# Dwellings of working-people in London/Dwellings of Working People in London (Kay-Shuttleworth)

​House of Commons, May 8, 1874.
Dwellings of Working People in London.
Mr. Kay-Shuttleworth: I rise, Sir, to call the attention of the House to the urgent importance of the problems connected with the present condition and future improvement of the dwellings of working people in London, and to the memorials on this subject lately presented to Her Majesty's Government by the Royal College of Physicians, and by the Council and Dwellings Committee of the Charity Organisation Society (Sessional Papers, Nos. 118 and 127); and I shall conclude with the motion which stands in my name, 'That in the opinion of this House a necessity exists for some measure that will provide for the improvement of the poorest classes of dwellings in London, and that this question demands the early attention of Her Majesty's Government.'
I can say with perfect sincerity and earnestness that I regret that such an important subject has not fallen into abler hands than mine, and I must explain to the House briefly how it comes to pass that this subject is in my charge. Some time ago, in the late Parliament, I drew the attention of the House on more than one occasion to the state of our system of water supply in London; and I became conscious from the study of that subject of the great difficulties which stood in the way of any reform on account of the very defective condition of a large proportion of the poorer habitations. Last year, at the commencement of the session, in common with many other members of both Houses of Parliament, I received an invitation from the Charity Organisation Society to serve on a committee appointed to inquire into the state of the dwellings of the poor. It was in the course of the deliberations of that Committee, and in consequence of the evidence which was ​laid before us, that I became aware of the real magnitude and national importance of this question. And after waiting to see whether any other member of the House would bring it forward, I determined, with the concurrence of that Committee, to give notice of the resolution which I am now about to move.
Moreover, the two memorials to which I call attention have been prepared and presented to the Government—one by the Royal College of Physicians, the other by the Charity Organisation Society; and these have been followed by a correspondence in some of the public journals, which appeared to me to bring the subject into so ripe a condition that it might be promptly dealt with by Parliament.
If I needed any justification of the course I am now pursuing, in asking the attention of the House to this question, I should find it in the speeches of right hon. gentlemen on the opposite benches. The right hon. gentleman, the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Cross), in introducing his Licensing Bill the other day, dwelt earnestly on the necessity which existed for improved habitations for working people. Again, the right hon. gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir S. Northcote), in explaining his Budget, used language on this subject which led one to hope that he was about to sketch out some measure by which the long-wished-for result of improving the dwellings of the working classes might be achieved. To go back a very little further, Lord Derby, in his speeches in the North of England, has repeatedly called attention to these sanitary questions.
And the right hon. gentleman who is now at the head of Her Majesty's Government, in laying down his programme at Manchester, adopted as his motto, 'Sanitas Sanitatum, omnia Sanitas.' However, the right hon. gentleman confined himself to words, and the country is now in expectation of the acts which ought to follow on those words. Sir, if it should be the good fortune of the Government who now occupy those benches to legislate wisely on sanitary matters, especially as regards the habitations of the working classes in London, they will not only confer enduring benefit on the metropolis, but will surround their names with lustre and the history of their administration with credit.
If honourable members wish to have an authoritative statement with regard to the special needs of London for ​improvement of the dwellings of the working classes, I will refer them to a report prepared and presented in 1865, by Mr. Simon, then the Medical Officer to the Privy Council and now to the Local Government Board, in which he named numerous towns in which the poorer houses were practically unfit for human habitation, but said that they were worst of all in London and five other towns (Bristol, Merthyr, Newcastle, Plymouth, and Sunderland).
To step down from that very high authority to the very humble authority of the Member who is now addressing the House, I have made it my business during the past few weeks to visit various parts of London and to see for myself to what extent the evil existed. Amongst other parts, I have been to courts in the neighbourhood of Holborn, pretty nearly all over the parish of St. Giles, through the neighbourhood of Drury Lane, and also through one of the very worst portions of London—the district called Bedfordbury—but which I hope honourable members will not connect with the name of the Duke of Bedford, whose property is of a very different character. I could not describe to the House the full details of what I saw in the course of my visit to those localities. Honourable members in taking short cuts through the town, as, for instance, in the neighbourhood of Lincoln's Inn, may, perhaps, see places in which they would be very sorry to have to reside; but I do not think that they have any real idea of the character of large masses of the dwellings which exist in our immediate neighbourhood, nor is any such idea possessed by 99 out of every 100 of the wealthy inmates of luxurious West-end houses.
Sir, I myself had no better knowledge of the true state of the homes of thousands of the people who live around us until I visited some of them recently. I will just tell the House two or three of the things which I saw during my excursions into these comparatively unknown regions. In the first place, there are a great many courts which are not only extremely narrow in themselves, but are approached by tunnels passing under other houses. These houses close one end of the court, and the other end is also completely closed up, so that it is impossible that the houses in the court should have any ventilation. There are other houses which are built back to back, so that no air can pass between them. There are other houses which are, perhaps, even worse than these, because, though a very narrow space is left between ​their backs, this space is almost dark, and at its base is filled with everything that is filthy and abominable; consequently the air that enters these dwellings from the rear is anything but pure, and is constantly liable to be laden with the most offensive odours, and with the germs of disorder and disease. There are some houses the fronts of which look closely upon the backs of the opposite houses, and hon. members can easily imagine what must be the consequence of that arrangement, because, of course, the sanitary offices (if the term 'sanitary' can be properly applied to them) of all the opposite houses are immediately under their windows. The construction of these houses is antiquated and utterly bad.
Possibly some hon. members would be surprised to learn that among the mischiefs of which complaint has to be made are the following:—I saw a row in Bedfordbury that is entirely built of wood; and many of the houses in the neighbourhood of Drury Lane are built of mere lath and plaster. Not only must such dwellings be dirty and unfit for human habitation, but in the event of a fire breaking out during a strong wind, it is quite impossible to say where the consequences might end.
Many of the houses I have described, and probably all of them, were built before any Building Act existed for London. We have now a Building Act for the Metropolis, the defects in which I am glad to see we are to attempt to remedy by the Bill which the hon. and gallant member who represents the Metropolitan Board of Works (Colonel Hogg) has brought in. When the houses to which I refer were built, no sanitary arrangements of any kind were enforced. The dwellings were often erected in backyards and in gardens; and, consequently, the means of approach to them were most inconvenient and most inadequate.
A much more vivid description than any I can give of these houses was given by Mr. Simon, the Medical Officer of the Local Government Board, in 1865. The account is in such language that I must apologise to the House for reading it; but I think it better to call a spade a spade, and if things are in a bad condition to let the House know the whole truth. Under these circumstances I trust the House will allow me to refer to one or two passages in that gentleman's report, which give a description of some of the houses in London. Mr. Simon says: 'By places "unfit for human habitation" I mean places in which, by common consent, even moderately healthy life is impossible to human dwellers,—places which, therefore, in themselves ​independently of removable filth which may be about them) answer to the common conception of "nuisances"; such, for instance, as those underground and other dwelling's which permanently are almost entirely dark and unventilable: and dwellings which are in such constructional partnership with public privies, or other depositories of filth, that their very sources of ventilation are essentially offensive and injurious, and dwellings which have such relations to local drainage that they are habitually soaked into by water or sewage, and so forth. But beyond these instances where the dwelling would, I think, even now be deemed by common consent "unfit for human habitation," instances, varying in degree, are innumerable, where, in small closed courts, surrounded by high buildings, and approached by narrow and perhaps winding gangways, houses of the meanest sort stand, acre after acre of them, back to back, shut from all enjoyment of light and air, with nothing but privies and dustbins to look upon; and surely such can only be counted "fit for human habitation" while the standard of that humanity is low. Again, by "over-crowded" dwellings I mean those where dwellers are in such proportion to dwelling-space that no obtainable quantity of ventilation will keep the air of the dwelling-space free from hurtfully large accumulations of animal effluvium. ...... … And as a particular class of cases, in which both evils are combined to form one monstrous nuisance, I ought expressly to mention certain of the so-called "tenement-houses" of the poor; especially those large but ill-circumstanced houses, once perhaps wealthily inhabited, but now pauperised, and often without a span of courtyard either front or back, where in each house perhaps a dozen or more rooms are separately let to a dozen or more lodgers, and where in each house the entire number of occupants (which even in England may be little short of a hundred) will necessarily have the use of but a single staircase and of a privy which perhaps is placed in the cellar.'
I think I have quoted sufficient to show how bad some of these places are. But it may be said that that report of Mr. Simon was written in 1865, and that we are now in the year 1874. Therefore I will ask the House to let me quote two reports made in 1874. The first is by Mr. Liddle, the ​Medical Officer of Health of the Whitechapel District Board of Works. All inspection of Cooper's Court, Whitechapel, had just been made, and he reports that the walls and ceilings of these houses were found in 'such a dirty and dilapidated condition as to render them unfit for habitation; the ventilation was very defective, there being no fittings to the windows to allow of their being opened. The public privies, which are built of wood, were in a dilapidated condition. This court contains 13 houses, in which there are 35 rooms; two of them were indecently occupied, three were overcrowded and indecently occupied; and three were overcrowded. The ground-floor room at No. 6 was indecently occupied and over-crowded. It was occupied by a man, his wife, and seven children, one of whom was a son 15 years of age. This room contains about 630 cubic feet of space, which allows only 70 feet for each.' I may add, that I believe the cubical air-space for each person should be at least five times as much, or about 350 cubic feet.
I have not mentioned in my description of these houses the common lodging-houses. I shall have a little more to say about these by-and-by; but in one respect, namely in cleanliness, they contrast most favourably with the houses surrounding them, because they were placed under police inspection by Lord Shaftesbury's Acts, which secure that they shall be thoroughly cleansed and whitewashed twice a year at certain fixed times. But then many of the structures used as common lodging-houses are such bad and ancient buildings, and they are generally so over-crowded, that it is certainly high time for the Legislature to interfere again.
I do not think that anything can be done with large numbers of the present buildings occupied either as the dwellings of families, or as lodging-houses, but to sweep them away and put up something better in their place. To fortify my case as completely as possible, I must quote one more extract from a Medical Officer's Report.
Dr. Whitmore, the Medical Officer of Health for St. Marylebone, thus describes some tenements in Marylebone Lane. 'One of these contains 19 rooms, which would appear to have been originally constructed with the most especial ​disregard to order in arrangement, uniformity, or convenience. Every part of this most miserable abode is in a ruinous and dilapidated condition; the flooring of the rooms and staircases is worn into holes and broken away, the plaster is crumbling from the walls, the roofs let in the wind and rain, the drains are very defective, and the general aspect of the place is one of extreme wretchedness. The number of persons living in this house is 47.'
And let the House particularly observe what follows. Dr. Whitmore adds:—'My first impulse was to declare the houses unfit for human habitation, and, by means of a magistrate's order, to remove the inmates at once. A moment's reflection, however, convinced me that by adopting that course I should really accomplish no good object, inasmuch as the poor people, thus suddenly ejected, would be compelled to seek shelter in dwellings probably more crowded, and in an equally bad sanitary condition. The utmost amount of sanitary work the Vestry has power to enforce has of course been ordered, and when completed may be productive of some little benefit to the comfort and convenience of the poor tenants and their families, but no amount of work short of entire reconstruction can render it, in the proper acceptation of the word, a healthy dwelling.'
Now let me say, with respect to these poorest houses in London, that they fall under two heads—they are either improveable or they are unimproveable. The houses which fall under the following category may be considered past all improvement. First of all those which stand back to back, or in so confined a space as to be incapable of free ventilation; secondly, those old tumble-down houses which are not worth spending money upon; thirdly, those that are built of wood or of lath and plaster; and fourthly, such as are incapable of having proper sanitary arrangements provided for them, one for every family, or at least one for every two or three families.
Well, in what I have been describing to the House I have been describing large areas available as sites for building improved dwellings for the working classes; for all those great spaces which are now covered by those bad dwellings could shortly be made use of if they were cleared, and would be made use of, if Parliament said clearly that they should be used for proper habitations for the poor.
But there is another class of sites which exist in London, and in referring to them I shall appeal to the authority of my hon, friend the member for Maidstone (Sir Sydney ​Sydney Waterlow), the late Lord Mayor of London, who has identified himself so honourably with the movement for providing better habitations for the poor, and who can tell the House more than I can with respect to this subject. In April 1872, in a letter which he wrote to the Daily News, he described the existence in London of large waste places, and explained what a mistake it was that they should exist, for the sake not only of the people who live in them, but of the owners of the adjoining property. This is what he describes in April 1872.
'Commercial Street—Shoreditch to Whitechapel—was opened in 1852; Southwark Street in 1862; and in both streets large plots of land still remain uncovered. The new Farringdon Road is another case in point. It was opened in 1858, and very little of the surplus land has yet been built upon. The frontages are from one end to the other almost a dreary waste; the loss in the interest of the money alone amounts to nearly the whole of the principal; so that even were the land to be now sold for double what it would have fetched in 1858, the Corporation would only just recoup the loss sustained by this 14 years' waiting. Meanwhile other and more serious losses have been going on. The district has lost the whole value of the parochial rates and taxes which would have been paid on inhabited houses; it has lost the increased value on the surrounding property which increased trade would have brought.'
Now if any hon. member will walk through Farringdon Street and near the Holborn Viaduct he will still see large spaces of this kind surrounded by buildings, these spaces lying waste, to the injury not only of the Corporation or other persons who may own the land, but of the occupiers of surrounding property, the shopkeepers, the ratepayers, and above all of the working classes who are living over-crowded in the neighbouring parts of London.
I have a letter which was kindly addressed to me by the Surveyor of the Trustees of Mr. Peabody, which shows that there also exist other sites, some of the class I first mentioned, some of the class I last mentioned, and some partly of the one class and partly of the other, which though they exist cannot be obtained by those anxious to build for the working classes. I think I am justified in reading this statement to the House, coming as it does with all the authority of the Peabody Trustees. The letter says:—
​'There are many large sites in and around London, suitable for dwellings for working-men, and such sites have been in the market for years unsold, simply because the price asked is far above the value. I know of one in Lambeth for sale since 1868, in which year I offered a fair price for the Peabody Trust. There are now unsold several suitable sites in Westminster, one in Goswell Street, one in Whitechapel, one in City Road; land in Westminster little used belonging to Trustees who cannot sell without compulsory powers; land in Paddington kept in a useless state by an old man quite incapable of dealing with his property, and this land is in a situation much wanting help with clean houses; a property in Westminster consisting of two plots of land, both too small to be dealt with separately, but having some of the worst houses in Westminster between the plots. These houses cannot be purchased without compulsory powers.'
The statement which I have quoted shows the existence of sites to a large extent which might be used for the purpose of building proper dwellings for the poor.
There are other spaces also which might be made available, where, under the act passed by my hon. friend the member for Finsbury (Mr. Torrens), the Medical Officers of Health have stepped in and have moved the Vestries to demolish buildings unfit for habitation. In some of these places sites have been cleared and still remain cleared without being made useful or productive for any purpose. I saw one of these properties (belonging to the Foundling Hospital) in Bloomsbury, near Russell Square, which scarcely can be utilised, partly because there are not proper approaches, and partly because, though tolerably large, it is not sufficiently extensive to be made use of by the Peabody Trustees or others, unless compulsory powers could be obtained over the adjoining property. In this space, when I saw it the other day, there were heaps of offensive refuse thrown from the neighbouring houses, and the Vestry were employing several men—naturally not without expense to the ratepayers—to clear the rubbish away.
I think, then, I have shown the House that there exists in London a plentiful supply of sites which might be used for the purpose of erecting good dwellings; sites at present occupied by houses unfit for habitation; sites which cannot be turned to account in consequence of the too high prices asked for them by their owners, and sites too small to be ​made available themselves, because there are no compulsory powers of dealing with adjacent property. I purpose now to show that there exists in London a large demand for such sites.
The Trustees of Mr. Peabody, whose name—although he was not a native of this country—must always be mentioned as that of one of the greatest benefactors that our metropolis has ever had (hear, hear), not only inform me, in the letter I have quoted to the House, that they have been endeavouring without success to get the sites I have mentioned, but they state in their last report that, out of a total fund of 578,000l.—including all the bequests of Mr. Peabody and such profits as have already been received from the dwellings they have built, while they have spent on land 102,000l., and 198,000l. on buildings, making 300,000l. in all—they have still left about 278,000l. available for the purposes of the Trust. There can be no doubt that the Trustees of Mr. Peabody would lose no time in employing that money if they could only meet with the sites which they want, and yet I have shown to the House that such sites exist in great quantity.
Then, I am told by my hon. friend, the member for Maidstone, who will second my motion, that his company have refused money which they would be glad to put to use if they could only get sites. The great difficulty is to obtain sites, and if my right hon. friend opposite (Mr. Cross) sees his way to get over that difficulty, I have no doubt the demands on the part of philanthropists, semi-philanthropists, and those who desire to build for their own private gain, will do the rest. If my right hon. friend would only bring the supply to the demand he would do a great and most useful work.
I am told by the secretaries of other societies and companies that their hands are tied behind them, that they are crippled for want of land. Well, then here we have this plentiful supply of sites, and this demand for sites, and the question is how to bring this demand to touch the supply. It reminds me of cases which used to interest me very much when I was a student of chemistry. When you have apparently in close contact two substances which have a strong affinity for each other, they may remain in contact for years and years without any union taking place; but once apply heat or the electric spark, or some other power which will bring them into more than mere mechanical contact, and you set up an action of an interesting and important character. That electric force can only be applied in this case by the action of Parliament.
​I should not deal completely with the subject if I did not state what has been done by past legislation, especially since the outbreak of cholera in 1831, in attempting to remedy some of these evils in London.
In 1844 the Metropolitan Building Act was passed, and among other things it placed cellar- dwellings under the district surveyors.
In 1846 and 1855 were passed the Nuisances Removal Acts, which checked to some small extent the mischief of over-crowding, and put down many nuisances.
In 1846 and 1847 the Baths and Wash-houses Acts were obtained, which enabled parishes to build for these purposes, and to obtain advances from the Loans Commissioners. In 1848 the Public Health Act followed. From this the metropolis was excepted, but it benefited indirectly by the establishment of the General Board of Health.
In 1849 came the second great attack of cholera, in which 4,000 people perished; and that again awakened public attention to the necessity of some measure for improving the dwellings of the poor. It was at that time that Lord Shaftesbury, then Lord Ashley, took an important step in that benevolent movement of which he had made himself the leader for improving the dwellings of the poor in London, and introduced Bills which subsequently became the Common Lodging House Acts of 1851 and 1853.
The effect of these Acts was that lodging-houses were required to be approved by the police, then registered, and thoroughly cleansed and lime-whitened twice every year, in April and October. These Acts are now working well in London, although the common lodging-houses I have visited seem to me to be seriously over-crowded, while they often form parts of courts that are not fit for the habitation of human beings.
In 1862 was passed the Metropolis Water Act, which enabled vestries to oblige householders to lay on a supply of water, while the source of that supply was altered.
​Cholera came again in 1853, and in 1855 the Metropolitan Board of Works was established by the Metropolis Management Act. This Board undertook the excellent work which is known as the main drainage of London. This work should be most carefully and completely perfected. The chief Building Act now in force in London was also passed in 1855.
I must also mention the Act passed in 1851—the Labouring Classes' Lodging Houses Act, which, in conjunction with the Labouring Classes' Dwelling Houses Act of 1866, enables local authorities to build habitations for working people, and to borrow money from the Public Works Loan Commissioners at four per cent, on the security either of the property or of the local rates.
I now come to the Act which is of most importance in reference to this discussion—I mean the Act passed by my hon. friend the member for Finsbury (Mr. Torrens) in 1868, and called the Artisans' and Labourers' Dwellings Act. The Bill, as passed by the House of Commons, contained provisions for four purposes—compulsory repair, demolition, compensation, and rebuilding. In the House of Lords the last two provisions were struck out, and consequently the Act provides only for compulsory repair, and for the demolition of dwellings unfit for human habitation. Yet this Act has been of great value. Indeed I did not fully realise its value until the other day when I went through the parish of St. Giles, where Dr. Ross, the Medical Officer of the Vestry, has put the Act into force with considerable vigour and courage. About 100 houses have been improved or demolished in his district.
The Act has been also employed with effect in Marylebone, Clerkenwell, Islington, Holborn, St. Luke's, Whitechapel, Mile End Old Town, and other parishes.
It may be worth while to point out how the Act may be considerably improved. Not only should the powers of rebuilding which the House of Lords unfortunately expunged be restored in some form by new legislation, but the experience of Dr. Ross in enforcing the Act induces him to offer these practical suggestions:—First, the Medical Officer, in addition to the report required by the Act, should be directed to detail the grounds upon which his opinion is based; and secondly, the report of the Medical Officer of Health, condemning certain houses as unfit for human habitation, should be forwarded to the Local Government Board, in order that a Medical Inspector may examine the premises and report thereon, previous to the reference to the ​surveyor of the local authority. The Medical Officers of Health are in the service of the Vestries, and the members of the Vestries are to a large extent property owners; and yet it is to these Vestries that the Medical Officer of Health has to make his report that property is unfit for human habitation and ought to be demolished. The effect of adopting the suggestion would be that the report of the Medical Officer would be made with much greater confidence. At present he sometimes shrinks from condemning places which are unfit for human habitation because he knows his report will be unsupported when it comes before a body who, naturally enough, will be somewhat prejudiced in favour of the supposed rights of their own property. If he were supported by an Inspector of the Local Government Board, he would have more confidence in recommending the resort to the measures now authorised by what is known as Torrens's Act.
There are other respects in which the Act will not work efficiently. A Medical Officer of Health shrinks from condemning property because in the first place he knows there is no power to reconstruct. That is a fault which might have been avoided by passing the provisions of the Act that were rejected by the House of Lords. Further, the Medical Officer knows that the site of the property, if it were condemned, could not be utilised for any purpose unless adjoining property could be dealt with as well; but that may not be unfit for human habitation, and therefore he is not able to condemn it. He knows that if the houses to be condemned are demolished, the site will remain vacant and no property will be erected. This points to the necessity of some powers for obtaining neighbouring property, even though it be not of a character to render it unfit for human habitation.
We have now seen sufficiently what Acts have been passed by the Legislature in recent years, and I pass on to show what precedents exist to guide us in the future, and what circumstances there are to encourage us. To go at once to the root of the matter I point to the examples of Glasgow and Edinburgh, and what has been done in those places.
When I was a member of the Committee of the Charity Organisation Society, one of the most interesting meetings was that at which the Lord Provost of Glasgow, the City Architect, and the Town Clerk attended to give evidence of what they had been able to do in Glasgow. They obtained ​in 1866 an Act called the City Improvement Act. Before the passing of that Act, the Lord Provost told us the city of Glasgow was even more crowded than London was. There were 50,000 people huddled together on 80 acres, which made 600 to the acre, while in Westminster, a very crowded part of London, the population is 235 to the acre. How did the Corporation propose to deal with this evil, and how did Parliament enable them to deal with it? The Corporation deposited plans of the parts of the town they desired to improve, and they obtained power to borrow a million and a quarter of money. They were empowered to pull down all the places which were shown in these deposited plans, and to rebuild upon the sites thus obtained, or sell them for the purpose of being built upon. They were also empowered to levy a sixpenny rate. They did not find this necessary for more than a year; they had a fourpenny rate for two years, then a threepenny one, and now I think it is reduced to twopence. The Corporation did not use their power to rebuild except to a very limited extent. In order not to discourage speculators and prevent their stepping in to do what was necessary, the Corporation exercised their powers of reconstructing in only two cases; they built two lodging-houses for 500 people, which are quite models of their kind, and which have paid ten per cent. The rest of the building operations have been conducted throughout by private agencies which came at once to the aid of the trustees, and acted readily under certain prescribed restrictions of sanitary construction. One provision in the Glasgow Act prevented the removal of more than 500 persons at once without a certificate from the Sheriff that accommodation for the number removed was obtainable in the neighbourhood.
Following the example of Glasgow, the people of Edinburgh were induced in 1867, by Dr. William Chambers, to obtain an Act which enabled the Corporation to borrow 350,000l., restricted them to removing 500 people at a time, and gave power to spend 10,000l. in rebuilding. They exercised this power by building a block of 36 houses, consisting of flats, which were eagerly purchased by working men, at prices varying from 170l. to 185l.
Liverpool, in 1864, obtained a special Act, called the Sanitary Amendment Act, which was on the same basis as Torrens's Act (subsequently passed for London and other towns), but the Liverpool Bill contained the principle of compensation which was struck out of the hon. member for Finsbury's Bill in the House of Lords, so that Liverpool ​possesses a power of which the authorities of London are deprived.
Let me state very briefly what have been some of the results of this legislation. I will restrict what I have to say to the Glasgow case. The results in Glasgow have been very remarkable with reference to crime. The total number of crimes have singularly diminished. According to the report of Captain McCall, Chief Constable of the City, for the year 1871, the number of houses of an immoral kind have been reduced from 204 to 50. Captain McCall adds: 'I should consider that I fell short of my duty were I not to acknowledge that the operations of the City Improvement Trustees and the Directors of the City Union Railway Company, have contributed to the results. Through these operations the city has been cleared of the foulest dens of vice and profligacy, and their occupants have been scattered among a population breathing a purer moral atmosphere.'
I have also got the statistics of what has been done with regard to the number of dwellings which have been removed in a return by Mr. Nichol, Secretary to the Improvement Trustees. The return is dated the 14th April, 1874, and states that 'the number of dwellings in the Central District of Glasgow removed by the Improvement Trustees within the last six years was 3,085 (allowing five to a family, 15,425 persons). The number in the same district removed by the City Union Railway Company represents 8,000 inmates, giving a total of 23,425.'
I take it, therefore, that what has been done in Glasgow may be pointed to as, at least, a hopeful precedent, when we come to consider the way in which we are proposing to deal with the evils that exist in London.
I know it will be said, and I admit, that the cases of Glasgow and London are very different. The case of London is in many respects totally different from that of any other ​town in the kingdom. No doubt very greatly improved legislation is required with reference to the dwellings of the labouring classes in every town of the kingdom; but with respect to London it is particularly so, and I admit that here in London we cannot follow altogether the example of Glasgow in one particular. We cannot meet the necessities of the case by erecting dwellings in the suburbs in the stead of those demolished in the city. The suburbs of London are so much farther removed from the centre than those of other towns, that at least those people whose work is not at regular times cannot live in the suburbs and follow their occupations too. Those, for instance, who have regular work between fixed hours in the morning and the evening, who don't work extra hours and who have sufficient means to enable them to go to and fro by railway, and to bear the increased expense of taking their mid-day meal apart from their wives and families, these may benefit by living in the suburbs. But a large class who must take their work to their employers at various uncertain hours (I might mention the case of tailors, for instance), and those who depend on having their mid-day meal with their families, and those whose wives or children earn money in town occupations, cannot go to dwellings in the suburbs. I may say parenthetically that it would be a misfortune in my estimation to have the large mass of working men toiling far from their homes all day while their families reside in the suburbs. Men would lead a working life quite distinct and apart from their home life. It is a happy thing for them to be able to return to their families for their mid-day meal; and, where they cannot do that, to have the wife or child taking the dinner to the father, and sharing it with him. That would be materially affected by obliging the working classes to any great extent to avail themselves of railways to travel to and from their work.
I say, therefore, the case of Glasgow is very different in that respect from London, where the centre of the town is so far distant from the suburbs. But there is this similarity, that there existed in Glasgow large districts where the buildings were overcrowded, where the sanitary arrangements were bad, which were perfect rookeries of crime, disease, and every kind of disorder, and which could only be got rid of by demolition. And we have the same evil to deal with in London as in Glasgow. It may, therefore, be profitable, and it is not uninteresting to examine what has been done.
What is it that we propose to do in London? What is it that the Memorials which have been presented to the Government by the College of Physicians and the Charity ​Organisation Society point to? They both point to compulsory powers being obtained by Local Authorities, for acquiring building sites for working people by the demolition of dwellings unfit for human habitation.
And though I should not presume to sketch in detail a plan by which this course may be adopted, I think I need only point to one or two facts to show that we are, in some respects, in a better position than Glasgow for giving such compulsory powers. The first respect in which I think we stand in a better position is, that we have in our employment Medical Officers who are ready and competent to report, in accordance with the member for Finsbury's Act, that the houses to be removed are unfit for human habitation. That smooths away a great many difficulties; their powers being applied only to the class of houses unfit for human habitation. Sites would thus be obtained, not at an unfair but at their real value. People who had allowed their property to get into a bad condition, and who kept it in a bad condition, would not be able to extort the altogether improperly high prices they now obtain for such property. In another respect I think we should stand better than in Glasgow for the exercise of these powers: the Metropolitan Board of Works, if entrusted with such functions, can issue stock at the moderate rate of 3½ per cent., and are thus enabled to obtain money much more cheaply than the Glasgow authorities could find their 1¼ million.
But I must come to the main difficulty in that part of the proposal which seeks to confer these powers on certain authorities in London. It is objected that we have not got in London a great active reforming Municipal Corporation like that of Glasgow, with powers extending to the whole of the town, and directly representing its inhabitants; and that no doubt is true. I say, without disguise, in presence of my hon. and gallant friend, the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board, that I am one of those who call themselves municipal reformers, and who look forward to having, some day, a real Municipal Government for London. (Hear, hear.) I am not satisfied with the Metropolitan Board of Works; and I hope the time will come when we shall have a directly representative corporation governing the whole of the metropolis, and replacing existing bodies.
But I don't think we ought to delay improving the ​dwellings of the poor till this reform takes place; and I do not shrink at all from saying, that I think the proper course for the Government and Parliament to pursue is to invest the Metropolitan Board of Works, and the noble Corporation which presides over the City, with compulsory powers for this purpose, similar to those given to the Corporation of Glasgow. Let me say to any one who distrusts the Metropolitan Board of Works at once:—Suppose they do not exercise these powers wisely, or if they do not exercise them at all,—at the worst, what will be the result? The powers will be ready at hand for those who must be appointed their successors, if they neglect their duties. If the Metropolitan Board of Works, possessing these powers of dealing with this great mischief, do not avail themselves of them, so much the worse for the Board. If they do avail themselves of them, proving in that respect a reforming body so far as their powers extend, I shall be ready to reconsider my distrust of a body, elected as the Board of Works is, and to give them credit for what they have done. It will be a great opportunity for them. If they avail themselves of it, so much the better for them; if they do not, so much stronger will the argument be for that of which I am an advocate—the formation of a real Municipal Government for London. If we give these powers to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and if they do not properly exercise them, we shall be enabling those who may hereafter take their place, if it be necessary some other body should supersede them, we shall be enabling their successors as soon as they come into office to avail themselves of these facilities and do in earnest the good work we wish them to do.
With respect to the necessity of these compulsory powers, I think I have yet one point to show. The Peabody Trustees and the Building Companies and Societies, when they succeed in obtaining land on which to build, are frequently very much hampered for want of power to deal with some buildings adjoining what they acquire.
A remarkable example of the damage done from want of compulsory powers occurred on the southern side of the river. The Trustees of Mr. Peabody acquired from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners at a fair price a large and convenient site, and they erected lofty buildings upon it. There was, however, a strip of miserable property held by several owners and overlooking the Trustees' land, which they took steps to acquire. This property contained a public-house. When the owners found out who wanted their property, they asked prices so ​outrageous that the Trustees, after considerable delay, were obliged to give up their proposal to purchase, and thus to a great extent neutralise the good they proposed to do. When it was found that the Trustees did not feel themselves justified in giving the sums demanded, and after the new buildings were begun, several of the owners of this adjoining property commenced proceedings in Chancery. In the case of the public-house, which was a leasehold for about 18 years, at a rent of 60l.,, it was stated by the lessee in Court that it cost 1,600l. some years before. Yet before any proceedings were taken the Trustees were asked to give 4,000l. for this lease. The owner of this property was so anxious to press the Trustees to buy his property that he brought an action against them for loss of light, and it was unfortunately decided in his favour. The Court gave judgment for 200l., and this, with costs, inflicted a loss upon the Trustees of probably 400l. Much worse than this was the lasting loss inflicted upon the Trustees by the proximity of this low and miserable property. It will remain there a nest of disease and probably of crime, interfering with the comfort and usefulness of the new and excellent buildings, because the Trustees were unable to acquire it on anything like fair and reasonable terms.
It may be said that what I am recommending is virtually a proposal to rebuild London out of the rates. I beg to say, however, that I propose nothing of the kind. I do not propose to rebuild London, or any part of London, out of the rates, nor should I think of offering any arguments in favour of such a scheme. All that I should propose would be that land should be bought by the Metropolitan Board of Works under powers similar to those conferred upon the Corporation of Glasgow. The land thus bought by the Metropolitan Board of Works would be again sold or leased by them at little or no loss. The loss (if any) would alone come out of the rates. It might be desirable to give powers to the Metropolitan Board of Works, as was done in the Edinburgh Act, to rebuild to a certain extent. The greater part of the building, however, would be effected by private enterprise.
All that is wanted is to enable private builders and philanthropic persons to meet the demand that exists for a better description of dwellings. If suitable sites were provided, private enterprise would do the rest. The Memorial of the Charity Organisation Society suggests that 'to provide against contingencies it would be expedient that these bodies should themselves have the power of rebuilding in certain exceptional cases and under proper limitations,'— the ​limitations referred to being those of the Edinburgh Act—restricting the right to rebuild within a definite outlay. It might be useful, as at Glasgow, to build some satisfactory common lodging-houses as models, and there can be little doubt that they would pay, as those at Glasgow give a return of ten per cent.
My proposal then is not to rebuild London out of the rates, but only to enable private enterprise to have scope for action; namely, to acquire at fair prices ground now inaccessible because of the protection given by law to powerless, indifferent, or unscrupulous owners or leaseholders. (Hear.)
These compulsory powers are necessarily conferred both upon Railway Companies, and, in order to carry out street improvements, upon the Metropolitan Board of Works. Not a Session passes without powers being given to Railway Companies and various public bodies for this class of improvements; and I shall be glad if any hon, member will tell me why these powers should not be given for a matter of much greater national concern even than the construction of railway's and the opening of more convenient thoroughfares, namely, for an object deeply affecting the welfare of the working classes. (Hear, hear.)
It will be necessary to meet the case of improveable buildings—of those dwellings which are not so bad as to require to be taken down, but which are packed so closely together as to be unwholesome. Much has been done towards improving this class of buildings, although there is often, I fear, a good deal of waste of money in improving dwellings which it would be better to take down altogether and rebuild. Many of these cannot be improved, and are not worth the large sums which have been expended on them. If you attempt to improve unimproveable dwellings,—in the first place the result is not satisfactory as far as the dwelling is concerned, and in the next place it does not pay. The Association inaugurated in 1844 by Lord Shaftesbury, to his great honour—the 'Society for Improving the Condition of the Labouring Classes'—has done an excellent work, of which I desire to speak with great respect. Another society, the London Labourers' Dwellings Society, of which a constituent of my own, Dr. Greenhill, is the indefatigable and excellent secretary, has done much to improve the dwellings of the working classes in London; whilst a sister Society of ​older date at Hastings (1857) has done similar work there under the guidance of the same Secretary.
I have seen a large number of these dwellings which have been improved, but I am aware that one cannot fairly judge of the work that these Associations have accomplished unless one had seen these places before they were improved. (Hear, hear.) I am afraid that a great many of the London improved dwellings, after all that has been done, are in an unsatisfactory condition. But others have been converted into fit dwellings for working men and their families; for example, in some cases chambers which were formerly occupied by barristers and persons of the higher classes, and which have been allowed to fall into a state of dilapidation, whilst occupied by a poorer class, have been repaired and drained, and again put into a fair sanitary condition.
This is some of the good work that has been done by these associations. But that good work ought to be extended. It has been effected for the most part by benevolent societies; and, although I do not ask the Government itself to undertake the repair and improvement of such better dwellings, I appeal to hon. members and to the public to give to this movement the aid and encouragement it requires and deserves. (Hear, hear.) Such an Act as that passed for Glasgow would enable us to deal with the worst parts of London, and with dwellings that are unimproveable—and these I fear constitute the larger class—but it would leave much to be done in those parts of London which are capable of being improved. (Hear, hear.)
I must next speak of the work which is being done—in building improved habitations—by various Societies and Companies, some of a philanthropic character, others half philanthropic and half commercial, some of a purely commercial character, many of which were set on foot and are carried on by private individuals who have shown an example for others to follow.
The oldest Association that attempted the erection of model dwelling-houses was the Metropolitan Association, formed in 1841 for improving the dwellings of the industrious classes. I have seen many of the dwellings of this Association, which provides already for about 4,000 inhabitants, and which, when its Farringdon Road buildings are complete, will have 1,049 tenements or separate dwellings, of which only 20 are in old converted buildings. The dwellings of this Association are most excellent models to be followed by those individuals who may avail themselves of the sites which we ​may hope will be set free by the powers proposed to be given to the Corporation of London and the Metropolitan Board of Works.
The Trustees of Mr. Peabody have built several blocks of buildings of the most interesting and useful character, and which are largely in demand by the more provident of the working classes.
The company of which my hon. friend, the member for Maidstone (Sir Sydney Waterlow), is the chairman, has provided accommodation for no less than 6,340 persons in its buildings. (Hear, hear.)
I must also refer to the Baroness Burdett Coutts, whose name should be mentioned with special honour in connection with her Columbia Square Buildings for working men and their families. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Gibbs, in Rochester Buildings, near this House, has erected model dwellings for working men which are well worthy of imitation. The Corporation of the City of London have done something in this direction, and the benevolent persons represented by Miss Octavia Hill have provided accommodation for 1,500 persons in their dwellings. The right hon. gentleman, the Recorder of London (Mr. Russell Gurney), should also be named among those who have been foremost in this good work. (Hear, hear.)
I must now mention one or two facts relative to the experience of those who have attempted to provide better accommodation for working men. One fact bears very much upon the necessity for compulsory powers, and it is that the Associations I have referred to have to pay such varying sums, such large sums in most cases, and such extortionate sums in other instances for the sites on which to erect their dwellings. I will mention some figures to show the varying amount of ground-rent which the companies find it necessary to levy per family per week in order to recoup themselves for the ground-rent under which they sit as owners of these buildings. In one of these buildings it is necessary to charge a ground-rent of 1s. 1d. per family per week; in another. 1s. 6d. In one case this payment is as low as a penny farthing; in another it is threepence three farthings.
The House will, I hope, realise that heavy ground-rents are the result of leaving these Associations to obtain their sites at fancy prices; and that the consequence is that a working man with a family cannot in some blocks obtain the accommodation which these Associations provide for him without beginning by paying 1s. or 1s. 6d. a week for ground rent, to ​which of course the rent of the rooms must be added. When the House duly considers this state of things, it will, I hope, see how very important it is that Associations formed for these benevolent purposes should obtain sites at such reasonable prices as arbitrators would fix.
There is also another point in the experience of these philanthropic pioneers which is instructive; and that is that on the sites that are cleared, where people have been living in an over-crowded state and in great misery, these associations are able to house many more people than before, without any of the drawbacks of the former crowding. I have already stated that the population in Westminster numbers 235 to the acre. In the Farringdon Road Buildings the population will be about 1,600 to the acre, though nearly half the site is left uncovered for the purposes of recreation and ventilation. Whilst the Metropolitan Association will have provided for the unprecedented number of 1,600 people to the acre, several associations and companies are building blocks which will accommodate 1,000 to the acre.
I ought also to mention the fact that there is a great demand for these buildings. People have sometimes said that the working classes do not care to go and live in this new kind of habitation; that they do not like to go upstairs and to live in flats. On the contrary, I find that, as soon as one of these blocks is constructed, there is immediately a great demand for tenements. In the Farringdon Road Buildings for instance, although it will be four or five months before they will be completely ready for habitation, and although there will be accommodation for 253 families only, yet for this accommodation already no less than 275 applications have been received. And with respect to the Peabody Buildings the number of applications is still more largely in excess of the accommodation supplied, although that is no doubt partly due to the fact that in this case the tenements are let below their value.
There is another fact to which I must allude, and that is ​the remarkably small loss that arises from, the non-payment of rent. One would imagine that owing to various causes there would be frequent instances in which the rent would not be paid. But in reality the loss from this cause is very small. In the case of the Metropolitan Association the gross rent receivable amounted to 12,2571l. 5s., and the rent actually received was 12,082l. 11s. And that difference of 1741. includes the loss arising from rooms empty during repairs or removals. These are very remarkable facts.
And now I come to an important point, and it is one which can be spoken to with special authority by my hon, friend, the member for Maidstone. The question is whether the erection of these buildings is so profitable an investment as to tempt builders to step in? Will these sites be taken up by people who desire to make profit on buildings for the working classes or not? I say most confidently they will, because my hon. friend, the member for Maidstone, and others have set the example, and have shown that it is profitable to build these classes of dwellings.
Let me state what the dividends are. In the case of the Metropolitan Association the dividends have been kept down. They were pioneers in the work, and all honour to them. But owing to this circumstance experiments were tried and mistakes made which naturally affected the dividends. But in spite of these experiments and the losses which were incurred, they are now paying 4½ per cent. They hope very soon to be able to pay 5 per cent. The Strand Buildings Company pays 5 per cent, and the London Labourers' Dwellings Society 5 per cent. I am told that one or two of the blocks erected by the Peabody Trustees pay 4 per cent. The Improved Industrial Dwellings Company, the Company presided over by my hon. friend, the member for Maidstone, pays 5 per cent., and has done so from the very commencement. The dwellings built by the Corporation of the City of London pay 4 per cent., and those erected or improved by Mr. Ruskin, Lady Ducie, and the other persons whose good work is managed by Miss Octavia Hill, pay 5 per cent. Some companies, it must be admitted, have been failures: others have paid very little; but when wisely managed they have set an example which private individuals and speculators may follow, for they show that dividends at the rate of 5 per cent. can be obtained.
​It would be unpardonable if I did not say a word or two on the demolitions which have been effected under powers obtained by railway bills and bills for other public improvements, and with respect to the duty that devolves upon Parliament, of seeing to these matters, and of insuring that the injustice and misery which have been inflicted in the past are not repeated in the future. (Hear, hear.) I need not dwell at any length upon this subject, because it is so familiar to hon, members, and because they know that railway after railway taken through London has displaced a very large number of working people, who have thus had to find other habitations, and to over-crowd places already too full.
Let me direct the attention of the House to the precedent laid down by the Metropolitan Street Improvement Act of 1872. When that Act was passed, there were bills before Parliament which would demolish 1,152 houses and displace 3,870 persons, nearly all of whom were working people. A clause was then introduced into it, very much I believe at the instance of the member for Maidstone, which obliged the Board of Works to set aside certain plots for dwellings of the poor in connection with the clearances they made for streets. Now I hope we shall insist in this House that similar clauses are inserted in bills which are attended by this mischief. I am very glad that the right hon. gentleman, the Home Secretary, has taken one step in that direction, in the case of the Midland Railway Bill of the present Session, and I hope he will take others.
This is a matter that we ought not to leave to be dealt with in another place. The House of Lords' Standing Order on the subject provides that before the second reading of any of these bills takes place, a return shall be furnished of the number of houses it is proposed to pull down, and the number of persons it is proposed to remove under the compulsory powers to be given. This Standing Order has no doubt acted beneficially, but it is not enough; and we ought not to leave a matter of this kind to be dealt with in another place. We ought to deal with it ourselves. And not only ought we to know how many people are going to be displaced, but in passing such bills we ought to see clauses inserted, which would compel the companies to provide space ​for accommodating an equivalent number of people to the number removed.
But the evil does not arise solely from the conduct of the Railway Companies, and from the neglect of Parliament to require due provision of sites for dwellings in their private Bills. I am sorry to say that we, or the Government, in times past, have been guilty of similar mischief. I refer particularly to the clearance of the space for the new Law Courts. The space cleared was very large: it still lies void and vacant: and about 4,000 people were turned out, causing very great misery. I need only allude to that to show how careless we have been of the comfort and interests of the working classes.
I regret to be informed, too, that some of the measures taken by the School Board of London have more recently inflicted similar misfortune on working people by dismissing them from their homes. In all these cases provision should be made for those who are displaced.
I was going to fortify myself upon this point by some high authorities who refer to the results of railway and improvement bills. But, Sir, I think the House is awakened to the necessity of doing its duty in these cases, and I do not think I need say any more on the subject. I shall therefore close what I have to say by moving the resolution which stands in my name.
But before I do so I must not omit to draw the special attention of the House to the words of the memorial which has come before it with the high authority of the College of Physicians. It was presented to the First Lord of the Treasury, and ordered to be laid upon the table of the House. They make this statement:
'That it is well known to your Memorialists that overcrowding, especially in unwholesome and ill-constructed habitations, originates disease, leads to drunkenness and immorality, and is likely to produce discontent among the poorer portion of the population.
'That it is within the knowledge of your Memorialists that the wholesale demolition of the houses inhabited by the poor which has been carried on of late years under various railway and improvement Acts, while it has been serviceable in removing many very bad streets and dwellings, has incidentally caused much distress to the persons displaced, and has almost uniformly driven them to crowd into ​neighbouring quarters, which were already as full as, or fuller than, was consistent with healthiness.
'That private enterprise is powerless to provide the fresh and improved house accommodation which is required for those who have been expelled from their former habitations, in addition to that which is called for by the constant increase of the population, by reason of the impossibility of securing suitable sites for building. Even so rich and powerful a body as the Trustees of the Peabody Fund has been repeatedly foiled in particular attempts to obtain land to build upon.'
They conclude thus: —
'That your Memorialists believe that the mere enabling powers which are at present entrusted to various authorities have proved, and must prove, insufficient to effect the desired object.
'That in the opinion of your Memorialists a remedy for these evils is urgently required.'
Sir, I need not again refer to the great dangers to the community at large from crime, from epidemic, from fire, arising out of the neglect of a great evil, nor to the far worse misery and degradation inflicted upon the poorest classes of the people by the existence of these wretched houses which, whilst they exist, are sure to be inhabited. I appeal to the Home Secretary not to confine himself to mere words in any reply he may make to what, at too great length and with insufficient ability, I have ventured to bring forward, but to tell us what will be his acts; to tell us that he intends to take the subject in hand and to carry through such a measure or such measures as the national urgency and importance of the subject imperatively demand. The time is past for admitting the evil and for declaring that something must be done. Let the right hon, gentleman tell us what, in his opinion, ought to be done, and let him say that he intends to do it. (Cheers.) I beg to move, 'That in the opinion of this House a necessity exists for some measure that will provide for the improvement of the poorest classes of dwellings in London, and that this question demands the early attention of Her Majesty's Government.'
* ↑ For the Memorial of the Charity Organisation Society, see Appendix I. That of the Royal College of Physicians is quoted at p. 28.
* ↑ Hansard, Vol. CCVI. p. 1209, May 23, 1871.
* ↑ The Committee was greatly indebted to its able chairman, Lord Napier and Ettrick, and to its zealous and indefatigable secretary, Mr. Charles B. P. Bosanquet, who has given me the greatest assistance in studying this subject.
* ↑ 8th Report of Medical Officer of Privy Council, 1860, p. 13.
* ↑ The words omitted are—'cases where the dwelling-space at its best stinks more or less with decomposing human excretions, and where, at its worst, this filthy atmosphere may (and very often does) have working and spreading within it the taint of some contagious fever.'
* ↑ 8th Report of Medical Officer of Privy Council, 1865, p. 13.
* ↑ Mr. Hubbard (M.P. for the City of London) referred in his speech in the debate to this case, pointing out that a landlord who lets a room to a number of persons five times as numerous as it is qualified to hold, doubtless obtains far more than the legitimate rent. The rent paid by the occupants, on the other hand, would suffice to obtain better accommodation if it existed, and to pay a fair profit to the landlord who had provided it.
* ↑ Mr. Robert Vigers, of 5 Frederick's Place, Old Jewry, E.C., to whom I am grateful for much assistance and information.
* ↑ The Artisans' and Labourers' Dwellings Act, 1868.
* ↑ The price of a bed per night in these common lodging-houses is 3d. or 4d. For such a payment much better quarters could be given. A house much resorted to, with 100 single beds, may obtain a rent of 10l. a week, or about 500l. a year. The owners of these places often make quite a fortune from their traffic in what, after all, is but miserable accommodation. In a low, ill-ventilated room, as many beds are crowded as it can possibly hold, without any separation between them, even in the houses appropriated to women. Decency suggests that there should be partitions between the beds with sufficient space for dressing in privacy, and that the closets should bear some proportion in number to the people housed, and should be properly and conveniently situated. The police rules need revision.
* ↑ The cost of properties purchased by the Improvement Trustees was £1,177,390 The cost of ground at Oatlands, and for the erection of workmen's houses, was 63,000 Cost of ground purchased out of Improvement Assessment for a Public Park 40,000 Cost of Model Lodging Houses 7,585 Cost of Model Dwelling Houses 2,330 Covering of open Streams, &c. 18,000 The total cost to date being 1,308,305 The amount of assessment levied since 1866 was 220,000l. The area of ground embraced by the scheme is about 85 acres, with a population in 1866 of over 52,000.
* ↑ Houses that do not deserve to be condemned and closed would be bought at their market value.
* ↑ Mr. Charles Payne, the Secretary of this Society, showed me several of the buildings acquired and improved by them, thus kindly giving me much instruction.
* ↑ See Report of Lancet Sanitary Commission, &c. (App. II.)
* ↑ It must be remembered that in the poor places where they are now living over-crowded, they have often to live in single rooms on the second or third floor, or in attics, and the stairs are narrow and winding, almost always wooden, and often full of holes and quite dark. Up these stairs every pail of water must be carried from the yard, whereas in new blocks water is laid on to every floor. And though such a modern building may not be tenanted mainly by the poorest classes, they reap some benefit. When their miserable old homes are destroyed, they move into the houses vacated by the working people, who eagerly compete for rooms in the new block. Thus each class gets a step upwards. And this was what happened in Glasgow.
* ↑ I am indebted to Mr. Charles Gatliff, the Secretary of the Metropolitan Association, for many of the statements I quoted, as well as for his guidance when I visited various model buildings.
* ↑ When such a clause is inserted, a time should always be fixed within which the building plots should be ready for use.
* ↑ The return should be obligatory in cases where Parliament allows such demolitions to be effected under agreement, and not only where they are effected under compulsory powers.
* ↑ See App. III.