would be difficult to calculate. It is time that legislation should
be tried to secure wholesome workplaces for the people. Interference
is needed for thousands of persons--especially young females--the
debilitated mothers _in posse_, should they live, of our future
population. In our infant schools, too, where incalculable mischief is
done by overcrowding, it is greatly required. The evil is sapping the
strength of the land."
"In several parts of London persons employed in making cheap clothing
are boxed up in crowds, ... some striving to get a living in a
death-giving atmosphere.
"Shoemakers are often as ill-placed. In wretched apartments, in an
ill-drained house, may be found men and boys huddled together without
room to breathe."
It was under such pitiable conditions that large masses of the working
classes of London had to earn their daily bread.
Lord Shaftesbury truly said that "the sanitary condition of these
people was of national importance, not only on account of the waste of
life, but the waste of health which every year threw thousands and tens
of thousands upon the rates."[89]
And large numbers of children were also employed under insanitary
conditions, and were made to do heavy work for long hours, and
the consequences to their health were disastrous.[90] That their
constitutions should be undermined and their physical development
should be most seriously deteriorated was a necessary result.
There was a chorus from the Medical Officers of Health as to the evil
sanitary consequences of overcrowding.
"Overcrowded dwellings are among the most prolific sources of disease,
immorality, and pauperism."[91]
"Overcrowding--one of the elements by which disease is not only
generated but sustained."[92]
"Overcrowding is a constant source of fever."
"The great difficulty of obtaining lodgment for the working classes
has caused overcrowding of the poor in an unprecedented manner, and
consequently the development of typhus which is considered to be bred
in the pestilential atmosphere of overcrowded dwellings."[93]
Overcrowding led to numerous, indeed to all sorts and kinds of diseases.
The Medical Officer of Health for St. Pancras wrote:--
"It has been shown that consumption and the so-called tubercular
diseases are developed by want of pure air more than by any other
cause."
And not alone did the overcrowding lead to disease, but it rendered it
difficult if not impossible to check disease.
"How is it possible," wrote one of them, "to prevent the spread and
fatality of fever and whooping-cough when six or seven persons are shut
up in one small room breathing the same air loaded with zymotic poison
over and over again?
"The danger of allowing a deadly atmosphere to be engendered by the
crowding together of persons in a small room without sufficient
ventilation is unfortunately not confined to the inmates of that
particular room, but those diseases which are therein generated extend
far beyond its immediate vicinity, and under some circumstances a large
portion of a district will suffer in consequence."[94]
Dr. Rendle, previously Medical Officer of Health for St.
George-the-Martyr, in his evidence[95] before a Select Committee in
1866, said:--
"... The overcrowding exists to such an extent that the poor cannot
by any possibility do other than breed disease, and when they breed it
they give it to others."
Lord Shaftesbury said:--
"As to the effects of all this overcrowding, can anything be more
prejudicial to the human system than the filthy squalor, the foetid
air, and depressing influences of these dwellings?
"When you ask why so many of the working men betake themselves to the
ale-house or gin-palace, the answer lies in the detestable state of
their homes.
"I have had it from hundreds of both women and men that this cause,
and this cause alone, has driven them to the use of ardent spirits....
Nine-tenths of our poverty, misery, and crime, are produced by habits
of intoxication, and I trace those habits, not altogether, but mainly,
to the pestilential and ruinous domiciliary condition of the great
mass of the population of this metropolis and the large towns of the
country."[96]
"No bodily labour induces an exhaustion of the vital powers comparable
to that resulting from the habitual breathing of air contaminated by
the overcrowding of human beings."[97]
For children born under such circumstances of overcrowding and filth,
and in such insanitary surroundings, birth was mostly followed by an
early death.
"Infancy in London has to creep into life in the midst of foes," as the
_Times_ truly remarked in 1861.
Among the greatest of these foes was overcrowding. The statistics of
infantile mortality are fairly reliable, and, so far as there are
errors, those errors were in understating and not overstating it.
In St. Giles', in 1861, 43-1/2 per cent. of the total number of deaths
were of children under five years of age.
"This enormous infantile mortality," wrote the Medical Officer of
Health, "is unfortunately only what is customary in our district."
In the Strand, 1861, the percentage of deaths under five annually
exceeded 45 per cent. of the total deaths. In Westminster, in 1861,
there were 1,685 deaths, 770 being those of children under five--of
which in St. John's parish, out of 834 deaths, 427 were under five--or
over 50 per cent.
In Bethnal Green in 1862 it was close upon 60 per cent.
In the Potteries, Notting Dale, with a population of 1,100, the deaths
of children in 1870 under five were 63 per cent. of all deaths. In
1871, 72 per cent.
On the south side of the river the same tale was told. In Wandsworth 42
per cent. in 1861; in Battersea 45 per cent. in 1862; in Rotherhithe,
in 1862, nearly 50 per cent.; in Bermondsey, in 1863, 57 per cent.
"It certainly," wrote the Medical Officer of Health for Fulham, "could
not have been intended by Providence that of all the children born,
nearly one-half should die without attaining one-fourteenth part of the
threescore years and ten allotted to mankind--and yet we see the yearly
realisation of this astounding fact."
Other causes besides overcrowding contributed to this great mortality.
"Poverty," wrote the Medical Officer of Health of Poplar, "with
its concomitants--defective nourishment, want of cleanliness and
ventilation, malaria, overcrowded dwellings, deficient supply or impure
quality of water--these all act with unerring force upon the tender
constitutions of the young."
And another wrote:--
"What with overcrowding, insufficient food, and inattention to
cleanliness, it is almost impossible an infant can resist an attack of
the commonest disorder."
And some places were in such evil sanitary condition that child life
was impossible therein. Of two Courts in Islington the Medical Officer
of Health reported in 1863:--
"Young children cannot live there. All that are born there, or are
brought to reside there, are doomed to die within two years."
The state of the public health generally as the result of all these
sanitary abominations was very unsatisfactory.
In 1863 the mortality of London was unusually high.
The Medical Officer of Health for St. Giles' wrote:--
"The year has been conspicuous for a high mortality resulting from the
prevalence of epidemics to an unusual degree--smallpox, scarlatina,
typhus."
The following year he reported to have been--
"A year of exceptional mortality.... Death rate 29·74 per thousand,
or, if the deaths of parishioners in hospitals be included, 31·10....
Tubercular diseases, of which consumption affecting the lungs is the
most important, were as usual intensely fatal in our district."
The Medical Officer of Health for Whitechapel drew attention to the
increase of mortality in his district. He was evidently puzzled and
perplexed by it, and "candidly confessed" his inability to account for
it.
"I may, however, venture a few conjectures." Among them was this very
suggestive one--"that a change has taken place in the constitution
of the people so that they are now less able to bear the effects of
disease than formerly."
Suggestions and recommendations for ameliorating this appalling
condition of things poured in upon many of the local authorities from
their Medical Officers of Health.
Upon several points there was an absolute consensus of opinion.
One of these was that all houses let out in separate tenements
and inhabited by many families should be registered by the local
authorities--that rules and regulations should be made for their
management, and that constant inspection by the sanitary authority was
an absolute necessity if the proper conditions of health were to be
maintained.
The Medical Officer of Health for Bethnal Green wrote:--
"All sanitary evils fall with greatest force upon those who are unable
to quit the scene of their misery or to provide the means for its
alleviation.
"Nothing but adaptation of the present houses to the necessities of
healthy existence and the demolition of those houses that are unfit
for human habitation can contribute so much to life and strength."
A Committee of the District Board in Poplar wrote (1866):--
"It would be a satisfactory alteration of the law if no houses were
allowed to be tenanted unless a certificate that these premises were
fit for habitation were first obtained from the District Board of
Works."
And the necessity of constant inspection was even more vigorously
expressed.
The Medical Officer of Health for Hackney wrote (1861):--
"The experience of the past year again shows the necessity of keeping
up a regular and efficient supervision of the interior of houses....
"It is only by repeated and careful inspection of the dwellings of the
poor, and an inculcation at these visits of the necessity for keeping
clean their rooms that epidemic diseases can be kept in check."
The Medical Officer of Health for St. James' wrote (1862):--
"The nuisances which are removed, are constantly recurring. It is only
by constant inspection and by supervision repeated systematically from
day to day, and week to week, that those nuisances can be kept down
which are ever ready to destroy the life, and at one and the same time
sap the health and undermine the morality of the community."
The Medical Officer of Health for Whitechapel wrote:--
"If it were not for the vigilance of the Inspectors in visiting the
houses of the poor, nuisances would remain altogether unattended to;
for very few of the poor dare to make a complaint from fear of being
compelled to quit their tenements."
The Medical Officers of Health recognised that much of the bad
condition of the dwellings of the poorer classes was due to the people
themselves.
Thus the Medical Officer of Health for Westminster wrote (1865-6):--
"It is much to be regretted that in certain districts of the parish
only a temporary good is effected by a sometimes lavish expenditure on
the part of the proprietor. The habits of the people are such that it
is almost impossible to do anything for their benefit. Not only are
they filthy in themselves, but they take every opportunity to break,
destroy, and steal anything that may be of value, and what is even
worse they appear to negative any sanitary precaution effected for
their benefit."
But the broad truth was that the real, the primary responsibility
rested upon the "owners."
Theirs was the property. And them it behoved to keep that property in a
condition which was not a danger to the community and to the State.
The Medical Officer of Health for Whitechapel wrote (1865):--
"The duty and interests of landlords appear to be at variance as
regards their doing to their houses what is absolutely necessary for
the well-being of their tenants. It is unquestionably the duty of
landlords to keep the houses which they let out in separate tenements
to the poor in a healthy condition; but this is not always done even if
compulsory orders are signed and summonses issued....
"Many of the landlords of small house property fully understand and
carry out the rights of ownership, but fail to carry out the duties
which are enjoined upon them as owners."
The Medical Officer of Health for Islington, referring to some vile
property in his parish, wrote (1863):--
"Landlords of such property as this will rarely do anything out of
consideration for the health or lives of their tenants; compulsion
alone will extort amendments. What is needed here is the closure of the
fatal houses until made fit for human habitation."
How an "owner" could manage his property can be gathered from the
following report of the Medical Officer of Health for Paddington
(1863), which called attention to "the insanitary condition of a
block of houses (about thirty in number) which had been for many
years notoriously liable to the invasion of epidemics and to the
prevalence of those diseases which are the known product of sanitary
neglect--badly constructed and dilapidated, and wanting in the
commonest appliances of cleanliness. All were the property of one
individual who had been repeatedly urged to put them in a proper
sanitary state."
But it was not until stringent compulsory measures were taken that he
began to do so, and some years elapsed before they were really done.
Here is another dreadful case of overcrowding and insanitation--this
time in St. Marylebone (1868).
Edwards Place:--
"Ten six-roomed houses occupied by 84 families, 277 persons, houses
very dilapidated, many unfit for human habitation. Orders for sanitary
work are continually being sent out by the Vestry to the owner of this
wretched property.
"A rental of £10 per annum would be an extravagant sum to pay for
either of these miserable dwellings, yet more than three times that sum
is expected from the destitute and indigent people who inhabit them."
Read by the light of the knowledge that insanitary property meant
disease, and disablement, and death to a very high percentage of its
occupiers, the proper compulsion to have applied to "owners" such as
these would have been proceedings before a Coroner's jury for culpable
homicide if not for actually deliberate murder.
The community has a right to be protected from the evil results of the
miserable housing of the poor.
Mr. George Godwin said in 1862, at the meeting of the National
Association for Promoting Social Science:--
"It should be no answer to the requirement of a certain cubical space
for each occupier, that the financial resources of the parties will not
admit of it.
"A man is not permitted to poison with prussic acid those who are
dependent on him because he is poor; neither should he be allowed on
that ground to kill them with bad air and set up a fever-still for the
benefit of his neighbours."
Parliament, under the pressure of a slowly-developing public opinion,
and in view of the ever accumulating evidence and proof of the almost
incredible insanitary condition in which great masses of the people of
London were living, was beginning to show less reluctance to discuss
and deal with some of the multifarious matters affecting the public
health.
In 1860 it passed an Act which, however well intentioned, was not of
much effect. It was an effort to secure more wholesome articles of food
and drink for the public by preventing their adulteration.
The past history of such legislation was rather interesting.[98] In
1731 an Act has been passed prescribing a penalty for "sophisticating
tea."
"Several ill-disposed people frequently dyeing, fabricating, very large
quantities of sloe-leaves, &c., in imitation of tea, and colouring or
staining and dyeing such leaves, and vending the same as real tea to
the prejudice of the health of His Majesty's subjects."
"In year 1766-7 a further Act was passed inasmuch as 'such evil
practices were increased to a very great degree to the injury and
destruction of great quantities of timber, wood, and underwoods.'
"Coffee had also been the subject of legislation, 'burnt scorched, or
roasted peas, beans, &c.,' being used to adulterate it.
"In 1816 an Act was passed against the adulteration of beer and porter,
and the use of molasses, liquorice, vitriol, quassia, guinea pepper, or
opium, and a lot of other ingredients being prohibited."
"In 1836 an Act was passed against the adulteration of bread."
And now in 1860 it was enacted that "every person who shall sell as
pure or unadulterated any article of food or drink which is adulterated
or not pure," should on conviction be fined.
The Vestries in the metropolis were empowered to appoint analysts. The
appointment was voluntary on the part of the local authorities, and,
if analysts were appointed, their duties were confined to receiving
and analysing articles submitted to them by the purchasers, and
certifying the results. The purchasers had to pay the cost. No officer
was appointed to obtain samples or to enforce the Act. And the Act is
therefore worthy of note more as an illustration of the inaction of the
local authorities than for any effect it had as regarded the prevention
of adulteration.
In 1863 Parliament passed the "Bakehouse Regulation Act,"[99] which
enacted that every bakehouse should be kept in a cleanly state, should
be frequently lime-washed, and should be properly provided with proper
means for effectual ventilation, and be free from effluvia arising from
any drain, privy, or other nuisance.
Also its use as a sleeping-place was prohibited, and the onus of
enforcing the provisions of the Act was imposed upon the local sanitary
authority.
And in 1863 it declared[100] that the law made in 1855 as to the
inspection and seizure of unwholesome food--meat, poultry, flesh, fish,
vegetables, fruit, &c., &c.--was defective, and that other and more
effectual provisions should be substituted therefor; and others were
accordingly substituted.
By an Act in 1864 the main principles contained in previous Factory
Acts were carried a stage further, in some instances even to trades
carried on in private houses.
"Every factory to which this Act applies shall be kept in a cleanly
state and be ventilated in such a manner, &c., as to render harmless
dust, &c."
Unfortunately the main breakdown in the metropolis in regard to nearly
all the ameliorative sanitary legislation of Parliament was directly
caused by the very local authorities who had been specially created
for the purpose of administering those laws. Primarily they were
responsible for the failure of very much of that legislation, and they
never seem to have at all realised, or been impressed by, the gravity
of their trust, or by the great responsibility to their fellow-citizens
which their position entailed.
Even in comparatively small matters their ingenuity in counteracting
the intentions of the Legislature was remarkable, as can be seen from
the following passage in a report of one of the Medical Officers of
Health:--
"I refer specially to the Sanitary Acts, to the Adulteration of Food
Act, and to the Metropolitan Gas Act, in each of which cases the powers
entrusted to them have not been carried out.
"They appointed an examiner under the Adulteration of Foods Act
(1860), and also under the Metropolitan Gas Act (1860), but the person
appointed had no tools given him with which to perform the work
entrusted to him.
"Both the Acts are dead letters in the parish. As to the Metropolitan
Gas Act, it conferred a large benefit, both as to purity and cost, on
the metropolis, but the Vestries failed to carry out a single effective
or important provision of that Act."
In 1860, also, an Act had been passed empowering the local authorities
in the metropolis to provide vehicles for carrying persons suffering
from infectious diseases to hospital, and so obviating the danger to
the public of such persons being conveyed in cabs or other public
vehicles. That Act was also inoperative.
The Vestries and District Boards, however, did perform a considerable
amount of useful work. Local sewerage and drainage works were on the
whole effectively dealt with. The rest of the work done was mostly of
the routine order, such as scavenging and paving and lighting, though
even that was not always done in the most sensible way, as exemplified
in Paddington (1866).
"The street sweepings of mud collected by the scavengers are stored in
enormous quantities in the middle of the parish in a closely inhabited
neighbourhood. Here it is allowed to decompose, &c. If it were intended
to contrive an arrangement for developing malaria in the midst of a
town population nothing could be better adapted for the purpose."
A few of them had soared to the height of widening a street, or
acquiring some small open space; in most, if not all, of these cases
receiving financial help from the central authority.
But as to the main causes of the prevailing insanitary evils, their
aversion to active measures was constantly in evidence; equally so
where the enforcement of the law would have entailed cost on the owners
of insanitary houses.
In some matters the plea of defects in the legislation might have been
justifiably urged by them; in others they were often much hampered by
the dilatory procedure attending proceedings for enforcing the sanitary
provisions of the Metropolitan London Management Act.
One of the Medical Officers of Health gives an illustration:--
"A very great nuisance was reported to us. We visited it, but had to
wait a fortnight before the Vestry met in order to get leave to apply
for a summons. The magistrate requires a week before hearing the case,
and then he gives a week or two to do the work. So for a month or five
weeks the nuisance may remain."
The result was that infectious disease was given a long opportunity to
spread itself unchecked through a whole district; an opportunity which
it freely availed itself of.
Complaints were also made by some of the Medical Officers of Health
that in attempts to enforce the law against "overcrowding" the
magistrate leant very much to the landlord. This, too, might have acted
as a discouragement to them. What, however, is certain is, that the
Vestries and District Boards were not attempting to grapple with the
most crucial questions of all--the overcrowding, and the housing.
The Medical Officer of Health for Clerkenwell pointed this out, so far
as his parish was concerned (1861):--
"The principal sanitary improvements during the last five years related
almost exclusively to the drainage, whilst the overcrowding and impure
state of the dwellings of the poor have been but little interfered
with."
The more serious blemish was pointed out by Dr. Hunter in his report
of 1865 to the Medical Officer of the Privy Council on the subject
of overcrowding, and the removal of persons from houses about to be
destroyed:--
"There is no authority which can deal with London in these matters
as a whole, and they are matters in which uniform treatment is quite
necessary. The local authority which finds the whole of its district
overcrowded, naturally hesitates before beginning action which may
relieve one house only to overfill the next, and may reasonably
think that such action, unless done thoroughly, not only through the
district, but through the whole capital, might prove hurtful."[101]
And his opinion is weighty. But the local authorities were very far
from doing what they might have done to abate many of the insanitary
evils connected therewith.
Dr. William Rendell said[102]:--
"We have had till now but one Inspector of Nuisances--an unwilling
man....
"This is not a question of a defect in the law. These bodies have the
power of appointing Inspectors, but when Inspectors are appointed it
brings of course a large amount of work in low property, and expense
and trouble are incurred. Therefore the easiest way to avoid it is not
to have Inspectors enough, so that the work may not be found out."
In fact, the fuller the information on the subject is, the more clear
it is that most of them did not want to move in the matter.
The evidence of witnesses, not under Vestry control, examined before
the Select Committee on Metropolitan Local Government in 1866, throws
some light on this point.
Mr. James Beale, himself a vestryman, said:--
"I have seen a great want both of intelligence and ability among
vestrymen.
"I should say you may divide Vestries into divisions--one-third, as
a rule, are of the right class of men who ought to be returned, and
two-thirds are not of the class who ought to represent the intelligence
or the property of the districts from which they are sent.
"The powers of Vestries are administered with too great a regard to
economy. Efficiency is always sacrificed to economy. If an Act of
Parliament requires them to do certain things, it is as a rule avoided."
He attributed the failure of the Vestries to the inferior calibre of
the persons composing them--"they agree to resolutions, but do not
carry them out. The ratepayers take no interest in the elections in our
parish. There is a large number of the owners of small house property
in the Vestries who regard with great disfavour any increase of the
rates, however beneficial the increase might be to the general health
of the district."
But some witnesses went further. Dr. William Rendell, who had been
Medical Officer of Health for St. George-the-Martyr, said:--
"I believe, the law being new to the Vestry, they did not quite
understand the mode of carrying it out; but it was partly from corrupt
motives, for on one occasion one of the principal members of the
Vestry, an owner of considerable property in the parish, called me
aside and requested me to pass over certain property of his that I
found in an extremely bad condition. I did not pass it over, of course.
The chairman of the local committee was, as I thought, appointed as a
positive obstructer of sanitary measures; at all events he acted as
such. The obstructions arose from an unwillingness to incur expense for
fear of increasing the rates, and from an interest that the members of
the Vestry had in keeping up the present state of things."
Jobbery, and the exercise of influence to obstruct and defeat the law,
are hard to prove, especially after the lapse of years, but one fact
which stands out conspicuous, and which is incontestable, shows how
reprehensibly the great majority of the Vestries and District Boards
failed to administer laws which in the interests of the public health,
and therefore of the public welfare, it was their duty to administer.
Deliberately, and in the light of knowledge, they would not make
adequate arrangements even for the sanitary inspection of their
respective districts.
Thus, in Bethnal Green, in 1861, there was a population of 105,000
persons, and 14,731 houses. The Vestry appointed one single Inspector
of Nuisances to cope with the insanitary conditions of this city of
houses, and of this mass of people. Shoreditch, with a population of
129,364 persons, and 17,072 houses, also one Inspector. St. George's,
Hanover Square, with 88,100 persons and 10,437 houses, one Inspector;
Paddington, Bermondsey, and several others, all with large populations
and thousands of houses, one Inspector each.[103]
A few had appointed two Inspectors: St. Marylebone with 161,680 persons
and 16,357 houses, and Islington with 155,341 persons and 20,704 houses.
Kensington, Lambeth, and Limehouse, had appointed three Inspectors
each. St. Pancras headed the list with four, but its population was
close upon 200,000 living in close upon 22,000 houses.
How could it be expected that one Inspector could within a year
possibly inspect even one tithe of the places which it was his duty to
inspect apart altogether from other duties he ought to perform? The
Vestries and District Boards had the facts constantly before their
eyes (in the returns of work made to them by the Medical Officer of
Health)--the numerous insanitary houses unfit for human habitation,
the overcrowding, the terrible amount of sickness and misery, and
they could calculate from the one man's work, the number of houses in
the parish which were in a condition dangerous to the health of their
inmates, and to the public health generally. The salary of an Inspector
was so paltry that they had no excuse on the ground of economy; and
the conclusion is inevitable that either they did not care what the
sanitary condition of the people was, or that "vested interests in
filth and dirt" were so powerful on those bodies that filth and dirt
must not be interfered with at the expense of "owners" upon whom the
cost of improvement must fall.
And a grimmer light is thrown upon these figures by the following
statement of the Medical Officer of Health for Lambeth made in 1889,
but referring to 1869.
"The Sanitary Inspector of twenty years ago (that is to say of 1869)
was an unskilled workman, holding that which might almost be regarded
as a sinecure office; an official recruited into the services of the
Vestry from the rank of ex-sailors, ex-policemen, or army pensioners.
A knowledge upon sanitary matters acquired from a course of technical
training was not expected from him."
The treatment meted out to some of the Medical Officers of Health
also showed the hostility of the Vestries to action. Numerous are the
passages in their reports complaining of their recommendations being
ignored. These officers were miserably paid, allowing even for their
being able to take private practice. The Medical Officer of Health for
Lambeth was stated to have been the worst paid--receiving only £200 a
year for the performance of duties attaching to an area of 4,000 acres
with 23,000 inhabited houses upon it, inhabited by 162,000 persons.
Dr. W. Farr (of the Registrar General's Office) said:--
"I believe that in certain districts in London the Medical Officer of
Health is under all sorts of restraints. If he is active, they look
upon him with disfavour, and he is in great danger of dismissal."[104]
The Vestry of St. James', Westminster (1866), checked the zeal of
their Medical Officer, Dr. Lankester, whose salary was £200 a year, by
reducing it to £150 after a year or two when they found he was very
earnest in his work.
Dr. Rendell, the Medical Officer of Health for St. George-the-Martyr,
Southwark, resigned "in disgust that he was not allowed to carry out
the duties of his office."
Once more the approach of Asiatic cholera--the nemesis of insanitation,
and of "fainéant" local authorities--created anxiety.[105]
It had been widely prevalent in Europe in 1865, and had even shown
itself in England, and it stirred into spasmodic and panicky activity
the local authorities of London.
In Lambeth a systematic house inspection was inaugurated; 987 houses
were examined--735 of them required sanitary improvements.
In Bethnal Green 2,018 were inspected--955 required cleansing and
purification.
In many other parishes and districts extra sanitary work was done. The
disease made no further demonstration in the winter, but in April,
1866, a case was reported from Bristol, then one from Swansea--then
from other places; and in July the Privy Council issued Orders in
Council putting the Disease Prevention Act in force in the metropolitan
area.
On July 18th, from Poplar, the first case in the metropolis was
reported. Two days later an alarming number of cases in parts of East
London.
Regulations were issued by the Privy Council defining and requiring the
specific services which local authorities ought to render the public.
Some parishes appointed extra Sanitary Inspectors. Thus in Hackney,
where there had been but one, four additional ones were appointed;
in St. James' two; in Camberwell two; in Lambeth two; in St. Mary,
Newington, five extra were appointed. Some of the work which was
reported brings into striking prominence the extraordinary inefficiency
hitherto of the authorities in dealing with insanitary houses as
well as the neglect into which houses had been let fall, and which
was tolerated by those who were responsible for the health of their
districts.
In Lambeth 6,935 houses were inspected in 1866; 3,983 improvements were
effected.
In Camberwell, 5,594 houses were inspected; in 4,324 sanitary work had
to be done.
In St. Mary, Newington:--
"A house-to-house visitation was commenced August 4th, and concluded
on November 20th, in which period the Sub-Inspectors called at 12,919
houses.
"A record was thus obtained of the condition of nearly every house
in the parish. The house-to-house visitation was carried out with but
little real opposition, and with a great deal of satisfaction....
Strict impartiality was the rule of action, and all classes and those
in every station were alike subject to inquiry."
As the summer went on, the mortality from the cholera increased--it
reached its acme on August 1st, when there were 204 deaths from it, and
in the week ending August 4th when the total of 1,053 was reached.[106]
During the 23 weeks of its prevalence 5,548 persons died--of whom 3,909
died in the East Districts alone, and 702 on the South side of the
river.
And by the end of the year it had gone. That the mortality should have
been so much smaller than on previous visitations was attributed to the
fact that London was unquestionably less filthy at the time of this
outbreak.
"A comparison of the mortality with that of former cholera years,"
wrote the Medical Officer of Health for St. Giles', "demonstrates that
sanitary work--imperfect as it is--has deprived the disease of much of
its power."
"The power," wrote the Medical Officer of Health for Fulham, "of
sanitary arrangements to check the progress of such a formidable
disease was clearly evidenced."
The Medical Officer of Health for Lambeth wrote:--
"I believe the great sanitary improvements effected in the parish in
providing proper drainage, abolishing many miles of open stinking
ditches, and the removal of other nuisances, rendered an outbreak of
cholera, such as experienced in former years, very improbable....
Moreover, by the employment of sanitary arrangements for treating the
sick, Lambeth and other parts of the metropolis were saved from the
ravages of the pestilence experienced on former occasions."
That the epidemic had been as disastrous as it was, was, however,
attributed to "an illegal and most culpable act of the East London
Water Company. In contravention of the 4th Section of the Metropolis
Water Act of 1852 that company distributed for public use a water
(and a most improper water) which had not passed through its filter
beds; and strong evidence was adduced to show that the outbreak was
occasioned by this illegal and most culpable act."
One result of this epidemic was to demonstrate, at the cost of
thousands of lives, that the system of private water companies
supplying the community with this necessity of life was absolutely
opposed to the interests of the community.
Dr. Simon, in summing up his report (1869) on the water supply to the
metropolis, wrote:--
"I have been anxious to show what enormous risks to the public are
implied in any slovenly administration of water supplies: yet as
regards the London supply, what imperfect obedience to the law, and in
some cases what flagrant and systematic disobedience was exhibited (at
the time of the cholera outbreak in East London in 1866); and above all
what criminal indifference to the public safety was illustrated by the
proceedings of the Southwark and Vauxhall Company."
As regarded this latter company:--
"Not only had there been the long-standing gross inefficiency of the
apparatus of subsidence and filtration, but the administrators of the
supply had from time to time dispensed to a great extent with even
a pretence of filtration, and during some time had, worst of all,
either negligently or wilfully distributed as part of their supply the
interdicted tidal water of Battersea Beach.
"It seems to me that the public is hitherto very imperfectly protected
against certain extreme dangers which the malfeasance of a water
company may suddenly bring upon great masses of population. Its
colossal power of life and death is something for which till recently
there has been no precedent in the history of the world; and such a
power, in whatever hands it is vested, ought most sedulously to be
guarded against abuse."
Cholera was once more a blessing in disguise, though it seems hard
that the sacrifice of thousands of lives should have been required to
move Government and Parliament to fresh measures for the protection of
the people from it and the other deadly diseases which unceasingly
worked such deadly havoc among them. But the proof given by it was
so overwhelming and decisive as to the insufficiency of the existing
sanitary law, and the inefficiency of the local authorities, that
Parliament felt forced to take action. The measures taken were of such
increased comprehensiveness and stringency, that the passing of the
Sanitary Act of 1866[107] marked another great step in the sanitary
evolution of London.
The Act applied to England and Wales--and this time actually included
the metropolis.
The previous definition of the term "nuisance" was enlarged, and
"overcrowding" was now for the first time declared to be a "nuisance."
"Any house or part of a house so overcrowded as to be dangerous or
prejudicial to the health of the inmates" was henceforward a "nuisance"
and punishable as such. And it was further enacted that "where two
convictions for overcrowding of a house, or for the occupation of a
cellar as a separate tenement dwelling-place" should have taken place
within three months, it should be lawful for the magistrate to direct
the closing of such premises for such time as he might deem necessary.
Under another extension of the term "nuisance" the industrial classes
got the shadowy boon of all factories, workshops, and workplaces
(not already under special Acts), being made subject to the sanitary
supervision of the local authorities; and those authorities were given
power to inspect such places to ascertain if they were kept in a
cleanly state, were properly ventilated, and not overcrowded so as to
be dangerous or prejudicial to the health of the inmates.
A section in the Act aimed at the inefficiency and inaction of the
local authorities, and made it obligatory (no longer optional) upon
them to make inspection of their districts.
"It shall be the duty of the Nuisance Authority to make from time to
time, either by itself or its officers, inspection of the district,
with a view to ascertain what nuisances exist calling for abatement
under the powers of the Nuisances Removal Acts, and to enforce the
provisions of the said Acts in order to cause the abatement thereof."
An effort was also made to check the spread of infectious disease
by giving the local authority considerable powers as regarded
disinfection. It was enacted that the local authority might provide
a proper place for the disinfection of clothing and bedding which
might have been rendered liable to communicate disease to others; and
the authority was empowered to maintain carriages for the conveyance
to hospital of persons suffering under any infectious or contagious
disease. A blow was struck at the iniquitous but common practice of
letting a room where there had been dangerous infectious disorder,
until it had been disinfected. And provision was made for the
establishment of a hospital for the reception of the sick.
All these were most considerable reforms, and would have been most
useful had they been given effect to and properly enforced.
The most important and wide-reaching provision of the Act was that
directed against overcrowding.
The 35th Section enacted that regulations might be made by the Sanitary
Authority (in other words, the Vestry or District Board) for fixing the
number of persons who might occupy a house, or part of a house, let in
lodgings, or occupied by members of more than one family. Houses so
let were to be registered by the Vestry. The regulations could fix a
certain number of cubic feet of air space which should be available for
each person. By this means the number of persons who might live in a
house, and in the rooms of the house, could be limited.
That was the plan--simple enough in appearance--which Parliament
devised for contending with the great evil of overcrowding.
And then, as regarded the sanitation of the houses when registered, it
enacted that regulations should contain provisions for their being put
into and kept in a clean and wholesome state. And to secure this being
done, regulations were made for their inspection.
It was an original and comprehensive scheme of reform. It struck
at the root of the two great evils--overcrowding and insanitary
dwellings; at overcrowding, by the limitation of the number of persons
inhabiting a house, or part of a house, and at insanitary dwellings by
a series of regulations enforcing the necessary measures for a decent
standard of sanitation. But it was something far more than this. It
was the declaration of principles of the utmost importance. It was a
declaration of the principle that the responsibility for the condition
of the "houses let in lodgings" should be on the shoulders of the
"owner" of the house. It was the declaration of the principle that the
"owner" should not be allowed to use his property to the detriment,
to the injury of the public. It affirmed, so far as London lodging or
tenement houses were concerned, the great principle, abhorred by so
many "owners," that "property has its duties as well as its rights."
The Act was, however, even more remarkable for the recognition it
contained of another principle of vital importance to the people
of London--the principle of central authority over local sanitary
authorities who neglected their duties.
Hitherto the local authorities were practically their own masters,
and could with absolute impunity neglect to put the provisions of the
existing health laws into operation; and "often their inaction had been
an absolutely inexcusable neglect of duty."
A power of appeal against this inaction was given. Where complaint was
made to a Secretary of State that a nuisance authority had made default
in enforcing the provisions of the Nuisances Removal Acts, he could,
if satisfied after inquiry that the authority had been guilty of the
alleged default, make an order limiting a time for the performance
of the duty, and if the duty was not performed within that time, he
could appoint some person to perform the duty and charge the costs
to the authority. And where the local authority had made default in
instituting proceedings against some sanitary law breaker, he could
order the chief police officer to institute them. These provisions
were a recognition of the fact, long patent to even the blindest,
that local authorities did not do their duty, and of the necessity of
devising a means of securing that a necessary public duty should be
done.
The fact was emphasised a few years later by the Royal Sanitary
Commissioners, who pointed out (1871) that--
"However local the administration of affairs, a central authority will
nevertheless be always necessary in order to keep the local executive
everywhere in action."
The real underlying truth now beginning to be discerned was that in
the matter of health or disease, London could not be treated in bits,
each governed by an independent body, but must be regarded as, what it
really was, one single entity or whole.
In another way also was the principle of central authority very clearly
affirmed. The Vestries were not to have a free hand in making their
regulations under the 35th Section. Any they made had to be approved by
a Secretary of State.
This was a considerable limitation of the freedom of the Vestries,
but it secured more or less uniformity in the powers of the local
authorities in this particular matter.
But the vigorous administration by all the local authorities of the
laws passed to secure the health of the public, was even more greatly
to be desired; for, from force of circumstances, the consequences--one
way or the other--could not be confined to the sphere of action of each
local authority.
The lives and welfare of the inhabitants of this vast city are so
closely, so inextricably interwoven that, in matters affecting the
public health, the action or inaction of one authority may vitally
affect the health and the lives, not alone of its neighbours, but
even of the people of the city as a whole. Disease and death are no
respecters of municipal boundaries, and are not hemmed in or restrained
by lines drawn upon maps or recorded in Acts of Parliament.
This community of interest of the inhabitants of London was, however,
scarcely, if at all, recognised by the general public--it was but
seldom the motive to action by the local authorities--but some of
the Medical Officers of Health now and then referred to it in their
reports.
Thus the Medical Officer of Health for Mile-End-Old-Town pointed out
(1863) that--
"An untrapped drain, an overcrowded house, an unventilated alley, a
rotting dungheap, or a foul closet, may spread disease and sorrow in an
entire neighbourhood."
And the Medical Officer of Health for Paddington pointed out (1870-1)
that--
"The danger of harbouring a contagious disease is not confined to the
individual suffering--it is a matter that concerns the community."
And the Medical Officer of Health for Whitechapel wrote (1865):--
"Here I would remark, that a uniform system of inspection of all the
houses in the several districts in London which are let out in separate
tenements should be repeatedly and systematically adopted; for if all
the Vestries and local Boards do not act together in this important
matter, hotbeds of epidemic diseases will remain undiscovered which
will serve as centres from whence such diseases may emanate, and extend
over the entire metropolis. The whole population of London, therefore,
is interested in the prompt removal of nuisances."
Immediately on the passing of the Act some of the Vestries made efforts
to deal with overcrowding under the Section which enacted that--
"Any house so overcrowded as to be dangerous or prejudicial to the
health of the inmates" is to be considered a "nuisance."
That, however, was only a temporary remedy, and affected only
overcrowding. Section 35 went to the root of the matter when it
insisted that in addition to the prevention of overcrowding, the
house in which the people lived should be kept clean and in sanitary
condition.
"The very foundation of our sanitary structure," wrote the Medical
Officer of Health for St. George-the-Martyr, "depends upon the right
housing of the poor."
The Section 35 was promptly put in force by a few of the
Vestries--Chelsea and Hackney being the first to make Regulations and
to enforce them.
Under the Regulations, whenever the Vestry deemed it desirable to put
them in force in respect to any house let in lodgings or occupied by
members of more than one family, the number of persons allowed to live
in that house was fixed on a basis of 300 cubic feet of air for each
adult for sleeping, or 350 for living and sleeping, and the owner had
to reduce the number of lodgers to the number so fixed on receiving
notice to that effect.
The Regulations further directed that--
"The owner of such house shall cause the walls and ceilings of every
room, and of the staircase and passages, and yards of such house to be
well and sufficiently coloured or limewashed, or otherwise thoroughly
cleansed once (at least) in every year.
"He shall cause every room and the passages to be ventilated.
"He shall provide such accommodation for washing, and such a supply
of water for the use of the lodgers as shall be satisfactory to the
Vestry's Officers;" and sundry and numerous minor directions.
The Medical Officer of Health (Chelsea), after the first year's work,
reported that the number of houses in the parish inhabited by two or
more families was very great, and in many cases their condition was
deplorable, and it was found necessary to embrace whole streets as well
as courts and alleys in the registration.
By 1869 the registration in Chelsea had been completed, and in 1870 the
Medical Officer of Health wrote: "I have seen no reason to alter my
opinion of the beneficial action of the measure by which we have been
able to bring under direct and constant supervision the majority of the
houses occupied by the poorer classes in this parish...."
The most satisfactory results followed also in Hackney.
Its Medical Officer of Health reported in 1867 that nearly 5,000 houses
had been measured and examined, and in a large proportion of cases the
numbers of persons allowed to inhabit them had been fixed. And as to
the result of the enforcement of the Regulations, he wrote (1869): "A
very large number of families now occupy two rooms who formerly lived
and slept in one. The gain in health and morality has therefore been
considerable."
Poplar was another of the District Boards which made and enforced the
Regulations. The Medical Officer of Health for the north part of the
District reported (1868):--
"Extensive improvements have been already effected, but the work must
still be systematically continued, for even when every house in the
district has been put into good sanitary state (which is far from being
the case as yet), it will be necessary to maintain a constant and
watchful system of re-inspection to ensure their being kept in order.
"Of the 1,610 houses inspected nearly all required more or less
sanitary improvement, and 630 were registered as containing more than
one family, and therefore coming under the Board's regulations as to
registration."
But if a few of the Vestries made real efforts to utilise the Act,
others of them either made only a pretence of doing so, or refused
altogether.
The reports of the Medical Officer of Health for St. Giles' (1866-7)
present a typical picture of the attitude and conduct of these bodies.
"A most important amendment of the sanitary laws was made by the
'Sanitary Act,' of which Section 35 gives precisely the powers which,
not last year only, but every year since the constitution of the Board,
the Medical Officer has demanded for the efficient discharge of his
functions in respect of houses inhabited by the poorer classes. That
section has given to the local authority the power of making bye-laws
for the regulation of sub-let houses, and of enforcing the observance
of its rules by penalties.
"In St. Giles' District, it is this class of houses almost exclusively
which need the supervision of the sanitary authorities, and which
become without that supervision nests of filth and disease.
"Accordingly, soon after the passing of the Sanitary Act, bye-laws were
adopted by the Board, and sanctioned by the Secretary of State for the
regulation of sub-let houses....
"The Board proceeded to inform owners of all sub-let houses that
such houses must be registered in conformity with the Regulation. The
intention of the Board was to apply with all proper discrimination,
but quite universally and impartially, the powers vested in them in
regard to sub-let houses.... The systematic application of these powers
by the Board would have done for sub-let houses what the systematic
application of the police of their powers under other Acts had done
for common lodging-houses. Cleanliness and decency would have been
universally secured, and would have been maintained with a minimum of
inspection by a fine for every gross violation of the regulations.
"But against a system that should work thus directly and efficiently
to the sanitary good of the district, the interests of numbers of
house-owners and agents were at once arrayed, and these speedily
organised an influential deputation to the Board.
"The opposite interests, those of the families dwelling in the close
and miserable rooms of these sub-let houses, found no organised
expression.
"The Board resolved to recall the notices which had been issued for
a systematic registration, and to apply their powers, in the first
instance, only to selected instances of flagrant and continuous
sanitary neglect."
And yet overcrowding in tenement-houses in St. Giles' was dreadful.
Here are some instances of it on the authority of the Medical Officer
of Health in 1869.
"These houses have for the greater part a family in every room.
"In King Street there are 254 families in 273 rooms.
" Lincoln Court " " 164 " " 168 "
" Little Wild Street " " 139 " " 182 "
" Wild Court " " 109 " " 116 " "
In Whitechapel (1867), rules and regulations were adopted by the Board.
"Unfortunately," wrote the Medical Officer of Health, the Act was
permissive, not compulsory.
"I brought under the notice of your Board several houses which in my
opinion ought to be registered.
"... The Board having reserved to itself the power of determining as to
the propriety of causing any house to be placed upon the register, this
enactment, which was framed not only for the improvement of the moral
and physical condition of the poor, but for the benefit of the whole
community, has been carried into effect in only one instance."
In Islington, draft Regulations were prepared, but it does not appear
that they were ever adopted.
In Paddington, the Vestry decided against putting the Regulations in
force.
In Westminster, "such obstacles were offered by the holders of small
property" to the Regulations that they were not enforced.
And on the south side of the river the story was very much the same.
The sting of the enactment was that it put house-owners to the
expense of putting the house into, and maintaining it in, habitable
and sanitary repair, and to the expense of annually painting or
lime-washing it; the provision of proper ventilation--of sanitary and
washing accommodation, and for a supply of water: in fact, of doing to
the houses that which was essential for the health of their occupants.
The Regulations simplified and shortened, and made more effective,
the processes for enforcing penalties for breaches of the sanitary
laws--all which was of course unpalatable to the sanitary law-breaker.
And so the great bulk of the local authorities would have nothing to do
with this 35th Section or its Regulations.
The law was not compulsory, but permissive--and they availed themselves
of that permission.
But the Vestries and District Boards who took no action, and allowed
the principal provision of the Act to be a dead letter, proved by their
conduct their deliberate determination not to impose what was a just
expense upon the "owners," even though the not doing so should result
in a frightful annual sacrifice of human life, and in an untold amount
of human suffering and misery, and a long train of physical and moral
evils of the very worst character.
That the Act had been successfully administered by some two or three
Vestries proved that it was quite a workable measure--so no excuse
could be raised on that ground by the recalcitrant Vestries.
Their attitude is an irrefutable proof of their selfish indifference to
human suffering where it clashed with the "rights of property," and of
their incapacity for the position they held as guardians and trustees
of the people.
"The slaughter-houses and cow-houses are ordered to be whited at least
twice a year, while the houses of the poor are allowed to remain for
years without this important means of purification."
The problem of overcrowding was, undoubtedly, a most difficult one--and
some of the Medical Officers of Health were realising how difficult it
was to treat with any hope of success.
Thus the Medical Officer of Health for Bethnal Green set forth the
state of his parish in 1867:--
"The population of Bethnal Green has now nearly reached 120,000, and
we have no more house room than heretofore. The consequence is that
overcrowding is as great as ever; and although the Public Health Act
of 1866 was framed to obviate this great evil, it is practically
unworkable, owing mainly to high rents (which in some cases have
increased as much as 50 per cent.), dearness of provisions, scarcity
of employment, and the imposition of taxes for the first time upon the
tenant; and many families who could ordinarily afford to occupy a whole
house have been obliged to let lodgings; others who have occupied two
rooms have been obliged to put up with one; and where overcrowding has
existed, and the law enforced, the people have merely removed to other
houses and thus perpetuated the evil which it was the intention of the
Legislature to obviate."
But doing nothing while overcrowding got worse was not likely to make
the problem less difficult.
Except, then, in a few parishes overcrowding was permitted to pursue
its own course unchecked, to the great benefit of the various "owners,"
and to the great misery of great masses of the people, and the evil
extended itself year by year and became steadily acuter.
And this, too, after Parliament had placed in the hands of the local
authorities large powers specially designed for coping with an evil
which was eating into the very vitals of the community.
So rapid was the increase of population that the increase in the
number of houses did little to mitigate the over-crowding; nor was the
construction of the majority of the houses conducive to the health of
those who went to inhabit them.
London ground was being rapidly covered with buildings.
"Many large tracts of our formerly open spaces have been rapidly
covered, nay densely packed with buildings.
"The operations of the builder have annihilated acres of garden ground
by the hundred."
"Little garden plots, green spots, open spaces, were being absorbed and
swallowed up one after another, and covered with houses....
"Apparently each builder does that which seems good in his own eyes."
Paddington afforded an interesting example of this growth. A space near
Ranelagh Road, about 25 acres, had almost all been built upon within
the last 15-20 years. The streets were 40 feet wide. Here were 900
houses packed with 12,000 people, or 469 persons to the acre (1871).
And another example near Paddington Road, where 275 houses had been
built, and the population was 493 to the acre, showing--
"A high density of population such as ought not to have been tolerated
under a wise municipal policy."
The rapidity of the increase was extraordinary. In Lambeth in the year
1866-7, 1,078 houses were erected. In Battersea in 1868-9, 1,530 houses
were erected--a large number of which were filled with people within a
few days or weeks of their completion.
The newness of a house, however, gave no guarantee of its sanitary
fitness, and a great proportion of them were of the most objectionable
and insanitary description. All the art and craft of the speculating
builder was too often exercised to evade such legal provisions as there
were for the protection of the public, and to get the largest profits
he could for the worst constructed house, and the result was that very
many of the new houses were little better than the worst of the old
ones.
Unfortunately, the law was very ineffective to prevent this. As was
pointed out by the Medical Officer of Health for Fulham (1871), the
sanitary legislation for the metropolis had never been accompanied by
an amalgamation of the Building Act with the general sanitary statutes.
"The Building Act still works an independent course, and it is not too
much to say of it that, whilst its provisions deal strictly with the
strength and quality of bricks and mortar, they utterly fail to ensure
for us dwellings, especially for the working classes, which have the
least pretensions to perfection in sanitary conditions. A large number
of habitations of this description have been completed and occupied
during the last few years both in Fulham and Hammersmith, and take the
place of our former fever dens in fostering disease. Unfortunately the
Sanitary Authorities see these wretched structures raised before their
eyes, and have no power to check their progress. It is truly to be
hoped that this anomaly will soon be remedied."
Such as the houses were, however, they were quickly inhabited. The
Medical Officer of Health for Paddington gives a graphic description of
the result in his parish (1871):--
"There has been for some years a large influx of persons, mostly of the
working class, coming from over-crowded and unwholesome houses of other
districts of the metropolis. Large numbers of the newly-built houses
being let out in tenements and single rooms attract a class of persons
barely able to obtain necessaries of life; amongst these are not a
few of intemperate and demoralised habits, with feeble vital stamina,
consequently there is, and will be, a larger proportion of sickness,
chronic pauperism, and death in the parish than formerly.
"This deterioration of race has for some time been recognised by
Medical Officers of Health.
* * * * *
"It must be remembered that most of the working people are fixed to the
spot, and cannot get a periodical change of climate, or remove from a
locality in the event of impending ill-health, or of contagious disease
breaking out near them.
"It is of no avail to lament over the laws of absolute necessity, but
all parties should combine in a demand for that even-handed justice
to the working ranks which, though it may not interfere with a stern
destiny which confines them to a life of toil, is bound at least to
provide that the theatre of that toil shall be free from the pollutions
that endanger the functions of life, and uncontaminated by contagion
and death.
"I must say it is a scandal to the present constitution of society
that the reverse of this continues from year to year in spite of
all suggestions of Medical Officers of Health, and the warnings of
experience. In vain does one plague after another ravage the family of
industrial orders, and like doomed men they stand amidst the harvest of
death looking earnestly, but in vain, to the Legislature for that help
which no other power can give. Parents, children, and friends, drop
around them, the victims of a poisoned atmosphere; while they hear and
feel successive warnings, the irrevocable law of necessity fixes them
to the spot, and they cannot flee from the danger."
The Central Authority, the Metropolitan Board of Works, had, during
the decade, been doing much useful work affecting the public health,
of London, in addition to its great work, the great system of main
drainage.
It had undertaken and had completed several large street improvements
by 1870, intended to provide new and improved means of access from one
part of the town to another.
"The Board had to supply the deficiencies resulting from centuries of
neglect: it had also to keep pace as well as it could with the wants of
the ever-increasing population, and the needs of a traffic which grew
relatively even more than the population," and each work contributed
to the improvement of the public health, by facilitating and increasing
the circulation of air in crowded neighbourhoods.
Another matter, important also in reference to the health of the
metropolis, had also occupied their attention, namely, the acquisition
or preservation of open spaces in London for public recreation and
enjoyment.
A piece of land, of over 100 acres in extent, was acquired and opened
to the public as Finsbury Park in 1869; and on the south side of the
river, in Rotherhithe, some 63 acres of land were purchased in 1864,
and converted into a public park a few years later.
On the outskirts of London there were a number of commons and other
tracts of open ground available for public resort, to which the public
had no legal rights, and which were rapidly being absorbed by railway
companies or builders. London was thus in danger of losing open spaces
which were urgently required in the interests of the public health.
Parliament, after an inquiry by Select Committee, passed the
"Metropolitan Commons Act"[108] in 1866, which prescribed a mode of
procedure under which the commons in the neighbourhood of London could
be permanently procured for the people of London, and the Metropolitan
Board set to work to procure them. The acquisition of Hampstead Heath
was happily arranged in 1870.
Another great work was also undertaken by the Central
Authority--namely, the embankment of the Thames.
The offensive state of the river had been greatly enhanced by the
large areas left dry at low water on which sewage matter collected and
putrefied; and the only way of removing this cause of mischief was by
confining the current within a narrower channel.
Parliament passed an Act in 1863, entrusting its execution to the
Metropolitan Board, and the work was soon after commenced.
Thus in these matters, all of which were closely associated with the
public health, the sanitary evolution of London was progressing, and
the Board was giving visible demonstration of the necessity of that
which had so long been denied to London--namely, a central governing
authority to deal with matters affecting London as a whole.
The Board, in their report for 1865-6, stated they were: "Deeply
sensible of what remained to be done to remedy the neglect of past
ages, and to render the metropolis worthy of its position as the chief
city of the Empire;" but they were hampered by the want of means to
enable them to carry out desired improvements.
"It cannot be questioned," they wrote, "that direct taxation now falls
very heavily upon the occupiers of property in the metropolis.... It
appears to the Board that the most equitable and practicable mode
of raising the necessary funds would be by imposing a portion of
the burden on the owners of property. It cannot be denied that the
interest of the latter in metropolitan improvements is much greater
than that of temporary occupiers, and yet at the present time, the
occupiers of property in the metropolis bear almost the whole cost
of the improvements effected by the Board. It is hoped that the
representations made by the Board will satisfy the Legislature of the
injustice of the present state of things, and lead to some equitable
remedy."
The visitation of cholera was doubtless in the main accountable for the
excess of energy displayed by Parliament about this period in matters
affecting the public health.
In the same session that the Sanitary Act was passed, a measure of
considerable importance to the consumers of water in London was passed,
though many years would elapse before its effect would be appreciable.
This was "The Thames Purification Act."
"Whereas ... the sewage of towns situate on the river Thames above
the metropolis is carried into the river, and thereby its waters are
polluted and the health and comfort of the inhabitants of the valley
of the river below those towns of the metropolis are affected," powers
were given for the diversion therefrom of the sewage of Oxford,
Reading, Kingston, Richmond, &c., &c., "whose cloacal contributions to
the stream were distributed to masses of the people of London." No
less than 56 towns, it was said, cast their impurities into the river.
And in the following year the scope of the Thames Conservancy Board
was extended and very stringent care exercised to prevent unnecessary
pollution of the river. And in 1868 the river Lea, another of the water
suppliers, was placed under a Conservancy Board.
In 1867 an Act of far-reaching consequence was passed, making
vaccination compulsory. In 1836 an Act[109] dealing with this matter
laid it down that the parent of a child, or the occupier of the house
in which a child was born, might, within 40 days, give notice to the
Registrar as to the vaccination of the child. There was no punishment
for the neglect to do so, and no penalty for refusal to give the
Registrar the information.
This new Act, which came into operation on the 1st of January, 1868,
enacted that--
"Every child shall be vaccinated within three months of its birth."
The Act was to be administered by the Poor Law Authorities; and Boards
of Guardians might appoint public vaccinators and establish vaccination
stations.
In 1867, also, another Act of very great consequence was passed dealing
with one important element in the sanitary evolution of London,
to which no reference has yet been made, namely, the provision of
hospitals for the isolation of infectious or contagious disease, for
the prevention of mortality, and for the speedy restoration of the sick
to health.
There is, indeed, no part of sanitary work requiring more constant
attention than the protection of the community from the spread of
infectious diseases, and this is best secured by hospitals affording
proper provision for isolation and treatment of infectious cases.
Next to the adoption of proper measures for the prevention of disease,
a suitable provision for the speedy restoration of the sick to health
is obviously of the greatest importance to the community.
So far as the absolutely destitute were concerned, all had, by the law
of England, subject to certain conditions, right to food, shelter, and
medical attendance; and they accordingly received gratuitous medical
treatment at workhouses, or dispensaries, and in sick wards.
Indeed, any person suffering from an infectious disease might, if
willing to become a pauper, take advantage of such provision as was
made by the Guardians of the Poor, the provision being imperfectly
isolated wards and buildings attached to the several Metropolitan
Workhouses and Infirmaries. Those not so willing were compelled to
remain at home, a source of danger to those around them, and if poor,
with insufficient medical attendance and nourishment.
For a long time the only special provision for certain infectious
diseases for the whole of London was that in the London Fever, and the
London Smallpox Hospitals, both of which were maintained by private
charity.
Happily, where neither the State nor the local authorities did
anything, charity stepped in, and on a larger scale supplied an
inevitable want; and medical charities grew up to give relief in time
of sickness to those of the working classes of society who were unable
to provide for themselves, but this was mostly for non-infectious or
non-contagious diseases.
None of the Vestries or District Boards gave any sign of making
provision for those who were not paupers, although the duty of giving
opportunity for isolation of infectious persons whose diseases made
them dangerous to others, be they paupers or not, devolved upon them
under the Sanitary Act of 1866 as the Sanitary Authorities concerned in
the prevention of the extension of disease.
"Indeed it must be admitted," wrote the Medical Officer of Health for
Chelsea some years later, "that the Vestries never recognised their
responsibilities (as sanitary authorities) from the very first."
Grievous scandals having occurred in the treatment of the sick in
many of the metropolitan workhouses, the Government of 1867 decided
on a great measure of reform. Once more the necessity of central
government had to be recognised, and by the Metropolitan Poor Act of
1867 a Board--elected by the Poor Law Guardians, who themselves were
elected bodies--was created as a central authority to relieve Poor Law
Guardians of the care of and treatment of paupers suffering from fever
and smallpox who could not be properly treated in workhouses, and to
provide for their treatment and accommodation, as well as that of the
harmless insane of the metropolis.
The Board was entitled the Metropolitan Asylums Board, and consisted of
73 members; 55 of whom were elected by the various Boards of Guardians
in London, and the remaining 18 being nominated by the Home Secretary.
In the early stage of its existence its duties were strictly confined
to those of the pauper class suffering from these diseases.[110]
Admission to its hospitals could be obtained only on orders issued by
the relieving officers, and those admitted became, if they were not
so already, "pauperised" by admission and _ipso facto_ paupers; but
later its scope was extended, and it became the Hospital Authority for
infectious diseases in London, and afforded another illustration of the
necessity for having one central authority for matters relating to the
public health of the inhabitants of the metropolis.
The erection of hospitals was at once commenced. The first was
opened in January, 1870, and the isolated treatment of many cases of
infectious disease was of great benefit to the community.
In 1867, too, Parliament again dealt with the condition of the workers
in Factories and Workshops. The legislation dealt with the kingdom as
a whole, but inasmuch as London was so great a manufacturing city, it
affected also the masses of the working population of the metropolis.
The Commissioners on Children's Employment, who had been at work since
1862, had completed their inquiry, and made many recommendations, and
in the concluding part of their fifth report, dated 1866, they wrote:--
"We heartily trust that we may have thus, in some degree, contributed
to bring the time nearer when so many hundreds of thousands of your
Majesty's poorer subjects of the working classes--especially the very
young and those of the tenderer sex--will be relieved from the totally
unnecessary burden and oppression of overtime, and night work; will
be confined to the reasonable and natural limits of the factory hours
... will perform their daily labour under more favourable sanitary
conditions, breathing purer air, amid greater cleanliness, and
protected against causes specially injurious to health and tending to
depress their vigour and shorten their lives."
Only in 1867 was factory legislation at last of an approximately
general character.
"Fully two-thirds of the century in which England's industrial
supremacy swept to its climax was allowed to pass before even an
attempt was made to regulate on sound general principles the recognised
and inevitable workings of unchecked individualism in the industrial
field."[111]
The Act of 1867[112] made better provision for regulating the hours
during which children, young persons, and women, were to be permitted
to labour in any manufacturing process conducted in an establishment
where fifty or more persons are employed--the regulation being in the
direction of less onerous conditions of labour.
And by another Act passed at the same time--"The Workshop Regulation
Act, 1867,"[113] the protection afforded to workers in factories was
extended to workers in smaller establishments, so far as regarded the
regulations relating to the hours of labour to children, young persons,
and women.
"Workshop" was defined as--
"Any room or place whatever (not a factory or bakehouse) in which any
handicraft is carried on by any child, young person, or woman, and to
which the person employing them had a right of access and control."
No child under 8 was to be employed, and none between 8 and 13 was to
be employed more than six and a half hours a day--and sundry other
directions. The workshops, moreover, were to be kept in a proper
sanitary state, and the administration of the sanitary provisions of
the Act was placed in the hands of the local authorities--the Home
Office Inspectors having concurrent jurisdiction.
These Acts had a two-fold effect in the direction of sanitary
evolution: the improvement of the sanitary conditions under which the
people worked, and the prohibition of work entailing consequences
detrimental to the physical well-being of the workers.
Their effect would have been of the greatest value in London had they
been vigorously enforced. Some of the Medical Officers of Health
endeavoured to enforce the Act.
Thus the Medical Officer of Health for the Strand reported to his
employers (1868-9):--
"During the past year the provisions of the Workshops Regulation Act,
1867, have, so far as practicable, been enforced."
And the Medical Officer of Health for St. George, Hanover Square, wrote
(1870-1):--
"I have endeavoured to carry out the Workshops Act by the abatement of
overcrowding, by enforcing due ventilation, and closing at the legal
time, so as to prevent the scandal and suffering of dressmakers still
being compelled to toil for 16 hours."
But the silence of others on the subject told its own tale and pointed
its own moral. Active inspection was essential for success, but
inspection was not encouraged by the Vestries or District Boards, and
the intentions of the Legislature were once more frustrated by the
failure of the local authorities to do their duty.
After four years Parliament took the duty away from their incapable
hands and transferred it to the Factory Department of the Home Office.
One other Act of importance Parliament also passed about this time,
"The Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Act, 1868."
Sanitary legislation has as yet done little more for old property,
and the whole of Central London was old property, than to improve
the drainage, and occasionally to cleanse or whitewash some small
fraction of it; and there remained the fact that numerous districts or
conglomerations of houses were unreformable, and when the most was done
to them that could be done under the law were still unfit for human
habitation.
In the previous year a Bill had been introduced into Parliament by Mr.
Torrens:--
"The objects of which were, first, to provide means for taking down or
improving dwellings occupied by working men which were unfit for human
habitation; and secondly, for the building and maintenance of better
dwellings instead. But the Act of 1868 retained the former only; the
latter having been struck out of the Bill during its progress through
Parliament.
"The intention of Parliament was to provide the means whereby local
authorities might secure the effectual repair of dilapidated dwellings,
or, when necessary, their gradual reconstruction."[114]
The Act conferred powers far exceeding any heretofore possessed by the
local authority for effectually dealing with houses unfit for human
habitation.
"On the report of the Medical Officer of Health that any inhabited
building was in a condition dangerous to health, so as to be unfit for
human habitation, the Vestry, after certain inquiries, &c., was to
have power to order the owner to remove the premises, and, in default,
themselves to remove them; or they might order the owner to execute the
necessary structural alterations, and in default, might either shut up
or pull down the premises, or themselves execute the necessary work at
the owner's expense."[115]
The Act proceeded upon the principle that the responsibility of
maintaining his houses in proper condition falls upon the owner, and
that if he failed in his duty the law is justified in stepping in and
compelling him to perform it. It further assumed that houses unfit
for human habitation ought not to be used as dwellings, but ought, in
the interests of the public, to be closed, and demolished, and to be
subsequently rebuilt.
Use began to be made of the Act soon after its passing, but the
operations under it can be more conveniently described in the following
chapter.
The energy of Parliament had a most beneficial effect, and many of the
Medical Officers of Health bore testimony to the encouraging sanitary
progress which was being made.
Thus the Medical Officer of Health for Fulham wrote (1868):--
"Our district is gradually and most manifestly improving in all those
great features of hygiene which are truly essential where such masses
of people congregate together."
And the Medical Officer of Health for St. Martin-in-the-Fields, who
wrote in 1864 that:--
"The spread of sanitary knowledge is slow"--
Wrote in 1868:--
"Upon the whole, I am of opinion that all classes, even the very
poorest, are much more alive to their own interest in supporting
measures for the maintenance of health."
The Medical Officer of Health for St. Mary, Newington, wrote (1871):--
"The knowledge of a compulsory power, as well as the spread of sanitary
knowledge, and a greater appreciation of it, has led to a vast amount
of sanitary improvement.
"I can but express a strong conviction that the sanitary measures
carried out are working slowly but steadily a vast improvement in
both the morale and physique of the inhabitants of this metropolis
in particular ... a great work is progressing, the effects of which
will be seen more and more as years roll on, and will be recognised in
the greater comfort, better health, and augmented self-respect of the
people, and in an increased and increasing improvement in the homes of
those on whose strength or weakness must depend in no slight degree the
position for better or worse of the English nation."
The Medical Officer of Health for St. George the Martyr, in his report
for 1870, makes a retrospect of fifteen years:--
"When the Vestries began (1856) their mighty task they had to contend
against evils and prejudices which had their origin in far away back
generations, and which have cast down their roots deep and intricate
into our social system....
"The Acts under which the Vestries had to work were very imperfect.
Opposition was strong on every hand, the magistrates sympathised with
the defendants. Property and its rights were apparently invaded; and
property and its rights have always claimed more support than property
and its duties.
"What was our physical condition? (in 1855).
"In every yard were one or more of 'the foulest receptacles in nature,'
namely, cesspools; these gave off, unceasingly, foul effluvia, filling
meat safe, cupboard, passage and room. The smell met you on entering
the house, abode with you whilst you remained in it, and came out with
you on leaving it. The parish was burrowed with them, and the soil
soddened with the escape of their contents. The emptying of them proved
a true infliction. They have now been emptied for the last time, filled
up with coarse disinfecting materials.... They would not now be endured
for a moment, yet with what difficulty they were abolished. They were
clung to as if some old and honoured relic was about to be ruthlessly
torn from its possessors."
Dr. Simon, the Medical Officer to the Privy Council, gave, in his
report of 1868,[116] a view of sanitary progress in the country
generally, much of which applied equally to London:--
"It would, I think, be difficult to over-estimate, in one most
important point of view, the progress which, during the last few
years, has been made in sanitary legislation. The principles now
affirmed in our statute book are such as, if carried into full effect,
would soon reduce to quite an insignificant amount our present very
large proportions of preventable disease. It is the almost completely
expressed intention of our law that all such states of property and
all such modes of personal action or inaction as may be of danger to
the public health, should be brought within scope of summary procedure
and prevention. Large powers have been given to local authorities,
and obligation expressly imposed on them, as regards their respective
districts, to suppress all kinds of nuisance and to provide all such
works and establishments as the public health preliminarily requires;
while auxiliary powers have been given, for more or less optional
exercise, in matters deemed of less than primary importance to health;
as for baths and wash-houses, common lodging-houses, labourers'
lodging-houses, recreation grounds, disinfection-places, hospitals,
dead-houses, burial grounds, &c. And in the interests of health the
State has not only, as above, limited the freedom of persons and
property in certain common respects: it has also intervened in many
special relations. It has interfered between parent and child, not
only imposing limitation on industrial uses of children, but also to
the extent of requiring that children shall not be left unvaccinated.
It has interfered between employer and employed, to the extent of
insisting, in the interests of the latter, that certain sanitary claims
shall be fulfilled in all places of industrial occupation....
"The above survey might easily be extended by referring to statutes
which are only of partial or indirect or subordinate interest to
human health; but, such as it is, it shows beyond question that the
Legislature regards the health of the people as an interest not
less national than personal, and has intended to guard it with all
practicable securities against trespasses, casualties, neglects and
frauds.
"If, however, we turn from contemplating the intentions of the
Legislature to consider the degree in which they are realised, the
contrast is curiously great. Not only have permissive enactments
remained for the most part unapplied in places where their application
has been desirable; not only have various optional constructions and
organisations which would have conduced to physical well-being, and
which such enactments were designed to facilitate, remained in an
immense majority of cases unbegun; but even nuisances which the law
imperatively declares intolerable have, on an enormous scale, been
suffered to continue; while diseases which mainly represent the
inoperativeness of the nuisance-law, have still been occasioning,
I believe, fully a fourth part of the entire mortality of the
country. And when inquiry is made into the meaning of this strange
unprogressiveness in reforms intended, and in great part commanded, by
the Legislature, the explanation is not far to seek. Its essence is
in the form, or perhaps I may rather say in the formlessness, of the
law. No doubt there are here and there other faults. But the essential
fault is that laws which ought to be in the utmost possible degree,
simple, coherent, and intelligible, are often in nearly the utmost
possible degree, complex, disjointed and obscure. Authorities and
persons wishing to give them effect may often find almost insuperable
difficulties in their way; and authorities and persons with contrary
disposition can scarcely fail to find excuse or impunity for any amount
of malfeasance or evasion."
To this review by one of the ablest and most experienced of men of
the time in matters relating to the public health, it must, however,
be added that so far as the metropolis was concerned, "the meaning of
this strange unprogressiveness" was not so much the formlessness of the
law, as the fact that the interests against the enforcement of many
portions of the law were predominant, and the non-administration of the
law was due far more to that circumstance than to any ambiguities or
obscurities in the laws. "Vested interests in filth and dirt" were all
powerful on the greater number of the local authorities of London, and
so the law which would have interfered with those interests was left
severely unadministered.
Against these interests it was difficult to struggle--especially
when there was no compulsion upon the administrators of the laws to
administer them. Sheltered under a permissive, they would not exercise
a compulsory power--a power entrusted to them with the control of
public money for public good.
The true cause of the inoperativeness of the law was, in a way, pointed
out by the Medical Officer of Health for St. James', Westminster, when
he wrote (1869-70):--
"The great deficiency of the Act of 1866, as of all other English
legislation on sanitary matters, is that no public prosecutor is
appointed. If Vestries neglect to prosecute, and individuals do not see
their way to it, people may be killed by infectious diseases to any
extent."
And the Medical Officer of Health for St. Giles' expressed a similar
opinion when he wrote (1870):--
"The duty of making these sanitary improvements should be imperative
instead of permissive. It was wise, at first, perhaps, that our
sanitary legislation should be tentative and experimental; but
experience having proved its necessity it should be made more
stringent."
But neither of them got so far as to see the natural and simple remedy,
that where a local authority for one reason or another would not
administer the laws made by Parliament, the central authority should
step in and do the work at the cost and expense of the recalcitrant
local authority.
If one set of people failed in their duty to the public, it was but
right that where such tremendous issues were at stake as the health and
physical well-being, not merely of the people of one parish but of over
three and a quarter millions of people--and all that their health and
well-being implied--the administration of the law should be placed in
hands that would administer it.
That, however, was but part of the great problem, though it would have
gone a long way in ameliorating things. The other necessity was the
strengthening and altering of the law which itself stood in need of
many and large changes before a sure foundation could be laid for the
future health of the great community resident in the great metropolis
of London.
And other matters which ultimately were to have great influence towards
the solution of some of the worst of the health difficulties in London
were coming into view, and assuming form and substance.
Tramways, with their facilities of traffic, were about to be started.
In 1869 three private Acts were passed, authorising the construction
and working of tramway lines in the metropolis, and in the following
year several more private Acts and "The Tramways Act, 1870," which
was a general measure. Its main object was to provide a simple,
inexpensive, and uniform mode of proceeding in obtaining authority for
the construction of tramways, and to give the local authorities the
power of regulation and control.
In London the Metropolitan Board of Works was constituted the "local
authority" under the Act; and that Board was empowered to apply for
a Provisional Order itself to construct tramways, and lease them to
other persons, and was given, with the approval of the Board of Trade,
a compulsory power of purchase after a period of twenty-eight years on
certain conditions.
And in 1870 another Act of the most far-reaching importance was passed,
"The Elementary Education Act," which prescribed the establishment of
a School Board for London, and which in process of time would exercise
vast influence towards a cleaner, brighter, healthier life than any
hitherto within the reach of the masses of the population of London.
But though progress was being made in many ways, the progress had not
affected infantile life.
"The dreary catalogue of human misery" given in the statistics of
infantile mortality was as dreary as ever.
In every part of London those statistics were appalling.
In 1867, in the Whitecross Street District of St. Luke, no less than
64·4 per cent. of the mortality for the district consisted of deaths
among children under five years of age. In 1868 it was close upon 61
per cent.
In Bethnal Green, in 1869-70, of 3,378 deaths, 1,900 were under five =
56·3 per cent.
In a sub-division of Whitechapel, in 1865-6, close upon 58 per cent.
were under five; in Poplar a fraction short of 47 per cent.
In Kensington, in 1866, 40·6 per cent. were under five.
Each year the Medical Officer of Health for Fulham drew attention to,
and protested against, the high rate, nearly 50 per cent., of infantile
mortality under five, in 1867-8.
In Wandsworth, in 1870-1 = 47 per cent.
In Camberwell, in 1868 = nearly 50 per cent.
In St. Mary, Newington, and in Rotherhithe = 50 per cent.
In Bermondsey, in 1869-70 = 56 per cent.
In certain streets the percentage was much higher. Thus in Paddington
(1870-1):--
Woodchester Street 56 per cent.
Cirencester " 65 "
Clarendon " 72 "
The high infantile mortality betokened high infantile sickness, but of
it no records have ever been kept.
FOOTNOTES:
[81] 25 and 26 Vic. cap. 102.
[82] See P.P. 1866, vol. xvii. Report of Royal Commission.
[83] Hansard, vol. clxi. p. 1061.
[84] Ibid., vol. clxii. p. 148.
[85] P.P. 1866, vol. xxxiii.
[86] See P.P. 1863, vol. xxv. Report by H. S. Tremanheere to the Home
Secretary, 1862.
[87] "In a bakehouse in St. Martin's Lane, eight men slept in one room
(separated from the bakehouse) which had nothing that deserves the name
of a window" (Report of Medical Officer of Health, 1864).
[88] P.P. 1864, vol. xxviii. Sixth Report of the Medical Officer of the
Privy Council (1863).
[89] Hansard, 1864, June 16, p. 1835.
[90] See Reports of the Commissioners on Children's Employment, 1864-6.
[91] Shoreditch, 1863.
[92] Westminster, 1861-2.
[93] 1863-4.
[94] Whitechapel, 1861.
[95] P.P., vol. clxxxvi. Select Committee of House of Commons on
Medical Local Government, 1866, p. 259.
[96] Hansard, 1861, vol. clxi. p. 1070.
[97] Report of Commissioners. P.P. 1864, vol. xxii. p. xlix.
[98] See P.P. 1874. Report of Select Committee on the Adulteration of
Food, &c. Evidence of H. Owen.
[99] 26 and 27 Vic. cap. 40.
[100] Ibid. cap. 117.
[101] P.P. 1866, vols. xxxiii.-iv.
[102] Select Committee on Metropolitan Local Government.
[103] See P.P. 1867-8, vol. lviii. Return of Inspectors of Nuisances,
&c., 1866.
[104] Select Committee on Metropolitan Local Government, 1866.
[105] P.P. 1867, vol. xxxvii.
[106] P.P., vol. xxxvii. p. 275.
[107] 29 and 30 Vic. cap. 90.
[108] 29 and 30 Vic. cap. 122.
[109] 6 and 7 Wm. IV. cap. 86.
[110] See Report of the Metropolitan Asylums Board for 1886-7.
[111] See the Edinburgh Review, January, 1903.
[112] 30 and 31 Vic. cap. 103.
[113] 30 and 31 Vic. cap. 146.
[114] Report of Select Committee on the working of the Artizans' and
Labourers' Dwellings Improvement Act, 1882, p. iii.
[115] Ibid., p. iv.
[116] P.P. 1868-69, vol. 32.
CHAPTER IV
1871-1880
IN 1871, the decennial Census once more afforded reliable information
as to the population of London, and gave the means of ascertaining much
else of the greatest value.
The population had gone up to 3,254,260 in 1871, from the 2,808,862 it
had been in 1861, an increase of 445,398. But the rate of increase was
declining. The decennial increase of population which had been 21·2 in
1841-1851, 18·7 in 1851-1861, had further declined to 16·1 in 1871.
The returns showed that London contained 2,055,576 persons born within
its own limits, and 1,198,684 persons born outside its borders.
"Whence came these multitudes of both sexes, equal in themselves,
without counting those born there, to a number greater than the
inhabitants of any other European city?"
More than 607,000 of them came from the chiefly agricultural eastern,
south-eastern, and south-midland counties surrounding the metropolis.
A large contingent of 147,000 was drawn from Devonshire, Wiltshire,
Somersetshire, and the other south-western counties.
The west-midland counties sent up 84,000.
41,000 persons had come from Scotland, 91,000 from Ireland, 20,000 from
the Colonies, and 66,000 from foreign parts.
In fact, over 37 per cent. of the population of London in 1871 were
immigrants into the great metropolis--a great rushing river of
humanity.
The returns were also of special interest in showing the changes in
the distribution of the population. Speaking broadly, the previous
movements were being continued--a diminishing population in the central
parts, an increasing population in the outer parts.
It appeared to be inevitable that--
"As the trade of London continued to increase, so the districts which
lay close to the great centres of business must be expected to be
occupied more and more with warehouses, and less and less with the
miserable dwelling-houses which had hitherto sheltered its poor and
working-class population."
The diminution of the population of the central parts of London was in
no way a symptom of decay: it was, in reality, proof of the reverse,
being the result of increasing trade, commerce, and wealth, which
required more house accommodation for the carrying on of their enormous
operations.
The great economic forces were in fact as active and powerful as ever.
In the City the population had fallen in the decade from 111,784 to
74,635. In every one of the six parishes or districts composing the
Central group the population had likewise decreased.
In the Eastern group, the population of three had decreased, whilst
in the others there were increases--notably so in Poplar, where there
was an increase of 37,000, and in Bethnal Green, where there was an
increase of 15,000.
In the Northern group all had increased, except St. Marylebone--the
increase in Hackney being over 41,000, and in Islington over 58,000.
In the West, there were also large increases--Fulham 27,000, Paddington
21,000, Kensington 50,000. Only St. James' (Westminster) and
Westminster had decreased, and they in reality belonged more to the
centre than to the west.
On the South side, with the exception of Christchurch, St. Olave, and
St. Saviour's--all in Southwark--and Greenwich, there was an increase
in all the parishes or districts, the increases in some being very
large; 40,000 in Camberwell, 46,000 in Lambeth, 55,000 in Wandsworth.
The figures thus furnished by the Census enabled a fairly accurate
calculation to be made as to the death-rate. It now appeared to be 24·6
per 1,000 living.
The Registrar General, in his report for 1873, entered into a
comparison with previous years which may be assumed to be as accurate
as any such calculations could be.
The mortality was as high as 29·4 in 1854. It was 26·5 in 1866 (when
cholera was epidemic), and it was as low as 21·5 in 1872, and 22·5 in
1873.
"The mortality never having been so low in any two consecutive years
since 1840, and by fair inference never so low in any two years since
London existed."
This was distinctly encouraging, demonstrating as it did the good
results ensuing upon the great works of improved drainage and sewerage,
and a healthier water supply.
As to the housing of this huge population, it was shown that the number
of inhabited houses had increased from 360,035 to 419,642.
The reports of many of the Medical Officers of Health throw much
additional light upon, and explain or elucidate the facts set out in
the Census, and carry on the narrative into later years of the matters
recorded by the Census Commissioners.
Thus, as regarded the reduction of the population in the central group
of parishes, the Medical Officer of Health for the Strand District
ascribed it in part to the new Law Courts, and to the circumstance that
residential houses were, in increasing numbers, becoming converted into
business premises.
"But," he added, "it is also probably in some measure due to the
greater facilities for locomotion to suburban homes"; which is notable
as almost, if not absolutely, the first recognition of this cause
affecting the population.
In St. James', the decrease of population was "due to the fact that
the district had increasingly become the centre for clubs, hotels,
and splendid shops. The result had been an enormous rise in the value
of houses, and a gradual extrusion of the less wealthy and important
residents."
In St. George-in-the-East, the Medical Officer of Health stated that:--
"The decrease of population was due to houses being taken by a railway
company, by the Poor Law Guardians for an infirmary, for a church, &c."
How considerable the clearances were in some districts may be inferred
from the figures given by the Medical Officer of Health for St. Giles'
in 1871.
"The clearances in the City of London for the purposes of erecting a
new market, and a viaduct, and in the Strand district to form a site
for the proposed Law Courts, have aggravated the evil of overcrowding.
To effect these improvements (or chiefly so) the large number of 18,358
persons have been removed. Strand, 6,998; St. Sepulchre (City), 4,188;
St. Bride (City), 4,211; Saffron Hill, 2,961."
And in St. Olave, on the south side of the river, the Medical Officer
of Health wrote:--
"Since the census of 1861, 436 houses have been pulled down, clearing
away whole streets and courts for the formation of railways and the
extension of warehouses, displacing 961 families comprising 3,556
persons."
Consequent upon these clearances, and the people having to find
dwelling room somewhere, the transition of houses built for a single
family into tenement-houses continued in full swing.
The Medical Officer of Health for St. Mary, Newington, reported (1873)
that year by year the better class of houses were becoming less and
less inhabited by a single family.
The Medical Officer of Health for Paddington gave a very clear
description of the process.
"There is a very dense packing of population," he wrote (1873), and he
mentioned some instances:--
"Brindley Street with 801 persons living in 65 houses.
Hampden Street " 876 " " 78 "
Waverley Road " 900 " " 72 "
"Builders intended these houses at first for one respectable family,
but ... in violation of common sense and decency they are let out in
tenements and single rooms, without those essential conditions of
a dwelling which landlords should in all instances be compelled to
provide.
"There is yet in reality no law to prevent the creation of unhealthy
districts as long as five or six families are allowed to live in one
house intended for a single family.... Houses should be built with
reference to the future health of the people who will have to live in
them.
"And now, while the fields are open and still unbuilt upon, it would be
worth the attempt to overcome the destructive influences likely to be
established in building tenement dwellings as the population gathers
in this and other neighbourhoods. They will some day be hives of
pauperism."
Furthermore, in some parishes, the natural growth of the population was
very rapid. In Islington, for instance, the Medical Officer of Health
wrote:--
"The Life Balance Sheet of your parish for 1875 shows that your losses
and gains leave you 4,376 lives to the good, or in other words 4,656
deaths and 9,032 births have been registered in the parish of St. Mary,
Islington."
And the Medical Officer of Health for St. Marylebone wrote (1877):--
"If we compare the annual number of births with the deaths, we shall
find that every year some 1,200 or 1,500 more persons are born in
the parish than die in it; and what, it may be asked, becomes of the
surplus population? The only answer is, that it migrates; it could not
remain in the parish for the simple reason that there is no room, all
available spaces in St. Marylebone have long been built upon, and the
houses occupied, many of them crowded."
To the migration rendered necessary by the natural growth of the
population, and by the diminishing number of houses in the central
parts, was added the ceaseless stream of fresh immigrants into London.
These vast numbers had to find house accommodation somewhere, and they
found it, in their tens of thousands, in various parts of the less
central portions of the metropolis.
In Kensington, for instance, the Medical Officer of Health stated
(1871) that the larger portion of the increase of nearly 41,000 in the
ten years was due to immigration.
The Medical Officer of Health for Fulham drew a graphic picture of this
inrush of humanity.
"The steady growth of London westward has thrown among us a vast and
teeming population of the working classes, as well as those of more
well-to-do condition, and for the housing of the former many blocks
of wretched and most miserably constructed dwellings continue to be
erected with the most utter disregard for drainage or other sanitary
appliances now so essential. That part of Fulham, once open fields, is
still being rapidly covered with streets and houses of this character,
and many open spots in Hammersmith are being filled in the same way.
Our healthy neighbourhood may thus be made ere long a land of sickness
and disease unless some check is given to such speculative buildings.
Our natural advantage with all our care will not avail us against such
utter recklessness."
The increase of 21,000 in Paddington drew from the Medical Officer of
Health the query--
"... Whether any and what steps should be taken to prevent the
wholesale influx of a colossus of pauperism with the consequent burdens
of poverty and sickness."
It had already driven the people underground for shelter, for in 1871
he described how--
"Many of the underground kitchens in Leinster Street (and four others
named) have been inspected where the poor people are found living like
Esquimaux in underground cave dwellings--places with impure air, want
of light, admitted only through a grating in front, the upper sash of
the window being often out of repair, or nailed up."
The rapid increase of population in London would not have been
accompanied with such serious results to the public health as it was,
if the houses which were being so rapidly built for the people to
inhabit had been constructed on sound sanitary principles.
But this was very far from being the case, and the evils described in
the last chapter in this respect continued over an enlarged area, and
in accentuated form.
It is now almost incredible that the laws should have been left in
such a state as to enable builders, without any legal check, to put up
the houses they did.
The Medical Officer of Health for Mile-End-Old-Town pointed out (in
1872) that "The position and structure of houses has a very distinct
bearing upon the public health, yet very little regard is given to
sanitary principles in their construction.... The class of small
houses for the crowded occupation of the poorer classes is generally
built either upon 'made ground' composed of refuse and débris of all
descriptions, the organic portion of which presently fills the houses
with various disease-producing gases, or upon newly opened ground
saturated with miasma, without the least attempt at protection by means
of previous drainage or properly protected excavated foundations."
And in 1876 he reverted to the subject:--
"Water, air, and light are nature's disinfectants and preventions
of disease. They are abundantly provided, but more meagrely and
inefficiently used, and indeed practically ignored, by architects,
builders, owners, and occupiers...."
A witness before a Select Committee testified in 1874[117] that:--
"Houses were being built upon the soil--any soil, in point of fact--and
the foundations of houses consisted very often of nothing but manure,
and old boots, old hats, or anything thrown into it."
The Medical Officer of Health for Poplar wrote (1873):--
"The continued rapid increase in the number of new streets and houses
in various parts of the district presents many unsatisfactory features.
"In most cases, before the buildings are commenced, the gravel is
dug out, and the hole filled up with so-called brick rubbish, but in
reality with road-sweepings, the siftings of the dust yards and similar
refuse. The dwelling-houses, mostly of the poorer class, are largely
built of soft ill-burnt bricks, and are tenanted generally as soon as
they are finished--frequently even before they are complete.
"As a matter of course the walls are still damp, the streets unpaved,
and the residents suffer often very seriously in their health."
The Medical Officer of Health described ten acres of houses in Hackney
as "almost entirely built upon a great dust heap," built, too, of
porous bricks and bad mortar.
And another witness before a Select Committee in 1882 described how, in
the other end of London--in Wandsworth--on an estate "which practically
might be considered a small town," the ground has been filled in to a
depth of six or seven feet with filth of every description, and houses
have been rapidly built upon it. The results to the health of the
inhabitants were disastrous.
This, however, by no means completed the description of the evil
condition of the buildings.
The Medical Officer of Health for Shoreditch wrote (1876-7):--
"Not only was the health of the inhabitants endangered by the presence
of a large number of old decayed brick drains, but also by many new
drains which had been carelessly laid. Their joints leaked; in some
places neither cement nor clay had been used, and pipes had been
connected with drains at right angles."
And the Medical Officer of Health for St. George-the-Martyr added his
testimony (1877-8):--
"Not only may the materials of which our buildings are constructed
be thus defective, but the drainage may be and is indeed mostly laid
carelessly and imperfectly.... An eminent Civil Engineer, one who has
had a very large experience in this division of his profession, informs
me that 90 per cent. of the houses built are imperfectly drained,
that the drains are laid in a reckless manner, the joints often not
cemented, and that the way in which they are laid is unscientific and
dangerous. No wonder we have continued ill-health of the occupants."