The Mansion House Council on the dwellings of the people. Report for the year ending December 31st, 1885, presented at the Second Annual Meeting, held at the Mansion House, Friday, March 26th, 1886. The Right Hon. Lord Mayor in the chair.

Date:
1886
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The Mansion House Council on the dwellings of the people. Report for the year ending December 31st, 1885, presented at the Second Annual Meeting, held at the Mansion House, Friday, March 26th, 1886. The Right Hon. Lord Mayor in the chair. 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.

    70/100 (page 64)
    vide perforated pails, which would not hold water. The suggestion that pails should be put outside the houses every morning could not very well be adopted, because no one had a right to place things in the streets ; they might lead to accidents, for which the occupiers of the houses would be liable. The vestry had power to order gullies to be trapped, but they had no power to order any particular kind of trap. The bell-trap was generally used, and they generally got out of order through the careless- ness of the occupiers of the houses. The vestry wanted extended powers on this point, and then they would be able to do much more. Whether they had power to order all yards to be paved in the way suggested by the Council was more than doubtful. The question was what paving meant, and he believed that if a yard was well gravelled the require- ments of the Act as to paving had been met. The Torrens Act in regard to dilapidated property was one of the most difficult Acts in existence to enforce. He went on to explain the modus operandi of put- ting it in force, and quoted a case where a London vestry having put the Act in force was declared by the law courts to have acted illegally, and had to spend ^120 in putting the property in question in repair. In many cases the houses were wantonly destroyed by the inhabitants, and that this was so they had ample proof in the report of the Royal Com- mission on the Dwellings of the Poor ;] and even if they had power, it would be very hard on the landlords to make them repair matters of the kind when they were continually being damaged by the tenants. With regard to such buildings as Norfolk House, the vestry were alive to the necessity of putting a stop to the erection of such places, but they were absolutely powerless to do so. The place was built in accordance with the Building Act, and they had no power to interfere. Outside the Metropolitan area the local authorities had the power of making their own bye-laws, and consequently they could provide against the erection of such dwellings ; but in the Metropolis they had no such power. They had insisted upon the erection of four extra water-closets in this house, and that was all they had been able to do. Until the vestry were entrusted with greater powers it was impossible for them to do much more than they had done. He had no doubt the vestry would take steps to enforce a water supply to all places of convenience if they thought they had the power. Mr. Thomas said if that were so, he wondered the vestry had never tested the question in the courts. Mr. Julsum, in conclusion, said he considered the number [of com- plaints made were small when the nature of the district was considered, and the death rate proved that the district was an exceptionally healthy one. He hoped the Inspector would impress upon the Secretary of State the necessity of investing the vestry with additional powers. The inquiry then closed, the Inspector remarking that he would present his report to the Home Secretary as early as possible.