous) Scheme, 1900.
When the draft bye-laws approved by the Council were submitted to the Local Government
Board for their consideration, a number of amendments were made, to many of which we
saw no reason to raise any objection, but there were two points which we regarded as of considerable
importance, and on which we did not see our way to fall in with the views of the Local
Government Board. These were, firstly, the insertion of a bye-law which would in effect make it
compulsory on the Council to register all houses, or parts of houses, let in lodgings, or occupied
by members of more than one family, the rental of the tenements of which were below a certain
minimum, and, secondly, the omission of a proposal that a card to be supplied by the Council,
fixing the number of persons who might lawfully occupy any room in a registered lodging house,
should be placed in that room, and produced whenever demanded by any duly authorised officer
of the Council.
The Local Government Board having intimated their willingness to receive a deputation
upon the subject, our Chairman and the Town Clerk attended at the offices of the Board on the
23rd January, 1903, when they were received by Dr. Parsons, the Assistant Medical Officer, and a
member of the legal staff. We have now received a report as to what took place at the interview
in the course of which the difficulty of the question raised was frankly admitted by the officers of
the Local Government Board, who stated that if they could be satisfied that every Authority
would enforce the bye-laws within its area, no difficulty need arise, but they stated that there
were cases in which, under the pretence of exercising their discretion, authorities had resolved
not to place any of the tenement lodging-houses within their district under the scope of the byelaws.
The Town Clerk pointed out that the proposal of the Local Government Board in framing
the bye-law in the manner proposed, would have the effect of depriving the Council of the power
of exercising its discretion, as he claimed it had a right to do, and moreover would be contrary to
the terms of an opinion which had been obtained by the London County Council from Mr. C.
A. Cripps, K.C.