View report page

76
hold that because the proprietor of what otherwise would be a common lodging-house in effect,
endeavours himself to carry out the same object which the Act of Parliament has in view that therefore
it is not a common lodging-house. That is leaving it to the proprietor to do that which the Act of
Parliament makes compulsory. He may or may not do it and the fact that a particular individual or
particular individuals endeavour to do it and even the fact that they do it successfully does not take
the institution out of a " common lodging-house " and it would be impossible to say it did. The only
thing that seems to me is that this case although it is a step beyond Logsdon v. Booth is not a step which
takes us over the boundary which is there laid down of ^\hat is a common lodging-house.
I only desire to add that in this case the observations which the Lord Chief Justice made in
Logsdon v. Booth are equally applicable namely that we trust as the Court there trusted that those who
are charged with the enforcement of the law will do all they can consistently with their duty and
consistently with effecting the object of the law to avoid anything like harshness or unreasonableness.
I say that because although I feel bound to say looking at the decisions and the principles one has to
apply in construing the Act of Parliament as to whether this is a common lodging-house that this does
come within the description of "common lodging-house " but nevertheless it appears to be an institution
that is as well managed as it is at all likely to be when the regulations in reference to common lodginghouses
are applied to it. It does not appear in fact to require in this case much intervention but I do
not feel entitled on that ground to say that it does not come within the description of "common
lodging-house."
The result is that in my opinion the appeal must be allowed.
Mr. Justice Bucknill—I only wish to add a very few words. The legislature was probably
very wise when it omitted a definition of " common lodging-house " from the Acts of 1851 and 1853
because I have been satisfied from what my brother has just said if I had not been satisfied before
that there may be and probably are various classes of institutions all to a certain extent supported and
certainly started in the first instance by benevolent persons whose first objects are to relieve misery ta
a certain extent and to provide temporary homes for very poor and very miserable people. It is quite
possible and I dare say it is the fact there maybe at the present time excellent institutions in this
country which certainly could not be called common lodging-houses within the meaning of the Act.
The question is what is this institution p Stated quite shortly it is an institution called the " Victoria
Home " situated in the Whitechapel-road. It is an annexe to a place called "the old block" about
which one need say nothing more than that it is in fact registered as a common lodging-house where
500 people find accommodation. This particular new block finds accommodation for about 128 people
there being so many beds each bed being occupied singly by a man. What are the facts about the
arrangement of this house? Every room so far as I know and certainly the living rooms
except the bedroom about which I will say a word or two is occupied in common—the dining
hall and the daily living rooms. The kitchen which happens to be in the old block is also used
by persons occupying the new block going there for the purpose of cooking their own meals. They
do live in common during the day. That is quite clear. They are almost entirely people of what is
called the "dosser" class and the "dosser" class is defined for the purposes of this case in the case
itself which says "A certain number of the lodgers are of a better class than the 'dosser' or inhabitant
of an ordinary common lodging-house but substantially the 'odgers are of the ' dosser ' description." If
you get an institution which is occupied in the way I have stated by people of the " dosser" class who
one knows perfectly and my brother has said it already are persons who are not only poor which of
course is no fault of their own very often but who are very frequently not in a sanitary condition and
who suffer from diseases of different sorts. These Acts are sanitary Acts and the object of them a3 I
understand it was to afford registration of such houses and inspection by those persons appointed by the
authorities to inspect. It is not sufficient that persons who have started these houses and helped to
support them by charity have regulations and rules which on paper are all sufficient because one
proprietor or one person may do a thing well and another may do it ill—the object of the itatute being
that when you have circumstances existing in an establishment which may produce the evil against
which the statute law is intended to point that then such houses should be inspected by persons
appointed under the law.
Now I will say one word about the cubicles. I am not going to attempt to say whether such cubicles
may be said in law to be a sort of room. That is not necessary for the decision of this case I base my
Judgment on the fact that the people who occupy this establishment are persons of the poorest class
persons very often in an insanitary condition and that as they do live together in common during the
day that is quite sufficient in the circumstances in this particular case and on the facts of this particular
case to enable me to come to the conclusion that the establishment is a common lodging-house within
the meaning of the Act of Parliament. I think therefore the magistrate was wrong.
Customs and Inland Revenue Acts, 1890 and 1891.
The proceedings of medical officers of health under these Acts, as shown in the annual reports,
were as follows. In Fulham, certificates were granted in respect of 212 separate tenements and
refused in respect of 593. In Westminster, certificates were granted to the owners of 54 tenements
in Hogarth-buildings and St. Ann's-buildings. In the latter buildings Nos. 1 to 18 were ordered to
be cleansed. In Hackney, certificates were granted to the owners of 14 dwellings containing 40
tenements. In Shoreditch, certificates were granted respecting 24 dwellings. In Bethnal-green,
certificates for 228 separate tenements were granted and applications for 196 were refused. In
Lambeth, certificates for 53 tenements were granted unconditionally, for 85 conditionally, aud were
refused for 69. In Battersea, 68 certificates were granted. The medical officer of health states that
many flats are now being built and converted in the parish in order to obtain exemption from inhabited
house duty ; as many as 1,207 tenements have been exempted since 1890. In Wandsworth (Clapham),
certificates were granted for 18 buildings, comprising 91 dwellings. In Greenwich (Deptford),
certificates were granted for 29 tenements.
Underground Rooms.
In the following districts underground rooms (illegally occupied) were dealt with—In
Paddington, 5; Chelsea, 12; St. George, Hanover-square, 3; Westminster, 3; St. James, Westminster,
total from date unstated up to the end of the year, 180. In Marylebone, the owner of
three kitchens was summoned. In Hampstead 6 were dealt with; St. Pancras, 21; Islington,
41; St. Giles, 6; Strand, 6; Holborn, 10; Clerkenwell, 16; St. Luke, 12; Bethnal-green, 5;
Whitechapel, 24; St. George-in-the-East, 30; Limehouse, 7; Mile-end Old-town, 3; St. Saviour,
Southwark, 1; St. George-tbe-Martyr, 10; Lambeth, 71; Battersea, 6; Greenwich (Greenwich
parish), 2 ; (Deptford), 6 ; Wandsworth (Clapham), 7.