View report page

82
"In the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, sub-section (1) of section 101, re-enacting in
almost identical words sub-section (3) of section 27 of the Act of 1895, reads as follows:—
'An underground bakehouse shall not be used as a bakehouse unless it was so used
at the passing of this Act'—i.e., August 17th, 1901.
Under this sub-section proceedings were recently instituted by direction of the Council's
Public Health Committee in a case, the undisputed facts of which are as follows:—An underground
bakehouse at North Kensington ceased to be used on August 4th, 1901, the occupying
tenant having been ejected by his landlord, who, late in September (as I was informed), began to
repair the house (which had gone out of rating though still occupied in tenements), and whitewashed
the bakehouse, with a view to its future use as a bakehouse. Hearing, in October, 1901,
that the premises were advertised to be let as a bakehouse, I called the agent's attention to the
provisions of the sub-section, and subsequently saw the owner, who admitted that the bakehouse
was not 'used' on August 17th, 1901. The bakehouse remained out of use until December 31st.
On that day (it was stated) the owner, who carries on a baker's business at Islington, began
to bake bread on the premises, and continued to carry on the business, by a resident employe,
thereafter. The Council took proceedings against the owner (under sub-section (6) of section 101),
for using the bakehouse in contravention of the Act. The case was heard before the magistrates
of the Kensington Division on March 11th, 1902. The solicitor for the defendant relied on the
decision of the High Court in the case above cited (Schwerzerhof v. Wilkins), which he held to
be on ' all-fours ' with the case under consideration; and with this view the magistrates concurred,
dismissing the summons, without costs, at the same time offering to state a case. The
matter in due course came before the Law Committee, who decided not to proceed to appeal,
so that no opportunity was afforded for ascertaining whether this was a case, in which, as
Mr. Justice Wright had suggested, 'the Court might take a different view' to that taken
in the case cited.
"So far, then, the attempt to close unsuitable underground bakehouses—if that was the
object aimed at by the legislature in the Acts of 1895 and 1901—has failed in regard to individual
cases. But the Act of 1901 goes much further than the Act of 1895, as it provides (section
101 (2) that, subject to the provisions of sub-section (1)—
'After the first day of January, 1904, an underground bakehouse shall not be used
unless certified by the District Council to be suitable for that purpose.'
The following sub-section (3) defines an underground bakehouse to mean—
'A bakehouse, any baking room of which is so situate that the surface of the floor
is more than three feet below the surface of the footway of the adjoining street, or of the
ground adjoining or nearest to the room. The expression ' baking room ' means any room
used for baking or for any process incidental thereto.'
And then follows the crucial sub-section (4), which enacts that—
'An underground bakehouse shall not be certified as suitable, unless the District
Council is satisfied that it is suitable as regards construction, light, ventilation, and in all
other respects.'
With few exceptions the bakehouses in the borough are underground bakehouses, being generally
the two basement rooms—kitchen and scullery—of an ordinary dwelling house, adapted by the
construction of one or more ovens under the footway of the adjoining street; imperfectlv
lighted by a hinged sash in the stall-board of the shop; this, moreover, being the principal if
not the only means of ventilation. In practice, however, the window is seldom opened—for
operative bakers who work in great heat are very susceptible to the ill effects of draughts—and
when opened it admits dust and other street filth blown in from the carriageway. It would
seem impossible to a sanitary authority to 'certify' a bakehouse so situated, so constructed,
so ill-lighted, and practically unventilated, to be 'suitable' for the purposes of a business
demanding the utmost cleanliness.
"But we have not yet done with the new provisions of law, for it is further enacted, in
sub-section (7), that—
'In the event of the refusal of a certificate by the District Council, the occupier
of the bakehouse may within twenty-one days from the refusal, by complaint apply to a
court of summary jurisdiction, and if it appears to the satisfaction of the court that the
bakehouse is suitable for use as regards construction, light, ventilation, and in all other
respects, the court shall thereupon grant a certificate of suitability of the bakehouse which
shall have effect as if granted by the District Council.'
"In a word, a single magistrate, who may be without practical knowledge or experience
in regard to the matter, may override the decision of the District Council—a sanitary authority
acting upon the advice of their expert officers.
"It is, of course, to be hoped that no such conflict will arise in the execution of the law,
but that the trade will themselves take steps to bring matters to a satisfactory settlement in