View report page

63
In my sixth report for 1897 (25th June, page 79), a further suggestion for a new bye-law
was made with a view to secure the provision and maintenance at " furnished " rooms in registered
houses, of bedding which should be clean and wholesome, and free from noxious insects. The matter
was referred to the sanitary committee, who (on 6th October, 1897) recommended, and it was
resolved—
" That the Vestry do approve of a draft bye-law in the following terms, and that the same
be submitted to the Local Government Board for their approval, viz. : —
"The landlord or keeper of a registered house in which rooms are let in furnished
lodgings, shall cause the bedding and other articles in such rooms to be at all
times maintained in a clean and wholesome condition and free from noxious
insects."
The Local Government Board's views on the subject of these proposed new bye-laws have
not yet been received, and the bye-laws adopted in 1885 are still in force: they have worked
well, and, personally, I could be content that they should continue unaltered. It is true that
certain matters with which they deal are " otherwise " (but not differently) " dealt with " in the
Public Health Act, and in bye-laws framed by the County Council and the sanitary authority.
There is, nevertheless, a manifest advantage in dealing with such matters in the lodging-house
bye-laws, for the information of owners, keepers, and lodgers having duties in regard to them,
with which they will not otherwise become acquainted, the general bye-laws not being circulated.
As t-lsewhere stated, moreover, sanitary administration in relation to registered houses is
facilitated by the bye-laws which enable the Council to secure conditions necessary to healthiness
of the habitation, without recourse to the tedious process of proving nuisance to the satisfaction
of tiie justices, by proceedings under the second section of the Public Health Act.
Registeiiable Lodging-Houses.—An interesting question in connection with the registration
of houses let in lodgings or occupied by members of more than one family, raising the
point whether Hats or rooms in artizans' dwellings can be brought, as lodging-houses, within
the provisions of Sec. 94 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, came before the sitting
magistrate at the Southwark police-court. The case arose out of the decision of the late Vestry
of St. George-the-Martvr, to register Gun's buildings in that district, and the refusal of the
agent of the owner to furnish particulars with respect to the tenements, and the manner of
occupation, and the names, sex, etc., of the occupants—in a word the particulars set out in the
Council's first bye-law. These particulars, which the learned magistrate who granted the
summons characterised as " most inquisitorial," are specified in the model bye-laws of the Local
Government Board on which the local bye-laws are framed.* But this by the way. The agent
was summoned for refusing to furnish the required particulars. At the hearing it was contended
on behalf of the Vestry, that the occupants of the one and two-roomed tenements were
really lodgers, and that each block was a lodging-house within the meaning of the Act—i.e.,
it was " a house or part of a house which is let in lodgings, ,or occupied by members of more
than one family." For the defendant it was claimed that each tenement, though it might
comprise only one room, was a separate dwelling-house, and that the occupiers were not lodgers
but "occupying tenants." Their names, it was stated, were on ihe rate books, and although
they compounded with their landlord for the payment of the rates, they were in possession of the
parliamentary franchise, and were in a similar position to the holders of West-end fiats, or
chambers in the Temple. This view was controverted bv the Vestry's representative, who argued
that registration law was not relevant to the administration of the Public Health Act, and, if it
were, places which were not called lodgings under the Registration Acts were so called under the
Lodgers' Goods Protection Act.
The learned magistrate dismissed the summons, following, as he stated, the decisions of
the judges of the Supreme Court, as it appeared that the landlord did not reside on the premises,
and did not exercise any control over them either by himself or his servants (it was stated,
however, that a caretaker lived on the premises, collected the rents, and exercised control as the
servant of the landlord), and therefore the premises could not be said to be " lodgings " in anv
meaning of the word. The tenements appear to have been regarded by the learned magistrate
as separate houses, and I suppose they are, qua the parliamentary franchise. The same contention,
possibly, is tenable in respect to individual rooms let to lodgers in ordinary tenement
houses—that class of house which the late Vestry thought to be pre-eminently proper to be
registered under the bye-laws. In the Southwark case there appears to have been no question—
whether regard be had to the character of the property, or the character of the inhabitants, that
the tenements were such as would have been properly subject to registration, had they not come
under the definition " artizans' dwellings." In connection with the census, it may be
* Moreover, in the High Court of Justine. Queen'B Bench Division, April 6th, 1886—Roots (Appellant) v. Beaumont
(Respondent)—Respondent being charged with infringing bye-laws of a Local Board, in not attending to slate the
particulars of her lodging-house, it was held that where part of the house was let to one family, and the landlady occupied
the rest, this was a lodging-house, and there was nothing unreasonable in the bye-law requiring the attendance of the
landlady to give particulars such as are required by the Council's first bye-law. (Vide my Annual Report for 1885-86,
page 130.)