• •*' 
 
 •#%*^^ 
 
 ^.Jm 
 
 
 m^m 
 
 ^^^9ii0
 
 L I B RAR.Y 
 
 OF THE 
 
 U N 1 V ER.5 ITY 
 
 or ILLINOIS
 
 DWELLINGS 
 
 OF 
 
 WORKING-PEOPLE IN LONDON 
 
 Cixr0 ^pcccljcs 
 
 DELIVEEED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS MAY 8, 1874 
 
 BY 
 
 U. J. KAY-SHUTTLEWOETII, M.P. 
 
 Sm SYDNEY WATERLOW, Bart., M.P. 
 
 WITH NOTES AND APPENDICES 
 
 LONDON 
 
 EIDGWAY, ]69 PICCADILLY 
 
 1874 
 
 Price One Shilling 
 
 J
 
 LONDON : PRINTED BY 
 
 SrOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE 
 
 AND TARLIAJIENT STUEET
 
 House of Commons, 
 May 8, 1874. 
 
 Dwellings of Working People in London. 
 
 Mr. Kat- Shuttle worth : I rise, Sir, to call the attention 
 of the House to the urgent importance of the problems con- 
 nected 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 Eoyal College of Physicians, and by the 
 Council and Dwellings Committee of the Charity Organisa- 
 tion 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 wiU 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 f 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 ver}^ 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 
 jDoor. It was in the course of the deliberations of that 
 Conmiittee, and in consequence of the evidence which was 
 
 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. 
 
 A 2
 
 4 Dwellings of Working Peojjle in London. 
 
 laid before us, that I became aware of tlie real magnitude 
 and national importance of tliis 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 atten- 
 tion have been prepared and presented to the Government 
 — one by the Eoyal College of Physicians, the other by the 
 Charity Organisation Society ; and these have been fol- 
 lowed by a correspondence in some of the public journals, 
 which appeared to me to bring the subject into so ripe a con- 
 dition 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. gen- 
 tlemen 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 habi- 
 tations for working people. Again, the right hon. gen- 
 tleman, 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 risrht hon. g-entleman who is now at the head of 
 Her Majesty's Government, in laying down his programme 
 at Manchester, adopted as his motto, ' Sanitas 8anitatum, 
 omnia Sanitas.' However, the right hon. gentleman con- 
 fined 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 im- 
 
 • The Committee was greatly indebted to its able chairman, Lord Napier and 
 Ettrick, and to its zealous and indefatigable secretary, Mr. Charles B. P. Bosan- 
 quet, who has given me the greatest assistance in studying this subject. 
 
 1 J^
 
 Dwellings of Working People in London. 5 
 
 provement of tlie dwellings of the working classes, I will 
 refer tliem 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 toAvns (Bristol, Merthyr, N"ev»^- 
 castle, Plymouth, and Sunderland),^ 
 
 To step down from that very hig-h 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 ex- 
 cursions 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 tun- 
 nels 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 
 
 » 8tli Eeport of Medical Officer of Privy Council, I860, p. 13.
 
 6 Dwellings of Worlcing People in London. 
 
 tlieir 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 
 ofiensive 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 Avhich complaint has to be made 
 are the following : — I saw a row in Bedfordbury that is en- 
 tirely built of wood ; and many of the houses in the neigh- 
 bourhood of Drury Lane are built of mere lath and plaster. 
 Not onl}" 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 conse- 
 quences 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 repre- 
 sents 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 (indepen-
 
 Dwellings of Worhincj People in Loyidon. 7 
 
 dently of removable filth wliicli may be about them) answer 
 to the common conception of " nuisances " ; such, for in- 
 stance, as those underground and other dwelling's which 
 permanently are almost entirely dark and unventilable : and 
 dwellings which are in such constructional partnership Avith 
 public privies, or other depositories of tilth, 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 dwell- 
 ing 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 wind- 
 ing 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 habi- 
 tation " while the standard of that humanity is low. Again, 
 by " over-crow^ded " 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 stair- 
 case 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 
 
 ' The words omitted are — ' cases where the dwelling-space at its best stinks 
 more or less with decomposing human excretions, ;ind where, at its worst, this 
 tilthy atmosphere may (and very often does) have working and spreading within 
 it the taint of some contagions fever.' 
 
 8th Report of Medical Officer of Privy Council, 1865, p. 13.
 
 8 Dwellings of Working People in London. 
 
 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 venti- 
 lation was very defective, there being no fittings to the win- 
 dows 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 over- 
 crowded and indecently occupied ; and three were over- 
 crowded. The ground-floor room at !N"o. 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 j^ears 
 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 origmally constructed with the most especial 
 
 ' 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, 
 ■0 oiild suffice to obtain better accommodation if it existed, and to pay a fair profic 
 to the landlord who had provided it.
 
 Dwellings of WorTcing People in London. 9 
 
 disregard to order in arrangement, uniformity, or convenience. 
 Every part of this most miserable abode is in a ruinous and 
 dilaf)idated condition ; the flooring of the rooms and stair- 
 cases 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 ver}-" defective, and the general aspect of the 
 place is one of extreme wretchedness. The number of per- 
 sons 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 iinfit for human habitation, and, by means of a magis- 
 trate'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 accepta- 
 tion of the word, a healthy dwelling.' 
 
 ISTow 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 ventila- 
 tion ; secondly, those old tumble-down houses which are not 
 worth spending inoney upon ; thirdly, those that are built of 
 wood or of lath and plaster ; and fourthly, such as are in- 
 capable 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 build- 
 ing 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 lion, friend the member for Maidstone (Sir Sydney
 
 10 Divellings of Worhing People in London. 
 
 Waterlow), the late Lord Mayor of London, who has iden- 
 tified 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. Li 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 Eoad 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 tlie 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 in- 
 creased 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 sur- 
 rounding 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 Avas 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 men- 
 tioned, 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 state- 
 ment to the House, coming as it does with all the authority 
 of the Peabody Trustees. The letter saj-s : — 
 
 ' Mr. Eobert Vigers, of o Frederick's Place, Old Jewrj-, e.g., to -nrhom I <im 
 grateful for much assistance and information.
 
 Dwellings of Woi'hing Feojyle in London. 11 
 
 ' There are many large sites in and around London, 
 suitable for dweHing-s for working- men, and snch 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 Eoad ; land in Westminster little used belonging- 
 to Trustees who cannot sell without compulsory poAvers ; 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 pur- 
 pose of building proper dwellings for the poor. 
 
 There are other spaces also which might be made avail- 
 able, 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 with- 
 out being made useful or productive for any purpose. I saw 
 one of these properties (belonging to die Foundling Hospital) 
 in Bloomsbury, near Eussell 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 
 
 ' Tho Artisans' and Labourers' Dwellings Act, 1868.
 
 12 Dwellings of Worhing People in London. 
 
 made available themselves, because tliere 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 si3ent on land 102,000^., and 198,000L 
 on buildings, making 300,000L in all — they have still left about 
 278,000?. 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-philanthrop- 
 ists, 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 com- 
 panies 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 con- 
 tact, and you set up an action of an interesting and im- 
 portant character. That electric force can only be applied 
 in this case by the action of Parliament.
 
 Dwellings of WorJcing Peojole in London. 13 
 
 I sliould 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 dis- 
 trict 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 man}^ 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 
 Avhich 4,000 people perished; and that again awakened 
 public attention to the necessity of some measure for im- 
 l^roving 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 apj)roved 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 suj)ply was altered. 
 
 ' The price of a bed per night in these common lodging-lioiises is Sd. or AcJ. 
 For such a payment much better quarters could bo given. A house much resorted 
 to, with 100 single beds, may obtain a rent of lOl. a week, or about 500/. a year. 
 The owners of these places often make quite a fortune from their tr.affic 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.
 
 14 Dwellings of Working People in London. 
 
 Cholera came again in 1853, and in 1855 tlie Metropolitan 
 Board of Works "was established by the Metropolis Manage- 
 ment 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 Build- 
 ing 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 conjunc- 
 tion with the Labouring Classes' Dwelling Houses Act of 
 1866, enables local authorities to build habitations for work- 
 ing 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 b}^ my 
 hon. friend the member for Finsbury (Mr. Toi-rens) in 1868, 
 and called the Artisans' and Labourers' Dwellings Act. The 
 Bill, as passed by the House of Commons, contained provi- 
 sions 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 demoli- 
 tion 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 Maryle- 
 bone, Clerkenwell, Islington, Holborn, St. Luke's, White- 
 chapel, Mile End Old Town, and other parishes. 
 
 It may be worth while to point out how the Act may be 
 considerably improved. Not on]}- should the powers of 
 rebuilding which the House of Lords unfortunately expunged 
 be restored in some form by new legislation, but the expe- 
 rience 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
 
 Dwellings of Working People in London. 15 
 
 surveyor of the local autliority. 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 propei'ty is unfit for human habita- 
 tion and ought to be demolished. The effect of adopting 
 the suggestion Avould 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 sup- 
 ported 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 resj)ects 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 wdll 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 ToAvn Clerk attended to give evidence 
 of what they had been able to do in Glasgow. They obtained
 
 16 DivelUngs of Working People in London. 
 
 in 1866 an Act called the City Improvement Act. Before 
 tlie 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 
 j)art 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 re- 
 duced 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 agen- 
 cies 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 Edin- 
 burgh were induced in 1867, by Dr. William Chambers, 
 to obtain an Act which enabled the Corporation to borrow 
 350,000 Z., restricted them to removing 500 people at a time, 
 and gave power to spend 10,000Z. in rebuilding. They exer- 
 cised this power by building a block of 36 houses, consisting 
 of flats, which were eagerly purchased by working men, at 
 prices varying from 170Z. 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 com- 
 pensation which was struck out of the hon. member for 
 Finsbury's Bill in the House of Lords, so that Liverpool
 
 Bwellincjs of WorJcing People in London. 17 
 
 possesses a power of wliicli tlie authorities of London are 
 deprived. 
 
 Let me state very briefly wliat liave 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 acknow- 
 ledge 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 profli- 
 gacy, and their occupants have been scattered among a popu- 
 lation 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, Secretarj'- 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 famil}^, 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 
 
 ' The cost of properties purchased by tlie Improvement Trustees was . £1,177,300 
 The cost of ground at Oatlands, and for the erection of workmen's 
 
 hoxises, was G3,000 
 
 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 220,000/. 
 The area of gi'ound embraced by the scheme is about 85 acres, with a 
 population in 1866 of over 52,000. 
 B
 
 18 Dwellings of WorJcinrj Feoiile in London. 
 
 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 necessi- 
 ties 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 
 reerular 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 famihes, these may benefit by living in the suburbs. 
 But a large class who must take their work to their employ- 
 ers 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 dwel- 
 lings 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 build- 
 ings 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 Ave have the same evil to deal with in 
 London as iu 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
 
 Dwellings of Wwhincj People in London. 19 
 
 Organisation Society point to ? Tliey both point to com- 
 pulsory powers being obtained by Local Authorities, for ac- 
 quiring 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 habita- 
 tion. 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 exer- 
 cise of these powers : the Metropolitan Board of Works, if 
 entrusted with such functions, can issue stock at the moder- 
 ate rate of 3^ per cent., and are thus enabled to obtain 
 money much more cheaply than the Glasgow authorities 
 could find their 1^ 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 jjresence 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 represent- 
 ative corporation governing the whole of the metropolis, 
 and replacing existing bodies. 
 
 But I don't think we ought to delay improving the dwell- 
 
 ' Houses tliat do not deserve to be condemned and closed would bo bought at 
 their market value. 
 
 13 2
 
 20 Dwellings of Worldng Peojyle in London. 
 
 iiigs of tlie 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 Cori^oration of 
 Glasgow. Let me say to any one who distrusts the Metro- 
 politan 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 oppor- 
 tunity 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 forma- 
 tion of a real Municipal Government for London. If we 
 give these powers to the MetropoUtan 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 Pea- 
 body 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 
 i3trip of miserable property held by several owners and over- 
 looking the Trustees' land, which they took steps to acquire. 
 This XDroperty contained a public-house. When the owners 
 found out who wanted their property, they asked prices so
 
 Dwellings of WorJcing Peoj)^ in London. 21 
 
 outrageous tliat tlie Trustees, after considerable delay, were 
 obliged to give up their proposal to purchase, and thus to a 
 great extent neutralise the good they j)roposed to do. When 
 it was found that the Trustees did not feel themselves jus- 
 tified 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 60/,, it was stated by the lessee in Court that it cost 
 1,600/. some years before. Yet before any proceedings were 
 taken the Trustees were asked to give 4,000/. for this lease. 
 The owner of this property was so anxious to j)ress 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 200/., and this, with 
 costs, inflicted a loss upon the Trustees of probably 400/. 
 Much worse than this was the lasting loss inflicted upon the 
 Trustees by the proximity of this low and miserable prox)erty. 
 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'pro]3osal to rebuild London out of the rates. I beg to say, 
 however, that I propose nothing of the kind. I do not pro- 
 pose 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 b}' 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 Me- 
 tropolitan 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 thai: is wanted is to enable private builders and philan- 
 thropic 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 Avould be expedient that these bodies 
 should themselves have the power of rebuilding in certain 
 exceptional cases and under proper limitations,'— the limi-
 
 22 Dwellings of Worhing People in London. 
 
 tations referred to being those of the Edinburg-h Act — 
 restricting the right to rebuild within a definite outlaj'". 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, indiffer- 
 ent, 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 im- 
 provements ; and I shall be glad if any lion, 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 necessar}-- to meet the case of improveable 
 buildino's — 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 Avhich 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 Imj)roving the Condition 
 of the Labouring Classes' — has done an excellent work, of 
 which I desire to speak with great i-espect.^ Another society, 
 the London Labom-ers' Dwellings Society, of which a con- 
 stituent 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 
 
 ' 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.
 
 Dwellings of WorJchig Peo],jle in London. 23 
 
 older date at Hastings (1857) lias done similar work tliere 
 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 im- 
 proved dwellings, after all that has been done, are in an un- 
 satisfactory 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 ex- 
 tended. 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 com- 
 mercial 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 Associa- 
 tion, which provides already for about 4,000 inhabitants, and 
 which, when its Farringdon Road buildings are complete, 
 wiU 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
 
 ^4 Dwellings of WorMng People in London. 
 
 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 pro- 
 vided 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 connec- 
 tion with her Columbia Square Buildings for working men 
 and their families. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Gibbs, in Eochester 
 Buildings, near this House, has erected model dwellings for 
 working men which are well worthy of imitation. The Cor- 
 poration 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 Loudon (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 ex- 
 perience of those who have attemj)ted 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 neces- 
 sary to levy per family per week in order to recoup them- 
 selves 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 Is. Id. per family per week ; in 
 another. Is. Qd. In one case this payment is as low as a 
 penny farthing; in another it is threepence three farthiugs. 
 
 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 accommoda- 
 tion which these Associations provide for him without be- 
 ginning by paying Is. or Is. Qd. a week for ground rent, to
 
 Dwellings of Wm-Jcmg Peoide in London. 25 
 
 which of com'se the rent of the rooms must be added. 
 When the House duly considers this state of things, it Avill, 
 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 associa- 
 tions 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 2o5 to 
 the acre. In the Farringdon Road Buildings the popula- 
 tion 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 imme- 
 diately a great demand for tenements. In the Farringdon 
 Eoad Buildings for instance, although it will be four or five 
 months before they will be com^aletely ready for habitation, 
 and although there wiU be accommodation for 253 families 
 only, yet for this accommodation already no less than 275 
 applications have been received. And with resj)ect to the Pea- 
 body 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 
 
 ' See Report of Lancet Sanitary Commission, &e. (App. II.) 
 - It must bo remembered that in the poor places where they are now living 
 OTcr-crowded, they hare 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 tho poorest classes, 
 they reap some benefit. When their miserable old homes are destroyed, they 
 move into tho 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.
 
 26 Dwellings of WorJcing People in London. 
 
 the remarkably small loss that arises from, the non-payment 
 of rent. One would imaghie 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 12,2571. 5s., and the rent 
 actually received was 12,082^ lis. And that diiference 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 lion, 
 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 wiD, 
 because my hon. friend, the member for Maidstone, and 
 others have set the example, and have shown that it is pro- 
 fitable 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 hoiiour 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 in- 
 curred, they are now paying 4^ per cent. They hope very 
 soon to be able to pay 5 -per cent. The Strand Buildings 
 Company x^ays 5 per cent, and the London Labourers' Dwel- 
 lings Society 5 per cent. I am told that one or two of the 
 blocks erected bj^ the Peabody Trustees pay 4 per cent. The 
 Improved Industrial Dwellings Company, the Company pre- 
 sided over by my hon. friend, the member for Maidstone, 
 pays 5 per cent., and has done so from the very commence- 
 ment. 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 HiU, 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. 
 
 ' 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. ..o-jia««.i4.
 
 Dwellings of Working People in London. 27 
 
 It would be unpardonable if I did not say a word or two 
 on tlie demolitions which have been effected under powers 
 obtained by railway bills and bills for other public improve- 
 ments, 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 lion, members, and because they know that rail- 
 way 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 simi- 
 lar 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 Eailway 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 com- 
 pulsory 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 dis- 
 placed, but in passing such bills we ought to see clauses 
 inserted, which would compel the companies to provide space 
 
 ' "When such a clauso is inserted, a time should always be fixed witliiu wliich 
 the Luilding plots should he ready for use. 
 
 ^ The return slioulJ be obligatory in cases where Parliament allows such 
 demolitions to bo effected under agreement, and not only where they are effected 
 under compulsory powers.
 
 28 Dwellings of WorMng People in London. 
 
 for accommodating an equivalent number of people to the 
 number removed. 
 
 But tlie evil does not arise solely from tlie 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 Govern- 
 ment, in times past, have been guilty of similar mischief. 
 I refer particularly to the clearance of the space for the new 
 Law Com-ts. 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 workmg 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 im- 
 provement 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 Avhich 
 stands in my name. 
 
 But before I do so I must not omit to draw the sx3ecial 
 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 over- 
 crowding, especially in unwholesome and ill-constructed 
 habitations, originates disease, leads to drunlcenness 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 inci- 
 dentally caused much distress to the persons displaced, and 
 has almost uniformly driven them to crowd into neighbour- 
 
 ' See App. III.
 
 Divellings of WorJcing Peojple in London. 29 
 
 ing quarters, wliicli 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 power- 
 ful 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 yonr 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 talce 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 lion, 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.'
 
 30 Dwellings of Working People in London. 
 
 SiE Stdis'et Wateelow, who secondecl the motion, 
 said : — I am g-hid to have an opportunity of saying a few- 
 words in support of the resolution proposed by the hon. 
 member for Hastings. The subject is one in which I 
 have taken the greatest interest for many years past. It 
 has never been treated as a party question, and I trust 
 never will be. On the contrary, from my own experience, 
 I have found that right hon. and hon. members of this 
 House, whether sitting on the right or the left of the 
 Chair, have rather vied with each other in theu' expres- 
 sion of sympathy with the object of the resolution, and 
 I trust that we may hope from this that it may be found 
 acceptable to those who are present here to-night. I do not 
 purpose to take up the time of the House by dwelling upon 
 the evils of over-crowding or drawing a picture of the 
 wretched habitations in the narrow courts and alleys of our 
 Metropolis, in which so many of our labouring population are 
 compelled to reside. I say compelled to reside, because it is 
 as important to the mechanic, the costermonger, and the 
 huckster to reside near to the place of his employment and 
 to the markets for his trade, as it is to the merchant, and 
 perhaps more so, since the poor man cannot afford the daily 
 cost of transit. The ] roof of this is found in the high prices 
 paid for rooms near the centres of labour. I once asked a 
 poor woman who projwsed to remove from the outsldrts into 
 London, how she could afford the extra Is. or \s. 6d. per 
 week for their two rooms ? She replied that she should save 
 much more than Is. 6d. per week when her husband could 
 come home to his breakfast and dinner instead of taking it 
 in a public house. There can be no doubt that it is abso- 
 lutely essential to the well-being of the community that the 
 labouring population of our great Metropolis should continue 
 to reside near to their work. The cheap workmen's trains 
 and the tramway cars are, no doubt, a great convenience, 
 but only available where the head of the family is the sole 
 breadwinner. If the earnings of the wife and the children form 
 part of the weekly wages, the family must reside near their 
 work. During the last quarter of a century efforts have 
 been made by several philanthropic societies, public com- 
 panies, and private individuals to lessen the evils of over- 
 crowding and to improve the dwellings of the laboiu-ing class. 
 Much good has, no doubt, been done by these means, and 
 the rents of working-men's houses would but for these efforts 
 have risen much higher even than they have done. But these 
 efforts do not reach the real evil. In very few cases have the
 
 Dwellings of Worldmj Fcoide in London. 31 
 
 building companies been able to purchase and remove tlie 
 houses unfit for human habitation. As a rule there are such 
 a variety of interests in this kind of property that it is im- 
 possible to clear any large site without compulsory po-wers, 
 which ought, I think, to be exercised only by a jjublic author- 
 ity. The philanthropic societies have, in fact, been working 
 with their hands tied, and wretched houses unfit for human 
 habitation remain as nests of fever and pestilence, foul blots on 
 the face of our fair Metropolis, doubling the rate of sickness 
 and death among the occupants and sj)reading contagion 
 throughout the immediate neighbourhood. I feel sure that 
 we shall all agree that this state of things ought to be 
 remedied, that this great and crying evil ought to be abated ; 
 the only question that I apj^rehend can be asked is, in what 
 way can Parliauient alleviate this evil without throwing too 
 great a burden on the ratepayers, or dealing unfairly with 
 the rights of private property ? In what way can Parlia- 
 ment assist in this work, which has hitherto been left so 
 entirely to private philanthropy ? What we ask is that this 
 House, recognising the local authority which the Metropolitan 
 Board of Works and the City of London exercise over the 
 districts under their control, should impose upon these two 
 public bodies the responsibility and the duty of submitting 
 to Parliament, from time to time, schemes for public improve- 
 ments involving the destruction of houses unfit for occupa- 
 tion, and the appropriation of the sites when cleared for the 
 reconstruction of tenement-houses suitable for the labouring 
 population, upon plans to be approved by the local authority, 
 in the manner provided by the Metropolitan Improvement 
 Act of 1872. Notices would be given, and the various 
 interests in the property Avould of course be dealt with 
 in the same way as if it were taken for a street improve- 
 ment. I am quite prepared to admit that these improve- 
 ments would throw some temporary bm-den on the rate- 
 payers, a small annual charge which would, I think, be 
 more than compensated by immediate and future advan- 
 tages. The principle uj)on which such improvements would 
 be carried out has been constantly recognised by Parliament. 
 The Metropolitan Board of Works have frequently applied 
 to the House, and have obtained compulsory powers to make 
 new streets in order to facilitate the .circulation of the pedes- 
 trian and vehicular traffic of the Metropolis, charging the 
 cost on the ratepayers. If this charge is cheerfully borne, 
 it can scarcely be doubted that an improvement calculated 
 to ensure the better circulation of fresh air in the most
 
 32 Dwellings of WorJcing People in London. 
 
 crowded parts of our City, and the consequent reduction of 
 the death and disease rate, could not be objected to. If we 
 consider the figures for a few moments, we shall readily see 
 that the annual charge would be very small. The present 
 rateable value of property in the Metropolis is nearly 
 21,000,000/. A rate of one penny in the pound will produce 
 nearly 90,000L, or sufficientto pay the interest on 2,000,000Z. 
 and redeem the principal in 40 years. If the money was 
 raised by issuing Metropolitan Consols at 3^ per cent. 
 2,000,000L would go a long way in paying simply the dif- 
 ference between the purchase money of the land and the 
 sum recovered on its resale, or the sale of the ground- 
 rents. I venture to say, from many years' experience of 
 the subject, that 2,000,000L, or a rate of one penny in 
 the pound for 40 years, applied in the mode suggested, 
 would remove to a very large extent the houses in the 
 Metropolis at the present time unfit for human habitation. 
 Having glanced at the probable cost, let us look at the 
 return to be derived from the outlay. The leading 'phj- 
 sicians of the metropolis, in the memorial recently pre- 
 sented to the Prime Minister, expressed an unanimous 
 opinion that the disease and death-rate among the labour- 
 ing population were very largely increased by the unhealthy 
 condition of their houses. This statement has been con- 
 stantly confirmed by the reports of the sanitary officers of 
 the large metropolitan parishes, and is fnlly proved by the 
 Eegistrar- General's returns. These returns show that in 1872 
 the rate of mortality throughout the Metropolis was 21-5 in the 
 thousand, while the mortality in the improved dwellings for 
 the working classes wa,s only 15'8 in the thousand. If we 
 take the average over a longer period, we find that, in the 
 eight years ending 1872, the death-rate in the Metropolis was 
 24 in the thousand, against 16 in the thousand in the im- 
 proved dwellings. The disease-rate has been calculated to 
 be about double the death-rate, that is to say, for every 
 person dying there are two persons afilicted with acute disease, 
 preventing them from following their ordinary work. Now 
 those who know anything of the causes of the increase of 
 late years in the local taxation are well aware that it arises 
 to some extent from the constantly increasing cost of the 
 construction and maintenance of the asylums for the care of 
 the sick poor under the control of the Metropolitan Asylums 
 Board and the Central London Asjdums Board. A reduction 
 of the disease rate to any thing like the extent shown by the 
 figures I have just given would soon recoup the proposed addi-
 
 Divellings of WorTting People in London. 33 
 
 tion of one penny in the pound. Should it, however, appear on 
 a closer examination of the subject that rather more than one 
 penny in the pound was required to carry out the proposed 
 improvements, I venture to think that no better time could 
 be selected than the present, when Local Taxation is proposed 
 to be so largely relieved by the Budget of the present Session. 
 Passing away from the mere pecuniary view of the question, 
 I could appeal to the House to support this motion upon 
 higher and more forcible grounds. The people of this country 
 are never tired of subscribing money for the religious educa- 
 tion of the poor. The whole country has recently been very 
 properly taxed to provide secular education for every child. 
 I venture to say, without fear of contradiction, that if the 
 labours of the ministers of religion are to produce the hoped- 
 for result, if the work of the schoolmasters and the school 
 boards is to bring forth good fruit, the homes in which the 
 workmg population in over-crowded cities are compelled to 
 live must be improved. We, I fear, as a nation are too prone 
 to consider our own civilisation as far in advance of tho civi- 
 lisation of other countries, and when we read of the indiffer- 
 ence with which the lives of human beings are sacrificed 
 among barbarous nations, of the ruthless manner in which 
 infants are placed in the baby towers of the East, we are too 
 apt to cry ' Thank God ! we are not as wicked as other 
 nations ' ; but if the statements of our leading physicians, if 
 the returns of the Eegistrar-General, are to be relied on, who 
 can doubt that thousands of j)ersons, and especially children 
 under two years of age, die annually from preventible causes ? 
 If this be true, I would ask the House to support the resolu- 
 tion, with the hope that some suitable solution may be found 
 for this great and important i)roblem. If in dealing with 
 this question I have spoken too warmly or too strongly, I 
 trust the House will excuse me, and will attribute it to my 
 great interest in the subject rather than to any want of 
 respect for the House itself.
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 APPENDIX I. 
 
 The memorial of the Council of the CHARITY OR- 
 GANISATION SOCIETY, and a Committee composed 
 of Members of both Houses of Parliament, of representa- 
 tives of ' The Metropolitan Association for Improving- the 
 Dwellings of the Industrious Classes ;' ' The Society for 
 Improving the Condition of the Labouring- Classes ;' 
 'The London Labourers' Dwellings Society, Limited;' 
 'The Trustees of Mr. Peabody's Gifts to the Poor of 
 London ;' ' The Improved Industrial DAvellings Company, 
 Limited,' and of others interested in the Improvement of 
 the Dwellings of the Poor of London. 
 
 To the Eight Honoiuable liklicnxl Asshdcn Cross, M.P., Secretary of 
 State for the Home Department. 
 
 SlIEWETir, 
 
 That the dwellings of the poorer classes in various parts of the 
 metropolis are in svich a condition, from age, defects of construction, 
 and mis-use, as to be deeply injurious to the j)hysical and moral 
 welfare of the inhabitants, and to the well-being of the community at 
 large. 
 
 That so long as unsuitable and unlicalthy houses are allowed to 
 stand near the great centres of employment, such houses, owing to their 
 position and comparative cheapness, will always attract occupants, and 
 all efforts to improve the condition of the London poor may thus be 
 permanently frustrated. 
 
 That the power entrusted to local authorities to condemn houses 
 as unfit for human habitation is insufficient to bring about the requisite 
 
 c 2
 
 36 Appendices. 
 
 improvement, inasmucli as the power of closing and removal can only 
 in practice be put in force against tenements of the most ruinous and 
 obviously unhealthy character, while the space occupied by such houses 
 ■without the addition of adjacent areas (it may be of a different descrip- 
 tion and unobtainable by negotiation) may be, and often is, too limited 
 in extent to be of any value as a site for dwellings constructed on 
 sound sanitary principles. 
 
 That the other powers entrusted to the local authorities, and mainly 
 exercised through the medical ofHcers of health, such as the powers of 
 enforcing cleanliness, repairs, ventilation, water supply, and the like, 
 though of very great value in preventing buildings from falling into a 
 bad state, are merely palliative in their application to houses the 
 original construction of which was defective, and cannot be expected 
 to bring about any such radical improvement in them as is required. 
 
 That private enterprise, whether in the form of building speculation 
 or of philanthropic or semi-philanthropic effort, is unable to deal effec- 
 tually with the evil, owing to the complicated and subdivided tenures 
 under which most of the proj^erty in question is held. 
 
 That the extensive demolition of small houses which has been 
 can-ied out of late years, luider various railway and improvement Acts, 
 has, no doubt, been in some respects beneficial, by removing numerous 
 damp, ill-ventilated, and dilapidated courts, but that, as the promoters 
 had other objects than the welfare of the poor in view, these schemes 
 have generally been so framed and carried out as to cause much suf- 
 fering to the persons displaced, and in some cases greatly to increase 
 the overcrowding and imhealthiness of neighbouring districts. 
 
 That, in the opinion of your Memorialists, the evil can only be 
 adequately dealt with by making it the duty of some public body 
 possessing a wider sphere of action, and in a more independent position, 
 than the local boards and vestries, and invested, when necessary, with 
 powers of compulsory purchase, to initiate comprehensive improvements 
 in the interest of the poorer classes, as has been done Avith good effect 
 in Glasgow and Edinburgh, and other cities, and, in a somewhat different 
 form, in Liverpool. 
 
 That the Corporation of the City and the j\Ietropolitan Board of 
 "Works are at present, as it appears to your IMemorialists, the only 
 bodies on whom such a duty can be imposed, and that your Memo- 
 rialists believe that if the duty of initiating and regulating improvements 
 were imposed on those bodies, voluntary enterprise would be found 
 ready to undertake the work of reconstruction ; though to provide 
 against contingencies it would be expedient that these bodies should 
 themselves have the power of rebuilding in certain exceptional cases 
 and imder proper limitations. 
 
 That such a meas.u'e need not impose any heavy burden on the 
 rates, as the ultimate expenditure from that source would only be the 
 difference between the price paid for the property to be taken, and the 
 price received for it Avhen sold, so that a very moderate rate spread 
 over London would make it possible to bring about very material im- 
 provements.
 
 Ajp^endix I. . 37 
 
 Youi- Memorialists, therefore, venture to express their hope that 
 after due consideration you will honour them with an expression of the 
 views which you entertain on a question which deeply affects the 
 moral and material interests of their fellow citizens, and that you may 
 feel able to hold out some prospect of Her Majesty's Government intro- 
 ducing a Bill into Parliament embodying provisions calculated to remedy 
 the evils which they have submitted to your notice. 
 
 (Signed) Lichfield, 
 
 Chairman of Council. 
 Napier & Ettkick, 
 Chairman of Special Committee 
 on Dwellings. 
 
 1(5 Buckingham Street, AoELrm, W-C. 
 April 1874.
 
 38 Appendices. 
 
 APPENDIX II. 
 
 ' Slums/ tliovfjh over-crowded, a Waste of Sjmce. 
 
 The so-called 'slums' of London, thongli generally over-crowded, 
 occupy vast spaces, on Avhicli the same or a larger population might be 
 living without crowding or discomfort. The waste of space arises 
 partly from Avant of arrangement, and partly from the too small height 
 of most of the buildings — often only two stories, sometimes but one 
 story, high. To illustrate this, I reprint, from Dr. Whitmore's Eeport 
 to the Vestry of St. Marylebone on the health of the parish during 
 March, extracts from a ' description of a number of old dilapidated 
 tenements known as Beaumont's Buildings, situated on the south side 
 of Linton Place, Edgware Eoad. These consist of twenty cottages, 
 placed in four parallel rows ; the two inner rows, being attached at their 
 backs, have no thorough ventilation. . . . None of these cottages have 
 rooms above the ground-floor ; in eighteen of them there are two rooms, 
 and in two only one room ; the front-room of each two-roomed cottage 
 has an average cubic space of about 850 feet, and the back room about 
 750 feet ; from the floor to the ceiling the height is only 7 feet ; but 
 inasmuch as the flooring is some 6 inches below the level of the fore- 
 court, the height of the caves of the roof from the ground is but little 
 more than 6 feet. These cottages are all, without exception, damp, 
 some of them exceedingly so. Many of them are very dirty, and 
 throughout in a state of great dilapidation ; the system of patching and 
 repairing their roofs, walls, ceilings, floors, &c., having now been going 
 on for tipwards of half a century, it will be obvious that work of this 
 kind can by no possibility be made any longer available to the health 
 or comfort of their occupants. . . . The number of families at present 
 occupying these cottages is 17, comprising 85 persons, of whom 30 are 
 adults and 55 children ; they are all of the poorest class, and some of 
 them in very indigent circumstances. The sanitary state of these 
 cottages, owing to their dampness, is far worse in winter than in 
 summer. Then rheumatism and bronchitis are very prevalent amongst 
 the aged occupants.' 
 
 In the Lancet of May 16, 1874, the Lancet Sanitary Commission 
 on the Dwellings of the Poor give an account of the district of Soho, 
 selecting it as the subject of their first inquiry because it is 'the most 
 crowded division of the metropolis.' This description applies particu- 
 larly to the Berwick Street Sub-district. The report paints a teiTible 
 but doubtless faithful picture of houses in Marlborough Eow, Bcntinck 
 Street, &c., and of the miserable mode of life of the men, Avomen, and 
 children who inhabit these portions of a city that nevertheless Ave call 
 the capital of the most civilised empire of the Avorld.
 
 Appendix II. 
 
 39 
 
 I will only quote tlie table the Commissioners have compiled from 
 the Census returns of 1871 — reminding the reader that upon the same 
 space on which these people are now livinp; — wretched and over- 
 crowded — two to four hundred on every acre — three or four times as 
 many might be excellently housed in health and comfort, with half the 
 total area left open for air-spaces, playgrounds, and streets. 
 
 Kama of Locality 
 
 Population 
 in 1871 
 
 Number of 
 
 Inhabited 
 
 Houses 
 
 Area in 
 Acres 
 
 Number of 
 
 Inhabitants 
 
 per Acre 
 
 (rouglily) 
 
 Nimiber of 
 
 Inhabitants in 
 
 each House 
 
 (roughly) 
 
 THE ENTIEE\ 
 METROPOLIS/ 
 
 3,25t,2G0 
 
 417,707 
 
 75,362 
 
 43 
 
 8 
 
 WESTMINSTER \ 
 DISTRICT J • 
 
 51,181 
 
 4.554 
 
 210 
 
 237 
 
 11 
 
 (1) >S'i'. Jcmics' Sq.^ 
 Sub-district J 
 
 10,472 
 
 1,384 
 
 84 
 
 125 
 
 8 
 
 (2) Gulden Sq. \ 
 
 Sub-district j ' 
 
 12,800 
 
 1,111 
 
 54 
 
 238 
 
 11 
 
 (3) St. Anne's, SoJio'\ 
 Sub-district J 
 
 17,502 
 
 1,337 
 
 54 
 
 325 
 
 13 
 
 (4) BcncicJc Street \ 
 
 Sub-district j ' 
 
 10,287 
 
 722 
 
 24 
 
 428 
 
 14 
 
 St. Giles', Souths 
 Sub -district / 
 
 19,109 
 
 1,214 
 
 04 
 
 298 
 
 15 
 
 Spitalfields \ 
 Sub-district J ' 
 
 15,848 
 
 1,431 
 
 52 
 
 304 
 
 11
 
 40 Appendices. 
 
 APPENDIX III. 
 
 Railway Demolitions. 
 
 Mr. Simon, in his Eighth Eeport as Medical Officer of the Privy Council, 
 1865, p. 17, speaking of the uncompensated dislodgment and incon- 
 venience which the labouring classes suiFer through the destruction of 
 their homes in parts of towns required for railways and other public 
 purposes, suggests, that Avhen compulsory powers of purchase are being 
 sought for such pu.rposes, the local authority should have a locus standi 
 for opposing the grant of such powers, except on condition that where 
 many habitations Avere destroyed, at least as many should be substituted 
 for them. He quotes the following opinion of a high authority, with 
 special legal experience, ]\Ir. John Bullar : — ' It has been objected that 
 it is foreign from the objects of (for instance) a railway company to 
 make them house-speculators, and force them to lock iip part of their 
 capital in dwellings ibr the labouring classes ; but this objection is 
 altogether futile. Where it suits the interests of the shareholders, a 
 railway company may add to their railway a canal, a dock, a harbour, 
 a toll-bridge, a toll- road, or an hotel ; and railway companies not only 
 may, but in countless cases must, expend capital in making, and income 
 in maintaining, for the landowners whose lands they touch, roads, 
 sewers, drains, level-crossings, bridges, cattle-creeps, watering-places, 
 fences, and sometimes capital in providing farm buildings. The Lands 
 and Railways Clauses Acts provide that ample compensation in money 
 or works, or both, shall be made to landowners Avhose interests are 
 interfered with, b\it do not make adequate provision for protecting the 
 poor, whose means of living may be seriously lessened by the exercise 
 of the powers of those Acts, There is nothing inconsistent with the 
 course of legislation for public works, that their imdertakers should 
 build as many houses as they pull down, just as they make a new piece 
 of road where they block up the old road ; and there is no reason why 
 they should not sell their houses as soon as they think fit. The Lands 
 Clauses Act requires them to sell within ten years after the completion 
 of their works. If they lose by the sale the amount of the loss is the 
 amount of the compensation, improductive to themselves, which they 
 make to the poor whom they dispossess ; but with ordinary prudence 
 they often may so arrange their building and selling operations as, if 
 not to give them a profit, at least to make their loss an insignificant 
 part of their total outlay.' 
 
 SpoltisKOOde & Co., Printers, New-street Square, London.
 
 
 -:^^ 
 
 
 •7»^->. 
 
 t