Volume 2

First-[second] report of the Royal Sanitary Commission.

  • Great Britain. Royal Sanitary Commission
Date:
1869-1874
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: First-[second] report of the Royal Sanitary Commission. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service. The original may be consulted at London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service.

    209/418 (page 201)
    that it would take a staiF of four inspectors, whose time wouUi be entirely occupied in that duty the whole day to make a visitation of each house about once in four months. 12.285. {Mr. Sha'x\) You are now speaking of sys- tematic inspection, as distinct from an inspection made in consequence of special information received ?—Yes. 12.286. When you had information respecting the bad condition of a house or neighbourhood, you would immediately direct your energies to that out of its turn ?—Yes. 12.287. On the other hand, your systematic inspec- tion does not depend on any previous information received ?—No. 12.288. You think if the law only gave you autho- rity to go in upon information received it would be defective? — Perfectly useless; you might as well abolish the local board altogether, so far as its sani- tary jurisdiction was concerned. 12.289. You think it necessary that the local board should have the right to go in and fish for nuisances ?—Quite so. We have a book kept for the public to enter complaints in, and we have not above 18 complaints on an average in the coiu'se of the year. Since January 1st the number of complaints entered in the public complaint book is only two. 12.290. Would you think it beneficial to have a clause providing that whether there is reasonable ground or not to suspect the existence of a nuisance, if the inspector was refused entry there should be some sort of penalty laid upon the party so refusing, or would you leave it as it is to mutual courtesy on both sides ?—Although we have no difficulty whatever in getting admission to the houses, (for every poor person in my district is exceedingly anxious to admit the sanitary officer ;) yet it would be most desirable that the power of entry should be given by Act of Parliament to a sanitary officer at all reasonable hours ; otherwise, he would be unable to satisfactorily discharge his duties, but he should have power of entry at all hours where overcrowding is known, to exist. 12.291. {Mr. Poioell.) Your entry is by consent now ?—Yes; though by the 20th section of the Sanitary Act every board is compelled to make a sanitary visitation of the whole of its district, but this section is imperfect, inasmuch as it gives the inspector no power of entry into houses either by day or by night. 12.292. {Mr. Shaw.) Which at present they can- not do if the parties choose to refuse admittance to their officer ?—No. 12.293. You gave just now a number of cases in which you would have the board make an absolute order, that is to say, as to sanitary requirements, in the case of new houses; could all those cases be specified in a table ?—They would be the whole of the sanitaiy arrangements of the house, the height of the rooms, the ventilation of the rooms, the water- closets, the dust-bins, the supply of water, the drain- age, and other requirements, as set forth in my pre- vious answer [Cf. Qu. 12,272,12,273, and 12,274.] 12.294. Would that enumeration exhaust what you mean ?—Yes. 12.295. Have you ever thought whether it would be advisable to give any appeal to the central autho- rity against those orders of the local board ?—I would give such an appeal, certainly. I should not like to act in that arbitrary manner, which my inclination might lead me to act in, without affording persons an opportunity of an appeal. 12.296. To whom should the appeal lie ?—I think the appeal should be to a central board. 12.297. Would not the time of that central autho- rity be immensely overburdened if every builder, upon whom such an order was made, had the power of appealing to the central authority against it ?-—J should think not. 12.298. You think in process of time certain well- understood rules would be laid down which would 2414.5. regulate the matter on both sides ?—Yes, I think so ; j_ Liddle, Esq • the rules I should lay down would be very simple, applying entirely to the health of the people. 23 June 1870. 12.299. There are other cases in which absolute orders are made ; there are cases where noxious trades can only be set up with the consent of the local authority; would you give an appeal against eithei- the granting or the refusing of such consent by the local authority ?—I would not make an excep- tion. If you allow an appeal in one case it would be unfair not to allow an appeal in another case. 12.300. Whenever the local authority has an absolute, power to make an order you would have an appeal from that order to a central authority ?—I think so. I think that would be the fairest plan, except in cases of nuisances injurious to health, Qu. 12,301, 12.301. And you would allow an appeal on both sides ?—On all sides interested in cases of the setting up of noxious trades. 12.302. Can you tell us anything about the opera- tion of the clause in the Sanitary Act respecting the registration of lodging-houses, by which the Secre- tary of State has the poAver, on the application of the local authority, to sanction byelaws ?—We have in Whitechapel put that in operation. We have a number of houses registered under it, and it acts very beneficially. We have not power under any of the existing Sanitary Acts to compel a proper supply of water to houses, but by compelling the owners to register their houses, and they are bound to obey our byelaws. 12.303. It has been suggested that that clause might act in a very arbitrary manner in many places, because the Act merely speaks of a house let out in lodgings, which, of course, in many parishes com- prehends a very large number of first-class houses, or at all events second-class houses. Have you found that difficulty arise in your district ?—Yes, as regards small houses ; but I think the Sewer Act of the City of London would meet that case, if incorpo- rated in a genei'al Nuisances Removal Act. That Act says, at clause 11, Any house, not being a licensed victualling house, let, or any part of which is let at a daily or weekly rent not exceeding the rate of 35. 6d. per week, in which persons are harboured or lodged for hire for a single night or for less than a week at one time, or in which any room let for hire is occupied by more than one '• family at one time, may be registered by the local board. I think those are the words of the Sewer Act. The objection to the existing law is, that it says, Any house let out to more than one family. Now, there are man}' houses in our dis- trict of two or three rooms, which houses are let to one person, and consequently, we cannot register such houses under the present Sanitary Act. That is an omission which should be remedied. 12.304. {Mr. Powell.) Those are private houses ? —Yes. 12.305. Do you want to register private houses — We wish to have the power to do so at the discretion of the local board. I do not think the power would be very likely to be abused. 12.306. {Mr. Shaw.) Have you considered the question of the retention of dead bodies in houses ?— Yes ; we have had a great many cases of that kind in Whitechapel, and the question of a mortuary has been discussed over and over again by the board. The board have come to a determination to have p, mortuary, but there the matter ends. 12.307. At present the power of a magistrate to remove a dead body depends on the previous provi- sion of a mortuary ?—Yes. 12.308. Are you of opinion that the power of a magistrate to remove a dead body should be depen- dent on the previous provision of a mortuary, or that it should be independent of it ?—It should be inde- pendent of it; but I think that much of the evil would be remedied if a law were passed prohibiting rhe retention of a dead body in a house for a longer C c