View report page

33
whole responsibility here rests, from my point of view, upon the Surveyor as to
the particular action to be taken. I give a medical report that the health
results from certain houses are unsatisfactory; you have to accept my opinion,
which is not subject to appeal or revision in any way, and from the conclusions
of the report you have to work back in an inspection of the premises to find out
what (if anything) justifies my report: having found that out. you have to
prescribe the remedy, with a view to the owner disputing your conclusions, but
not mine.
The object of the two reports is, in my opinion, wholly distinct and different.
The Health Officer merely points out an evil; the Surveyor reports on the means
of removing it. To give an extreme case, we will assume that the Medical
Officer says certain premises are unfit for habitation by reason of perpetual
outbreaks of Typhus Fever, the Surveyor then inspects the buildings and
says that structurally they are perfect, but that the fever is produced by overcrowding.
The nature of the remedy is at once obviously pointed out. The
fact that the Medical Officer of Health should have discovered this for himself,
and have taken action under a different statute, does not in any way affect the
Surveyor's duty, which is quite definitely laid down.
To recapitulate, it would be most unreasonable to require the Health Officer
to be an expert in building, or to limit the Surveyor to the consideration of causes
that the Health Officer may have stated in his report. I feel sure the Surveyor's
report is intended to be altogether independent of that of the Health Officer,
and certainly not a report upon it; but dealing with the Health Officer's conclusions,
though not accepting his reasons, which he has full power to disregard,
or, if he thinks fit, to take as a guide in his independent investigation. I have
gone thus fully into the matter as I think of making a special point of the true
reading of the Act in my forthcoming report. I look upon the intentions of this
Act of Parliament as almost perfect, though whether the machinery by which
these intentions are carried out is equally perfect I leave to the lawyers to
decide. I am, dear Mr. Barratt,
Very faithfully yours,
F. W. Barratt, ESQ., GEORGE PADDOCK BATE.
Surveyor to the Parish of St. Matthew, Betlival Green.
The following is a Return of all Premises closed as unfit for
human habitation under the Nuisances Removal Act during the
year 1888:—
Nos. 30 and 32, Church Street.— Notice served 5th November,
1887. Premises closed January 12th, 1888.
Nos. 1 to 13, Simpson's Place.— Notice served November 26th,
1887. Magistrate's order to close, made on the 29th December, 1887.
Premises closed 23rd January, 1888.
Nos. 1 and 2, Orange Court.— Notice served November 26th,
1888.* Premises subsequently closed.
Nos. 54 and 55, Old Nichol Street.— Notice served November
26th, 1887. Premises closed February 8th, 1888.
Nos. 8 and 10, Lansdell Place.—Notice served November 28th,
1887, Summons issued and withdrawn. Premises subsequently
closed.†
* February 8th, 1889. † April 19th, 1889.