View report page

19
of inspection, owing to insufficiency of the number of inspectors, has been allowed to prevent the
proper carrying out of the task of exercising supervision over these houses. Indeed, of late years
this question of the need of strengthening the staff of sanitary inspectors has become one of the
first importance in connection with Kensington sanitary administration.
The sanitary staff of the Vestry prior to 1866 included only two inspectors; in that year a
third officer was appointed and the parish was divided into three sanitary districts—north, central
and south.
In 1877 a fourth inspector was appointed and four sanitary inspectors' districts were constituted.
In 1886 regulations under the Sanitary Act of 1866 came into force in Kensington and in 1889 about
1,800 houses had been placed upon the register. In December, 1889, the medical officer of health
reported that there was " necessity for an increase in the staff of sanitary inspectors," and, after
consideration of the matter, a committee of the Vestry recommended the appointment of two additional
sanitary inspectors. This recommendation was referred back by the Vestry, and after further consideration
it was decided to still retain the four sanitary inspectors' districts, but to relieve the sanitary
inspectors of some of the multifarious duties they had hitherto been called on to perform by the
appointment of two "street inspectors." Dr. Dudfield, in commenting upon this decision, observed
that any course which released the inspectors "from the performance of certain duties which do not
come within the definition of 'sanitary work,' would be equivalent to an increase of the powers of the
department for the discharge of the duties proper to the office of sanitary inspector. But whether the
assistance proposed to be given will suffice, time alone can determine."
It did not suffice, and in reporting in December, 1891, Dr. Dudfield, after referring to the new
duties devolving on the Vestry under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, and to the need of
carrying out systematic inspection in the district, made the significant statement, " It is
manifestly desirable, moreover, that we should resume the important work of registering, and
should effectively supervise, houses let in lodgings. These duties cannot be executed in any
effective way with the present staff, which is really inadequate for current duties under
existing laws." He then continues as follows, "The inspectors are but four in number,
or about a third of the number employed in some provincial towns with a smaller population
and a comparatively insignificant rateable value. I take no account of the street inspectors
supposed to act as "assistant inspectors of nuisances." They have been far too busy in attending
to their proper duties to be able to assist the sanitary inspectors in that capacity, and I
should be glad to see them transferred entirely to the departments of the vestry clerk and the surveyor.
Having regard to all the facts of the case then I cannot conscientiously recommend a smaller addition
to the staff than four inspectors and one efficient clerk." A special sub-committee was appointed
to consider the medical officer of health's recommendations, and advised that four inspectors
and a fourth-class clerk should be appointed. Dr. Dudfield was asked to prepare a "scheme"
for carrying out the work of the department with the proposed increased staff, and he
recommended placing two inspectors in the south district (south of Kensington-road), four inspectors
in the north district (i.e., north of Uxbridge-road), and one inspector in the central district; and
further recommended that an inspector should be appointed to exercise general superintendence over
the (outdoor) work of the other inspectors. The Vestry, however, upon the recommendation of the
sanitary committee decided in March, 1892, to appoint only two additional inspectors (instead of
four), thus raising the number of the staff to six.
In 1893 the result of the policy of cutting down the recommendations of the medical officer of
health, which had now been adopted for more than three years, was made manifest so far as an
important branch of the work of the public health department of the Vestry was concerned. The adequate
supervision of houses let in lodgings had been rendered practically impossible since 1889, and the group
of streets in which such supervision was specially needed had deteriorated to such an extent as to
merit the title which was bestowed upon it by a writer in the Daily News in January, 1893, of
"A West-end Avernus."
Public attention having been called to the locality in question, the Vestry referred the subject
to its sanitary committee. Dr. Dudfield's opinion on the matter, given in his second monthly report
for 1893, is that "the case, therefore, is one to be met by more frequent sanitary inspection than is
possible at present." The committee in their report (March, 1893) concluded that "what appears to
be most needed in the district inspected by the committee is frequent house-to-house inspection," and
they recommended the appointment of a seventh inspector.
Accordingly, from 1893 to the latter part of 1895, there were four inspectors in North, one in
Central and two in South Kensington. Further, as has already been mentioned in discussing workshops,
two women inspectors were appointed in 1893. In July, 1895, however, one of these appointments
was, unhappily, allowed to lapse. In November, 1895, the senior sanitary inspector resigned,
and the Vestry decided in February, 1896, not to fill up his appointment. Towards the close of 1894, as
has been seen, question was raised as to requiring only that defective drains should be "repaired and
made sound," instead of as heretofore, requiring them to be reconstructed. Again, in
January, 1896, the sanitary committee of the Vestry decided to vary the instructions of the
inspectors with regard to serving notices for the trapping of drains, acting "upon the view that
they had no power to require an existing drain to be disconnected from the sewer unless nuisance
is proved to exist."—(Annual Report for 1896, pages 116, 117.) During 1896 Dr. Dudfield
writes—"Little work was done by the inspectors in these directions." Moreover, the Vestry decided
in the course of this year that all works of repair or alteration to underground drains be supervised
by the surveyor's department, thus formally relieving the sanitary inspectors of duties which they
had practically ceased to perform. No increase of staff in the surveyor's department appears to have
been made to carry out the new duties imposed upon that department.
The staff having been reduced in the course of a few months from nine to seven inspectors, it
was now obviously necessary for one woman inspector to attempt to do the work of two, and for some