View report page

151
(b) Digest of the Artizans and Labourers' Dwellings
Acts, (Mr. Torrens's Acts).
(c) Digest of the Artizans and Labourers' Dwellings
Improvement Acts, (Sir E. Cross's Acts).
(d) Digest of Labouring Classes' Lodging Houses Acts,
(Lord Shaftesbury's Act).
The Board at the same time issued circular letters with regard
to the Regulation of Houses let in lodgings, and to the Regulation
of Bakehouses under the Factory and Workshop Acts. These
subjects are, or will be, referred to in other sections of this report.
The Work of the Sanitary Inspectors.—Tables VI. and
VIa. (Appendix) contain a summary of the work of the Sanitary
Inspectors during the year ended March 25th, 1885. Eighty-nine
summonses were taken out for offences, under the Nuisances
Removal Acts, against 104, 78 and 98 in the three preceding
years. Orders were made by the Magistrates in nearly every
instance for giving effect to the Notices previously served on the
defendant persons, upon whom, as the law at present stands, no
penalty can be inflicted, however serious or long continued the
nuisance. Under the provisions of Section 96 of the Public
Health Act, 1875, which does not apply to the Metropolis, the
Justices have power by then Order to inflict a penalty not exceedingfive
pounds, on the person to whom the Order is made, together
with all costs. The same power should be conferred on Courts of
Summary Jurisdiction in London. At present the Justices can
punish for contempt of Court only, by a penalty of ten shillings per
diem, during continuance of disobedience to the Order of the Court.
In five cases penalties were inflicted, ranging from ten shillings to
seven pounds. If the Justices had power to inflict penalties for
offences under the Nuisances Removal Acts, disregard of the Local
Authority's notices, which implies continuance of nuisance, with
consequent injury to health, to say nothing of the trouble and loss
of time imposed upon officers, would be infrequent, always
supposing the power were exercised. That the cases are proper
to be brought before the Justices is obvious, from the fact that