View report page

9
had not been found necessary to register any house. In this report the medical officer of
health also recommended alteration in the division of duties among the existing staff of inspectors,
and further referred to the subject of the staff as follows—44 It is necessary that the small class
dwellings in the parish should be under regular and systematic inspection. . . . At present
the several sanitary inspectors have so many duties to perform that they have practically no
time for regular house to house inspection," and added that—" To keep the parish under
sufficient inspection, it is absolutely necessary that two sanitary inspectors should be employed
with no other duty than to regularly and systematically inspect the dwellings of the poor and
lodge in the office the result of their inspection. The defects discovered should be referred
to the other inspectors " for any necessary action. This opinion he re-affirmed in his report
for the year 1891-2, and in January, 1893, an additional inspector (making six in all) was
appointed for the purpose of house to house inspection.
In 189G, consequent on the passing of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1895, the vestry
appointed an additional sanitary inspector for the special purpose of dealing with workshops and
factories in the district.
In his annual report for 1897 the medical officer of health states as regards houses let in
lodgings, that 216 had been registered by the sanitary authority. He adds that he had advised the
Public Health Committee to instruct the four district inspectors to visit and to report on the
registered premises once in each quarter, but this advice was not acted upon, and he expresses the
opinion that it would be found necessary to employ another inspector to carry out this work.
In the report for 1898 it is stated that 218 houses had been registered during the year, and .
that as the result of a communication on the subject from the London County Council in July,
1898, the Public Health Committee had again considered the matter, and had instructed ''the
district inspectors to visit and report as far as they were able, on the condition of the registered
premises at each meeting of the committee. Since that order was given, with only one exception,
your inspectors have reported that pressure of other duties has prevented them from visiting and
reporting upon any of the registered premises. "The medical officer of health adds the opinion
that if this work is to be carried out it will be necessary to appoint another inspector for the
purpose. He also draws attention in this report, as regards the inspector engaged in visiting
factories and workshops, that a very large proportion of his time" is occupied in making observations
on chimney shafts, and he has consequently not been able to carry out his duties as a
factory inspector at all to the extent that is necessary or was intended" at the time of his
appointment.
In his report for 1899 he again states that houses let in lodgings, of which 72 had been
registered during the year, making a total of 506, had not been inspected after registration owing
to inadequacy of staff, and he repeats his remarks as to the inspector for factories and workshops.
As regards house to house inspection, it is stated that this had now been completed once for the
whole district, and that it had been six years in progress.
In the last published report, namely, that relating to the year 1900, the medical officer of
health again reports that inspection of registered houses let in lodgings had not, owing to
pressure of other duties, been inspected, although the committee had instructed each district
inspector to visit twenty-four houses in each fortnight, and re-affirms his opinion as to need
of an additional inspector for the purpose. He again repeats his remarks as to the inspector for
factories and workshops.
In a special report at the first meeting of the Public Health Committee of the newly
constituted borough council, in November, 1900, he draws attention to the above facts, as well as to
the fact that certain statutory duties had been transferred under the London Government Act,
1899, to the borough council.
Previous to the year 1900, namely, in October, 1899, a copy of a special report to the
vestry by the Medical Officer of Health of Hammersmith, as to the sufficiency of the existing
staff, had been forwarded to the London County Council. As the result of correspondence
following this, between the vestry and the Council, it was deemed advisable, in view of the
changes which were then pending under the provisions of the London Government Act, to await
these changes before making alteration in the staff.
From a copy of the report of the meeting of the borough council on 20th November, 1901,
given to me by the Chairman of the Public Health Committee, it appears that shortly after the
coming into force of the London Government Act this committee of the newly-created borough
council recommended the appointment of an inspector in place of one who had resigned,
and of an additional inspector, and reported that they would further consider the
question of staff later. The recommendation was adopted, and in March, 1901,
the borough council directed, on the recommendation of the Public Health Committee, to place
this additional officer in charge of inspecting houses let in lodgings. On 1st April, 1901,
as the result of a communication from the medical officer of the London County Council
on breaches of by-laws in certain slaughterhouses, the medical officer of health of Hammersmith
presented a special report to the committee as to the necessity of systematic inspection,
once a fortnight, of slaughterhouse, cow-house and noxious trade premises, and once a month
of milkshop premises. He further expressed the opinion that this could not be done by the
existing district inspectors without neglecting other work, and again pointed out that the
inspection of factories and workshops had been interfered with owing to the inspector for this
purpose having to act as smoke inspector. He recommended that as the recently-appointed
additional inspector was to be engaged in the duty of inspecting houses let in lodgings, the other
inspector, who was appointed at the same time in order to fill a vacancy caused by the resignation
of one of the four district inspectors, should be utilised for the duties transferred from
the London County Council, and that another inspector should be appointed to take up the
duties (viz., of a district inspector) of the officer who had resigned. The Public Health Committee,