View report page

70
Secretary with a view to obtaining the consolidation and amendment of the law relating to common
lodging-houses, the making such houses subject to annual licence by the sanitary authorities, and the
transference to these authorities of the administration of the Common Lodging Houses Acts. In only
two annual reports is there information as to the action taken by the sanitary authorities, and these
reports show that each of these authorities agreed with the Vestry of Westminster.
The extreme importance, and indeed necessity, of maintaining an efficient administration in
connection with common lodging-houses will not be denied, it might therefore be expected that the
desire of sanitary authorities to undertake this duty would stand in some proportion to their willingness
to perform a somewhat similar duty in the regulation of houses let in lodgings. It is, however,
interesting to observe that concerning one of the authorities mentioned, Dr. Hamer points out that the
main difficulty in enforcing the regulations for houses let in lodgings has been the inadequacy of the
staff of sanitary inspectors to carry out the duty ; concerning the other authority, Dr. Hamer writes,
that no machinery for the purpose of keeping these houses under supervision has as yet been provided,
and under these circumstances the benefit which would result from administration of the by-laws is not
being secured.
costoms and inland revenue acts, 1890 and 1891.
The medical officers of health of the following districts state that certificates under these
Acts were granted during the year in their districts—
Fulham—Certificates for exemption from inhabited house duty were granted in respect of 22,
and refused in respect of 63 houses.
Hackney—The medical officer of health inspected 316 tenement houses on 15 applications made
for certificates. In a large number of cases the dwellings were not in such a condition as to justify
the certificate being given unless considerable repairs were done. These in all cases were completed,
according to notice, and the certificate furnished to the owner. The medical officer of health, however,
considers such certificate should not be made to last for five years, the period of the assessment,
but that a certificate should be obtained every year when it relates to tenement property.
St. Giles—Certificates were granted to the Peabody-buildings, Incorporated Society for
Improving the Condition of the Working Classes, Central London Dwellings Company, and London
County Council, in respect of various buildings within the district.
Holborn—Alter completion of the sanitary work required certificates were granted in respect of
434 tenements.
Shoreditcli—Certificates were applied for with respect to 184 sets of buildings, but only 62 were
granted, the others not conforming to the vestry's requirements.
Bethnal-green—Applications for certificates were received for 45 houses or 400 tenements; of
these 25 were granted and 20 refused. Three blocks of buildings owned by the London County
Council did not comply with the requirements of the medical officer of health as to the sufficiency of
sinks and water-taps in the scullery. Additions were made in these respects, and in March, 1898, he
was able to grant the necessary certificates.
Lambeth—In the report on this district the medical officer of health sets out the requirements
insisted on, and describes the condition of the building which he thinks should exist before he gives a
certificate. He received applications in connection with 2,270 tenements, of which he refused 782,
unconditionally granted 268, and conditionally granted 1,220, if certain sanitary improvements and
alterations were carried out within a reasonable time—six to twelve months.
Battersea— During the year 43 applications were made, certificates were granted in 27 cases,
and 16 were refused after inspection.
Underground Rooms.
In the following districts, underground rooms illegally occupied were dealt with—Chelsea, 3;
St. George, Hanover-square, 3; Westminster, 8 ; St. James, Westminster, 11 ; Marylebone, 140 ;St.
Pancras, 6 ; St. Giles, 12; Strand, 4 ; Whitechapel, 18; St. George-in-the-East, 33; Limehouse, 4;
Mile-end Old-town, 1 ; St. George, Southwark, 5; Battersea; 42 ; Greenwich, 1 ; Deptford, 3.
Factories and Workshops.
Information as to the proceedings of sanitary authorities in respect to factories and workshops
is given in many of the annual reports of medical officers of health. There is much evidence in these
reports that progress is being made, and that improvements are being effected in numerous workshops,
but as yet only a beginning is being made in many districts. It is also stated in several reports that
the work is not meeting with opposition, indeed the willingness of the occupiers of workshops to cooperate
with the officers of the sanitary authorities is acknowledged. In several reports, however,
mention is made of a difficulty with which sanitary authorities have to contend in dealing with
conditions, especially overcrowding, which require remedy. The sanitary authority can only, it is
said, proceed under the Public Health (London) Act, and hence the occupier is only liable to penalty
for non-compliance with a notice which must in the first instance be served; the result is that although
there is compliance with a notice to abate overcrowding, the condition recurs, and the time and
efforts of the officers of the authority are less profitably employed than they would be if penalty at
once followed the offence. The experience of the last few years shows, moreover, the necessity of the
appointment of sanitary inspectors who shall devote the whole of their time to duties in connection
with factories and workshops. In districts where this has been done the results compare very favourably
with those of other districts in which the workshop inspectors have to devote their attention to
other branches of work. It is not stated whether any night inspections have been made.