View report page

62
Acts having been repealed, and modified provisions in respect to bye-laws enacted in the Public
Health (London) Act, 1891, the Local Government Board addressed a circular letter on the subject
to the sanitary authorities in 1892, and again in 1894. The Board pointed out that the powers
conferred by the new Act (section 94) " differ in some respects from those exercisable under section
35 of the Sanitary Act, 1866, and section 47 of the Sanitary Law Amendment Act, 1874, in
pursuance of which the regulations now in force in (this) district were made"; inasmuch as section
94 of the new Act, " no longer provides that such matters as the enforcement of privy accommodation,
the paving of premises, the notices to be given in case of infectious or contagious disease, the
cleansing of cisterns, or the keeping of water-closets in good order, &c., shall be dealt with by
regulations applicable to houses let in lodgings. These matters," it was added, "can be otherwise
dealt with : in some cases by bye-laws made by the sanitary authority, and applicable generally to
all houses in the district, whether let in lodgings or not, and in others by bye-laws made by the
London Count}' Council." The Board at the same time forwarded " a model series of bye-laws,
which they had caused to be prepared for the use of sanitary authorities, under section 94 of the
Act, drawn up after very careful consideration of the regulations which might be properly enforced
in the case of the class of houses to which the enactment applies ;" and it was suggested that
existing regulations should be modified on the basis of the model clauses. The matter was referred
to the sanitary committee to consider, and report what modifications were necessary or desirable to
bring the existing regulations into conformity with the provisions of the Act of 1891.
The subject being new to many members of the late Vestry, I gave an outline of former
proceedings with regard to it, in the annual report for 1894. To what was then said (pp. 191-199)
there is little to add now, inasmuch as the matter stands practically where it did six years ago,
when the sanitary committee approved a modified series of bye-laws I had drafted for their
consideration. The committee had forwarded the proposed bye-laws to the Local Government
Board, tentatively, with the view of ascertaining whether they were such as the Board would be
prepared to sanction. After a long wait, and no reply being forthcoming, the bye-laws were
submitted to the Vestry for approval, and referred to the law and parliamentary committee and the
sanitary committee, jointly, for further consideration. With a view to lighten the labours of the
joint committees, 1 prepared a report (No.4, April 25th, 1895, pp. 50—60 inclusive) showing
" generally, in what respects the proposed new bye-laws differ from the existing bye-laws, and from
the model series framed for the guidance of the sanitary authorities by the Local Government Board."
To this report was subjoined a list of streets, showing the number of houses in each which had been
registered since 1885, and a further list of some of the principal streets, the houses in which, so far as
they were let in lodgings or occupied by members of more than one family, appeared to be proper
to be registered under the provisions of the Act. The joint committees submitted their report,
July 31st, 1895, and the bye-laws in the form recommended by them were, on that day, adopted by
the late Vestry, and ordered to be sent to the Local Government Board for their sanction. On the
self-same day a communication was received from the Board intimating their willingness to approve,
with a few, mostly verbal, amendments, the bye-laws which I had drafted and the sanitary
committee had approved and forwarded for the consideration of the Board five months previously,
and which differed in some material respects from those adopted by the Vestry. After a further
long interval the Board returned the second draft of proposed bye-laws, with suggested amendments.
To some of the Board's suggestions the Vestry demurred; and a further communication was made
to the Board, urging, inter valia, the desirability of a proposed bye-law requiring the landlord of a
registered house to give notice to the sanitary authority when intending to carry out the annual
cleansing, so as to enable the sanitary inspector to supervise the execution of the work. The Board
had expressed doubt as to the competency of the sanitary authority to make such a bye-law,* the
desirability of which does not admit of question.
Proposed additional bye-laws. — It is a common practice with people having large families to
conceal the number of their children until after taking possession of their lodging—often a single
room ; and then, should it be desired to get rid of them, the tedious process, by notices and policecourt
proceedings, described in the annual report for 1889 (page 119), has to be gone through,
consuming, many (at least six) weeks before possession can be obtained, during which interval the
unfortunate landlord may not receive rent on peril of failure to obtain an ejectment order. In
regard to registered houses, the "keeper" is equally liable with the "lodger" for the offence of overcrowding,
and as I pointed out in the ninth report for 1896 (August 13th, page 111), it would be
well if a bye-law were made requiring him, under penalty, to report to the sanitary authority any
case of overcrowding coming to his knowledge. On consideration of the report, the Vestry decided
to apply to the Local Government Board for sanction to a bye-law requiring the keeper to report
overcrowding, as follows :—
" If any lodger in a registered house cause or suffer any room under his control to be
occupied by a greater number of persons than is allowed by this bye-law, it shall be
the duty of the keeper of the registered house, upon his becoming aware of the fact,
to notify such fact to the medical officer."
* The Board's suggestion was that a definite period should be fixed for the execution of the works of cleansing, kc.,
namely, one month, so that the sanitary authority, knowing at about what time the work would be in progress, should have
a chance of being able to exercise supervision. The period limited by the proposed bye-law, " March 1st to August 1st
inclusive," being the same as in the existing bye-law (No. 7), is so prolonged that it is practically impossible to supervise, as
the inspectors seldom know when work is likely to be in progress.