- Email: [email protected]
Law report
LAW
REPORT.
Zso/ation Has_pitals.--It is a matter of importance that the County Council should be empowered to provide hospitals when the local authorities fail to do so, as is contemplated in the Infectious Hospitals Bill, which has been introduced into the House of Lords by Lord Thring, and which, in addition to the above powers, enables the County Council, on application by a local authority, or on the report of the medical officer or adviser of the council (after a local inquiry has been h e l d ) t o constitute hospital districts. -Dfsf~fection.--With few exceptions disinfection is very imperfectly carried out in the county. T o be of any use it should be done under the supervision of the sanitary authority, by a specially skilled official. T h e bedding, clothes, and other articles from infected households should be disinfected, free of expense,in a public steam disinfector. In the rural districts it might be found convenient to have the disinfecting stations in connection with the isolation hospital for the district. By this plan one apparatas would serve both hospital and district. VOLUNTARY DESTRUCTION OF U N S O U N D MEAT.
- - I n dealing with unsound meat I have, during the past year, adopted a method which up to the present appears to answer well. Whenever a carcass is found unsound, the owner is asked to sign a form requesting the destruction. I f he refuses to do so a prosecution follows. This plan which is, I believe, adopted in Edinburgh, Birkenhead, and some other places has the advantage of doing away with the necessity of bringing before the magistrates cases in which the owner of the meat has obviously no intention of selling the same. I am indebted to the Medical Officer of Health for Birkenhead for the following forms, which I now employ on these occasions : MEDICAL O F F I C E R O F H E A L T H ' S DEPARTMENT. TOWN HALL~ CARDIFF, ............. I 8 9 S I R , - - I h a v e to i n f o r m y o u t h a t I h a v e this . . . . . . . seized u n d e r section I I 6 of the P u b l i c H e a l t h Act~ I 8 7 5 ) at t h e A b a t t o i r . . . . . . . . . . . . the . . . . . . . . . . . . of a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b e l o n g i n g to y o n , a n d unless in the m e a n t i m e you consent to its destructionD w h i c h y o u m a y d o b y calling at this Office, or b y s e n d i n g y o u r c o n s e n t in w r i t i n g , I shall a p p l y to a M a g i s t r a t e for a n o r d e r at the Police C o u r t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . as s o o n after . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . as the a p p l i c a t i o n e a n be h e a r d .
I am, your obedient servant,
To .................... COUNTY BOROUGH OF CARDIFF. H E A L T H DEPARTMENT.
..................... t8 9
To
THE MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH, SIR, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . h e r e b y a u t h o r ] s e you to t a k e a n d c a r r y a w a y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b e l o n g i n g to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n o w b e i n g at the . . . . . . . . . a n d request y o u to d e s t r o y t h e s a m e as b e i n g u n s o u n d , --Froln Dr.
H/'alford's A n n u a l
Report/or 2892 , Cardiff.
379 LAW
THE
HOUSING
OF
IMPORTANT
REPORT. THE
WORKING
CLASSES. M
CASE AT HERTFORD.
AT Hertford County Sessions on Saturday, before G. Faudel Phillips, Esq. (in the chair), Mr. R. T. Andrews, architect and surveyor, and Mr. Win. F. Andrews, timber merchant, were summoned under the provisions of the Housing of the Working Classes Act for being the owners of ten dwellinghouses near Well Green, Brickendon, such premises being, it was alleged, unfit for human habitation. Mr. Grubbe, barrister (instructed by Mr. T. I. Sworder), appeared on behalf of the Hertford Rural Sanitary Authority, and Mr. Hawks defended. In opening his case, Mr. Grubbe briefly outlined the evidence that will be found below, and applied for a closing order. H e thought the Bench would be of opinion that Messrs. Andrews had been treated by the Authority with the greatest forbearance. H e contended that Authority would have been guilty of a gross dereliction of duty had they not taken action. Dr. George Turner, medical officer of health for the combined district of East Herts., and for the Hertford R u r a l Sanitary Authority's district, stated that he made a report to the Sanitary Authority on the state of Mr. Andrews' cottages on March 4th. On April i4th he visited the cottages again with Mr. Scales. H e found Savage's cottage damp, with no proper provision for carrying off rain water, the walls were dirty, and he could see daylight through the roof. T h e walls and ceiling were lined with match-boarding, in which were crevices one could see through. H e then went to the cottage inhabited by J. Allure, his wife, and six children. T h e door here had shrunk, and witness could see daylight through the ceiling and roof. In Saville's cottage the brick floor was broken, the door shrunk, and rain came into the front room. On June tst he visited the cottage occupied by H. Meach, his wife, and seven children, and found it in a like state. I n George Wilsher's house be could see daylight through the roof and through the ceiling of the front room. Matthews' house wasin much the same state, and holes in the walls communicated with the next house. Saville's cottage was very damp, the fl-ont door shrunk, daylight could be seen through ceiling and roof, and witness could see through the walls into the next room. H e added that the houses were too thinly constructed. H e was not a builder, but did not think the boarding in any of the places was thick enough or properly put together, or that the wood was seasoned. Witness objected to brick floors in all cases, because they were practically always damp. They drew up the moisture from the ground, and absorbed it when they were washed. Mr. Urban A. Smith, county surveyor, said that on June 6th last he examined the ten cottages in
380
LAW
REPORT.
question. They were light, flimsy buildings ; the outside walls were thin, and they were cased with thin match boarding. The partition walls of each house consisted of only a single thickness of match boarding. ~Ihe outer walls were of piaster " roughcast." The whole thickness of these outside walls was about 5½ inches. The match boarding had shrunk very much indeed, and was not sufficient to stop draughts, or sound, or sight. T h e bedroom doors were just over half an inch thick, and were simply ledged and not framed. In some cases there was nothing between the occupants of the bed-room and the outside air, except the matchboarding--which was very much s h r u n k - - a n d the slate roofi The woodwork forming the internal portion of the building was shrunk in all directions. I n one case the occupants told him they had put rags between the cracks to prevent the water from coming on their bed. One of the women complained that she could n o t carry a lighted candle upstairs because the wind blew through the cracks and extinguished it. (Laughter.) Witness stood on the east side of one house, and found he could see through two doors right out on the west side. T h e holes in the floors had been roughly patched by the tenants, who complained that the children lost valuable things through the floors. (Laughter.) The partition walls between the houses had apparently sunk, and had carried down some bricks forming the floor of a room. In the event of fire the whole of the houses would inevitably burned down. I n witness's opinion the houses were not fit for habitation. Dr. J. C. Thresh, medical officer of the Chelmsford and Maldon Rural Sanitary Authority, was next called, and said that he went with Dr. Turner on June Ioth and visited all the cottages except the two that were unoccupied. When he first saw the cottages he was rather surprised, because he expected to see something much worse in outward appearance, but five or ten minutes' inspection showed that he had never come across such a set of flimsy and jerry-built cottages. To live in damp and draughty houses would tend to produce rheumatism, to make people old before their time, possibly to make them deformed, and decidedly to shorten their period of working power. In all the houses there was a general giving way of the framework, and he noticed that some of the crevices in the woodwork had been stuffed with rags. There were no drains and no receptacles for ashes. T h e pump was broken, and he was told that if it had not been broken the water smelt so that they could not use it. These houses had been built in such a way as to infringe almost every sound principle of cottage construction. H e did not regard the houses as fit for human habitation. Mr. Hawks, in addressing the Bench for the defence, said his clients had expended several hundreds of pounds on this property. T h e case, however, was of far wider importance than to his
clients alone, for it opened the question whether a certain class of house that "could admittedly be repaired should be dealt with in this summary way under the Act of i89o, or whether the sanitary authorities should not give the owners notice to make the houses habitable. The point was t h i s - it was open to the sanitary authorities to adopt one of two measuresweither to proceed under the Act of i875 , and say, " H e r e is a nuisance requiring to be r e m e d i e d " ; or, they might give a broad and sweeping notice under the i89o Act, and say " T h e s e houses are unfit for habitation, krou may find out the defects--that is not our business, but yours." H e (Mr. Hawks) submitted that it was the duty of the sanitary authority to have taken some pains about this, and to have given his clients notice as to the particular defects they were required to remedy. As to the water supply, that, he contended, was excluded from the question. T o be unfit for habitation a house must be a nuisance ; and he submitted that no nuisance had been proved. But, with regard to water, he would mention that they had in this present time of dry weather a well that was nearly full. His clients had let the houses at a very cheap rate, and had brought down the rents to suit their tenants. There were cottages all over the place in a condition far mo~e unfit for habitation than his clients' cottages were. I f these were condemned, then the others must be, and if this Act was used unduly and without care, they might rather call it an _Act for the Unhousing of the Working Classes rather thau for their housing. Mr. R. T. Andrews, who said that he purchased the site in 1879 , when there were two old cottages on it. One of these was occupied by George Savage, who subsequently moved into one of the ten new cottages built by witness, the old cottages being pulled down. A certificate in respect of the new cottages was granted in 188o. I n January, 1882, witness fixed the rents at 3 s. weekly. During the last three years he had carried out substantial repairs to the cottages. Witness gave details of various minor complaints, some of which had proved unfounded. The houses were built of wood, and were plastered outside, and matchboarded inside. The roofs were slated, and there was a slate damp-course. T h e floors were on an average two feet above the road. T h e foundations were of brick, and witness was afraid to say how deep they were--some of them four feet deep. W h e n the houses were built the space between the dividing walls was filled with sawdust, rammed tight. Only the kitchen floors were of brick. The tenants preferred using the rooms with brick floors. Every room had a window opening free to the air. The rain water was carried into a drain that ran clear of the building. The closets were 9 ° feet from the house, and the cesspools were ot brick and cemented. Witness had never had any complaints of damp, nor had he observed the appearance of d a m p in the houses. The water in the well came
LAW
REPORT.
from agricultural pipes laid through the orchard beyond, and entered the well through a filter. The water was clear, as shown in the bottles produced, though witness admitted there was a slight smell to it. There was a pond on the premises, and a ditch in the road opposite. Witness did not know of any cottages to let in the neighbourhood, and he believed these cottages Supplied a local want. T h e ten cottages cost witness about .~Wiio each to build. As to being " j e r r y built," it depended on what people called " j e r r y building." H e considered the cottages well and substantially built. They were put up by his own workmen. Mr. Grubbe said Mr. Urban Smith stated the cost was .~'5 o each at the very outside. Mr. Charles Wiggs, Waltham Abbey, who stated that he had had forty years' experience as a builder and surveyor. H e had examined the houses and considered them healthy. There were no signs of damp. H e did not think brick floors objectionable. Witness considered them quite fit/or habitation. They compared favourably. with many houses in witness's district. If the cottages were in witness's district they would make 4s. 6d. weekly, but houses in Waltham were higher rented. H e did not think the distance trom the cottages to the well was unreasonable. If in his own district he would not condemn them. Witness would not call these houses jerry-built. Mr. Jas. Farley, architect, Hertford, was called, and said he had had twenty years' experience in building construction. H e had seen the cottages, and considered that with the exception of some slight defects that could easily be remedied, they would be quite fit for habitation. H e thought lath and plaster preferable to a nine-inch brick wall, because it was much drier. Mr. G r u b b e : Have you ever seen any houses quite so flimsily built as these ? Witness : I cannot say I have ever seen any quite so lightly built I n further cross-examination, witness said he knew no instance of houses being separated merely by a bit of wood as these were. I f one of the cottages caught fire, all would undoubtedly be consumed. The chimney had settled away from one of the houses, H e added that extremes of temperature would be more felt in houses like these than in brick houses. Mr. W. H . Norris, surveyor, Hertford, wag called, and stated that on June z9th he went over seven of the cottages. T h e tenants spoke in rather high terms of the houses. One of them said water did come into the house sometimes when it rained, but to the extent of perhaps h a l f a pint in a week. There seemed no fault in the slating. Witness considered the cottages fit for human habitation. Mr. Grubbe : Would you like to live there ? Witness : At this time of year I should not mind. (Laughter.) H. Middleton, slater, Hertford, was also called
38i
for the defence, and said he had recently thoroughly and completely repaired all the cottage roofs for 8s. 9d. H e thought the houses " very passable." [The Court then adjourned to view the p r o perty, returning about seven minutes past six p.m.] T h e Chairman said the Bench, having given this case very earnest and attentive consideration, and having also carefully viewed the premises, had unanimously decided to adjourn the case for five weeks, with the view of giving A/[essrs. Andrews an opportunity of carrying out the repairs, substantial and otherwise, that the Bench deemed necessary. Mr. Hawks asked for an expression of opinion from the Bench as to the nature of the repairs required. T h e Chairman replied that Messrs. Andrews could not have a more competent adviser than Mr. Hawks. Mr. Hawks said the contention of the Rural Sanitary Authority had been that the fabric had not been sufficien~ H e took it that was not the opinion of the Bench. T h e Chairman answered that one so skilled in these matters as Mr. Hawks must draw a conclusion from what he (the chairman) had said. T h e time granted for repairs having elapsed, the magistrates again examined the cottages (August ~8th). The repairs done were not considered satisfactory, yet, upon the owner of the cottages giving an undertaking to have all the wooden wainscoting taken down, the walls rendered in cement, and the wainscoting replaced, and to have the holes in the outside walls around the window frames, etc., stopped, the case w a s dismissed, each side to ~ a y costs.
Such magisterial decisions are not likely to encourage Rural Sanitary Authorities to enforce the Housing of the Working Classes Act. HOP PICKERS' OPHTHALMIA.--The description by Mr. Percy Adams, M.R.C.S., D . P . H . , of a special form of ophthalmia to which hop pickers are liable has considerable hygienic importance. After excluding other possible sources of this complaint, Mr. Adams comes to the conclusion that, belonging, as the Humulus lupulus does, to the same family as the Urtica urens or common stinging nettle, and the order urticace~e (which alsoincludes some very severely stinging foreign specimens), and knowing that the hop plant possesses these sharply pointed appendages, it is probable that this painful affection is explained by the introduction into the eye of some of these spinous processes of the hop plant. Mr. Adams advises the employment among the operatives of glass protective spectacles, and the use of gloves during the operation of hop picking to be at once abandoned on the termination of the work, together with more personal cleanliness, though these prophylactic measures are very d i ~ c u l t to enforce.
REPORT.
Zso/ation Has_pitals.--It is a matter of importance that the County Council should be empowered to provide hospitals when the local authorities fail to do so, as is contemplated in the Infectious Hospitals Bill, which has been introduced into the House of Lords by Lord Thring, and which, in addition to the above powers, enables the County Council, on application by a local authority, or on the report of the medical officer or adviser of the council (after a local inquiry has been h e l d ) t o constitute hospital districts. -Dfsf~fection.--With few exceptions disinfection is very imperfectly carried out in the county. T o be of any use it should be done under the supervision of the sanitary authority, by a specially skilled official. T h e bedding, clothes, and other articles from infected households should be disinfected, free of expense,in a public steam disinfector. In the rural districts it might be found convenient to have the disinfecting stations in connection with the isolation hospital for the district. By this plan one apparatas would serve both hospital and district. VOLUNTARY DESTRUCTION OF U N S O U N D MEAT.
- - I n dealing with unsound meat I have, during the past year, adopted a method which up to the present appears to answer well. Whenever a carcass is found unsound, the owner is asked to sign a form requesting the destruction. I f he refuses to do so a prosecution follows. This plan which is, I believe, adopted in Edinburgh, Birkenhead, and some other places has the advantage of doing away with the necessity of bringing before the magistrates cases in which the owner of the meat has obviously no intention of selling the same. I am indebted to the Medical Officer of Health for Birkenhead for the following forms, which I now employ on these occasions : MEDICAL O F F I C E R O F H E A L T H ' S DEPARTMENT. TOWN HALL~ CARDIFF, ............. I 8 9 S I R , - - I h a v e to i n f o r m y o u t h a t I h a v e this . . . . . . . seized u n d e r section I I 6 of the P u b l i c H e a l t h Act~ I 8 7 5 ) at t h e A b a t t o i r . . . . . . . . . . . . the . . . . . . . . . . . . of a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b e l o n g i n g to y o n , a n d unless in the m e a n t i m e you consent to its destructionD w h i c h y o u m a y d o b y calling at this Office, or b y s e n d i n g y o u r c o n s e n t in w r i t i n g , I shall a p p l y to a M a g i s t r a t e for a n o r d e r at the Police C o u r t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . as s o o n after . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . as the a p p l i c a t i o n e a n be h e a r d .
I am, your obedient servant,
To .................... COUNTY BOROUGH OF CARDIFF. H E A L T H DEPARTMENT.
..................... t8 9
To
THE MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH, SIR, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . h e r e b y a u t h o r ] s e you to t a k e a n d c a r r y a w a y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b e l o n g i n g to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n o w b e i n g at the . . . . . . . . . a n d request y o u to d e s t r o y t h e s a m e as b e i n g u n s o u n d , --Froln Dr.
H/'alford's A n n u a l
Report/or 2892 , Cardiff.
379 LAW
THE
HOUSING
OF
IMPORTANT
REPORT. THE
WORKING
CLASSES. M
CASE AT HERTFORD.
AT Hertford County Sessions on Saturday, before G. Faudel Phillips, Esq. (in the chair), Mr. R. T. Andrews, architect and surveyor, and Mr. Win. F. Andrews, timber merchant, were summoned under the provisions of the Housing of the Working Classes Act for being the owners of ten dwellinghouses near Well Green, Brickendon, such premises being, it was alleged, unfit for human habitation. Mr. Grubbe, barrister (instructed by Mr. T. I. Sworder), appeared on behalf of the Hertford Rural Sanitary Authority, and Mr. Hawks defended. In opening his case, Mr. Grubbe briefly outlined the evidence that will be found below, and applied for a closing order. H e thought the Bench would be of opinion that Messrs. Andrews had been treated by the Authority with the greatest forbearance. H e contended that Authority would have been guilty of a gross dereliction of duty had they not taken action. Dr. George Turner, medical officer of health for the combined district of East Herts., and for the Hertford R u r a l Sanitary Authority's district, stated that he made a report to the Sanitary Authority on the state of Mr. Andrews' cottages on March 4th. On April i4th he visited the cottages again with Mr. Scales. H e found Savage's cottage damp, with no proper provision for carrying off rain water, the walls were dirty, and he could see daylight through the roof. T h e walls and ceiling were lined with match-boarding, in which were crevices one could see through. H e then went to the cottage inhabited by J. Allure, his wife, and six children. T h e door here had shrunk, and witness could see daylight through the ceiling and roof. In Saville's cottage the brick floor was broken, the door shrunk, and rain came into the front room. On June tst he visited the cottage occupied by H. Meach, his wife, and seven children, and found it in a like state. I n George Wilsher's house be could see daylight through the roof and through the ceiling of the front room. Matthews' house wasin much the same state, and holes in the walls communicated with the next house. Saville's cottage was very damp, the fl-ont door shrunk, daylight could be seen through ceiling and roof, and witness could see through the walls into the next room. H e added that the houses were too thinly constructed. H e was not a builder, but did not think the boarding in any of the places was thick enough or properly put together, or that the wood was seasoned. Witness objected to brick floors in all cases, because they were practically always damp. They drew up the moisture from the ground, and absorbed it when they were washed. Mr. Urban A. Smith, county surveyor, said that on June 6th last he examined the ten cottages in
380
LAW
REPORT.
question. They were light, flimsy buildings ; the outside walls were thin, and they were cased with thin match boarding. The partition walls of each house consisted of only a single thickness of match boarding. ~Ihe outer walls were of piaster " roughcast." The whole thickness of these outside walls was about 5½ inches. The match boarding had shrunk very much indeed, and was not sufficient to stop draughts, or sound, or sight. T h e bedroom doors were just over half an inch thick, and were simply ledged and not framed. In some cases there was nothing between the occupants of the bed-room and the outside air, except the matchboarding--which was very much s h r u n k - - a n d the slate roofi The woodwork forming the internal portion of the building was shrunk in all directions. I n one case the occupants told him they had put rags between the cracks to prevent the water from coming on their bed. One of the women complained that she could n o t carry a lighted candle upstairs because the wind blew through the cracks and extinguished it. (Laughter.) Witness stood on the east side of one house, and found he could see through two doors right out on the west side. T h e holes in the floors had been roughly patched by the tenants, who complained that the children lost valuable things through the floors. (Laughter.) The partition walls between the houses had apparently sunk, and had carried down some bricks forming the floor of a room. In the event of fire the whole of the houses would inevitably burned down. I n witness's opinion the houses were not fit for habitation. Dr. J. C. Thresh, medical officer of the Chelmsford and Maldon Rural Sanitary Authority, was next called, and said that he went with Dr. Turner on June Ioth and visited all the cottages except the two that were unoccupied. When he first saw the cottages he was rather surprised, because he expected to see something much worse in outward appearance, but five or ten minutes' inspection showed that he had never come across such a set of flimsy and jerry-built cottages. To live in damp and draughty houses would tend to produce rheumatism, to make people old before their time, possibly to make them deformed, and decidedly to shorten their period of working power. In all the houses there was a general giving way of the framework, and he noticed that some of the crevices in the woodwork had been stuffed with rags. There were no drains and no receptacles for ashes. T h e pump was broken, and he was told that if it had not been broken the water smelt so that they could not use it. These houses had been built in such a way as to infringe almost every sound principle of cottage construction. H e did not regard the houses as fit for human habitation. Mr. Hawks, in addressing the Bench for the defence, said his clients had expended several hundreds of pounds on this property. T h e case, however, was of far wider importance than to his
clients alone, for it opened the question whether a certain class of house that "could admittedly be repaired should be dealt with in this summary way under the Act of i89o, or whether the sanitary authorities should not give the owners notice to make the houses habitable. The point was t h i s - it was open to the sanitary authorities to adopt one of two measuresweither to proceed under the Act of i875 , and say, " H e r e is a nuisance requiring to be r e m e d i e d " ; or, they might give a broad and sweeping notice under the i89o Act, and say " T h e s e houses are unfit for habitation, krou may find out the defects--that is not our business, but yours." H e (Mr. Hawks) submitted that it was the duty of the sanitary authority to have taken some pains about this, and to have given his clients notice as to the particular defects they were required to remedy. As to the water supply, that, he contended, was excluded from the question. T o be unfit for habitation a house must be a nuisance ; and he submitted that no nuisance had been proved. But, with regard to water, he would mention that they had in this present time of dry weather a well that was nearly full. His clients had let the houses at a very cheap rate, and had brought down the rents to suit their tenants. There were cottages all over the place in a condition far mo~e unfit for habitation than his clients' cottages were. I f these were condemned, then the others must be, and if this Act was used unduly and without care, they might rather call it an _Act for the Unhousing of the Working Classes rather thau for their housing. Mr. R. T. Andrews, who said that he purchased the site in 1879 , when there were two old cottages on it. One of these was occupied by George Savage, who subsequently moved into one of the ten new cottages built by witness, the old cottages being pulled down. A certificate in respect of the new cottages was granted in 188o. I n January, 1882, witness fixed the rents at 3 s. weekly. During the last three years he had carried out substantial repairs to the cottages. Witness gave details of various minor complaints, some of which had proved unfounded. The houses were built of wood, and were plastered outside, and matchboarded inside. The roofs were slated, and there was a slate damp-course. T h e floors were on an average two feet above the road. T h e foundations were of brick, and witness was afraid to say how deep they were--some of them four feet deep. W h e n the houses were built the space between the dividing walls was filled with sawdust, rammed tight. Only the kitchen floors were of brick. The tenants preferred using the rooms with brick floors. Every room had a window opening free to the air. The rain water was carried into a drain that ran clear of the building. The closets were 9 ° feet from the house, and the cesspools were ot brick and cemented. Witness had never had any complaints of damp, nor had he observed the appearance of d a m p in the houses. The water in the well came
LAW
REPORT.
from agricultural pipes laid through the orchard beyond, and entered the well through a filter. The water was clear, as shown in the bottles produced, though witness admitted there was a slight smell to it. There was a pond on the premises, and a ditch in the road opposite. Witness did not know of any cottages to let in the neighbourhood, and he believed these cottages Supplied a local want. T h e ten cottages cost witness about .~Wiio each to build. As to being " j e r r y built," it depended on what people called " j e r r y building." H e considered the cottages well and substantially built. They were put up by his own workmen. Mr. Grubbe said Mr. Urban Smith stated the cost was .~'5 o each at the very outside. Mr. Charles Wiggs, Waltham Abbey, who stated that he had had forty years' experience as a builder and surveyor. H e had examined the houses and considered them healthy. There were no signs of damp. H e did not think brick floors objectionable. Witness considered them quite fit/or habitation. They compared favourably. with many houses in witness's district. If the cottages were in witness's district they would make 4s. 6d. weekly, but houses in Waltham were higher rented. H e did not think the distance trom the cottages to the well was unreasonable. If in his own district he would not condemn them. Witness would not call these houses jerry-built. Mr. Jas. Farley, architect, Hertford, was called, and said he had had twenty years' experience in building construction. H e had seen the cottages, and considered that with the exception of some slight defects that could easily be remedied, they would be quite fit for habitation. H e thought lath and plaster preferable to a nine-inch brick wall, because it was much drier. Mr. G r u b b e : Have you ever seen any houses quite so flimsily built as these ? Witness : I cannot say I have ever seen any quite so lightly built I n further cross-examination, witness said he knew no instance of houses being separated merely by a bit of wood as these were. I f one of the cottages caught fire, all would undoubtedly be consumed. The chimney had settled away from one of the houses, H e added that extremes of temperature would be more felt in houses like these than in brick houses. Mr. W. H . Norris, surveyor, Hertford, wag called, and stated that on June z9th he went over seven of the cottages. T h e tenants spoke in rather high terms of the houses. One of them said water did come into the house sometimes when it rained, but to the extent of perhaps h a l f a pint in a week. There seemed no fault in the slating. Witness considered the cottages fit for human habitation. Mr. Grubbe : Would you like to live there ? Witness : At this time of year I should not mind. (Laughter.) H. Middleton, slater, Hertford, was also called
38i
for the defence, and said he had recently thoroughly and completely repaired all the cottage roofs for 8s. 9d. H e thought the houses " very passable." [The Court then adjourned to view the p r o perty, returning about seven minutes past six p.m.] T h e Chairman said the Bench, having given this case very earnest and attentive consideration, and having also carefully viewed the premises, had unanimously decided to adjourn the case for five weeks, with the view of giving A/[essrs. Andrews an opportunity of carrying out the repairs, substantial and otherwise, that the Bench deemed necessary. Mr. Hawks asked for an expression of opinion from the Bench as to the nature of the repairs required. T h e Chairman replied that Messrs. Andrews could not have a more competent adviser than Mr. Hawks. Mr. Hawks said the contention of the Rural Sanitary Authority had been that the fabric had not been sufficien~ H e took it that was not the opinion of the Bench. T h e Chairman answered that one so skilled in these matters as Mr. Hawks must draw a conclusion from what he (the chairman) had said. T h e time granted for repairs having elapsed, the magistrates again examined the cottages (August ~8th). The repairs done were not considered satisfactory, yet, upon the owner of the cottages giving an undertaking to have all the wooden wainscoting taken down, the walls rendered in cement, and the wainscoting replaced, and to have the holes in the outside walls around the window frames, etc., stopped, the case w a s dismissed, each side to ~ a y costs.
Such magisterial decisions are not likely to encourage Rural Sanitary Authorities to enforce the Housing of the Working Classes Act. HOP PICKERS' OPHTHALMIA.--The description by Mr. Percy Adams, M.R.C.S., D . P . H . , of a special form of ophthalmia to which hop pickers are liable has considerable hygienic importance. After excluding other possible sources of this complaint, Mr. Adams comes to the conclusion that, belonging, as the Humulus lupulus does, to the same family as the Urtica urens or common stinging nettle, and the order urticace~e (which alsoincludes some very severely stinging foreign specimens), and knowing that the hop plant possesses these sharply pointed appendages, it is probable that this painful affection is explained by the introduction into the eye of some of these spinous processes of the hop plant. Mr. Adams advises the employment among the operatives of glass protective spectacles, and the use of gloves during the operation of hop picking to be at once abandoned on the termination of the work, together with more personal cleanliness, though these prophylactic measures are very d i ~ c u l t to enforce.