View report page

134
17,689. That is one case in 28 years?— Yes, for neglect of
duty.
17,690. Could you tell us what the neglect was; was it too
much activity or too little?— Too little.
17,691. You have no recollection of what the omission of
duties consisted of, or what were the allegations?— It was misconduct
in more ways than one. I do not think the actual
neglect of duty would have led to his dismissal if there had not
been some other misconduct attached to it.
17,692. Is there any reason Why you should not state the misconduct
for which he was discharged?— I hardly think it necessary,
nor do I think I could accurately state it.
(The Chairman.) I think it would be desirable that we should
strike out the name, but that you should state the misconduct
for which he was discharged, though of course I shall not press
it in any way.
17,693. (Mr. Broadhurst.) Itwould be very interesting to know
for what the sanitary inspector was discharged?— For general
inattention and negligence of duty for one thing. The misconduct
was sometimes leaving his duty without leave, and therefore
letting his duties remain unattended to, which, of itself, was,
perhaps, a breach of discipline.
17,694. You said just now that you did not think he would
have been discharged for neglect of duty?— I think that might
have been overlooked if there had not been anything else to
back it up.
17,695. What else was there to back it up?— He was not the
most sober of men for one thing.
17,696. Then we are to understand that he was discharged for
drunkenness?— Not altogether, but both together led to his dismissal.
17,697. You mean that this inspector had an accumulation of
bad habits, but that one of the chief allegations was not his
want of inspection of bad property?— Yes, he had an accumulation
of bad habits, but his chief fault was inattention to his
duties.
17,698. Lord William Compton, in answer to question 660,
says, "By the accounts of the poor people it seems to me that
"no sanitary inspector ever went into any of the rooms. The
"sanitary inspector used to walk through the passage into the
"back court, and then walk out again, if he went at all. I be"lieve
he used to go sometimes, but my opinion is that he did
"next to nothing up to within the last six months?"— I do not
think that Lord William Compton could be in a position to give
such an opinion, speaking with all deference. He could not