"There is not," wrote one of the Medical Officers of Health, "a more
difficult task than that of carrying out sanitary reform, for although
every one agrees that sanitary laws should be put in force, they are
greatly objected to when they interfere with one's self."
And another wrote:--
"Nuisances crop up, are removed, and re-appear. _It is a continuous
warfare due to many causes_, such as carelessness and wilfulness on the
one hand, and accidental circumstances on the other."
And another:--
"The sanitary labours of your officers increase year by year as the
population becomes denser, and the need for sanitary precautions grows
more urgent."
And underneath all was the view expressed by the Medical Officer of
Health for Islington (1881):--
"I fear the public have not even yet learned to regard health as a
matter of infinitely greater moment than rates and taxes."
How far-reaching were the effects of disease was admirably set forth by
Dr. Simon:--
"I do not pretend to give any exact statement of the total influence
which preventable diseases exert against the efficiency and happiness
of our population, for it is only so far as such diseases kill, and
even thus far but very imperfectly, that the effect can be reported
in numbers. Of the incalculable amount of physical suffering and
disablement which they occasion, and of the sorrows, and anxieties,
the permanent darkening of life, the straitened means of such
subsistence, the very frequent destitution and pauperism which attend
or follow such suffering, death statistics testify only in sample or by
suggestion."[148]
Few people realise the infinite importance of health to a great
community.
As one of the Medical Officers of Health truly wrote:--
"It is a question whether the greatness of countries will not in future
to a very large extent depend upon the standard of public health."
One of the very best and most experienced of the men who held the
responsible office of Medical Officer of Health during the last half
century--Dr. Bateson, the Medical Officer of Health for St. George in
Southwark--in his reports often dwelt upon this aspect of the subject:--
"The only true and lasting foundation upon which the glory and safety
of a nation can be built must be upon the cultivation of the moral and
physical powers belonging to man."
"... The quality of a race is of far more importance than the quantity."
"Health to the majority of the population is their only wealth; without
it they become pauperised."
"The welfare and safety of this country need a healthy, stalwart race
of men--men who can labour and endure."
And in his last report (1878), after twenty years' service as Medical
Officer of Health, he quoted the Prime Minister (Lord Beaconsfield) as
saying:--
"The health of a people was really the foundation upon which all their
happiness and all their powers as a state depended. If the population
of a country was stationary, or that it yearly diminished, or that
whilst it diminished it diminished also in stature and strength, then
that country was ultimately doomed."
"Nothing," said Dr. Bateson, "could be more solemn and emphatic."
"For the success and permanence of national existence a high standard
of health is absolutely necessary. To maintain in its integrity the
vast power which England now wields, and to retain the high position
which she now holds will depend upon the nation's health."
Before considerations such as these, how lamentable the blindness of
those who could not see that even a measurable expenditure in health
matters would have been productive of immeasurable benefits; how
reprehensible the conduct of those who refused to administer laws
which it was their duty to administer, and the administration of which
would have been of inestimable value to their fellow citizens; and how
disastrous their studied inaction to the great metropolis, and through
it, to the nation itself.
FOOTNOTES:
[117] Select Committee on Metropolitan Buildings and Management Bill,
1874. P.P., vol. x.
[118] Evidence of G. Vulliamy, Select Committee, 1874.
Superintending-Architect to that Board.
[119] See Report of Select Committee, &c., 1874, Q. 23,445.
[120] Select Committee of 1867.
[121] P.P., 1868-9, vol. xxxiii.
[122] 32 and 33 Vic. cap. 70.
[123] See P.P. 1863, vol. xxv. Report by Tremenheere on Bakehouses, p.
113.
[124] Adulteration of Food and Drink and Drugs Act, 1872, 35 and 36
Vic. cap. 74.
[125] P.P. 1874, vol. vi.
[126] Issued on the 17th of September, 1872, and renewed the 25th of
March, 1873.
[127] Final Report of the School Board for London, 1870-1904.
[128] See Select Committee on Noxious Businesses, 1873. P.P., vol. x.
[129] See Sections 25 and 26 of the Sanitary Act, 1866.
[130] See Report of Metropolitan Board, 1871-2.
[131] P.P. 1878-9. Report of Local Government Board, vol. xxix., p.
xiii.
[132] By the Medical Officer of Health for Whitechapel, 1878.
[133] P.P. 1875, vol. lxiv.
[134] "The Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Improvement Act," 38 and
39 Vic. cap. 36.
[135] See Royal Commission Report, 1884.
[136] 1877, 24th March.
[137] Inquiry by Cubitt Nicholls, March 24, 1877.
[138] Appendix. Select Committee Housing, 1881, p. 354.
[139] See Report of Metropolitan Board, 1888.
[140] 42 and 43 Vic. cap. 64.
[141] The Medical Officer of Health for Chelsea (writing of his own
parish).
[142] Chelsea, Hackney, Shoreditch, Lambeth, St. George (Southwark),
Camberwell, Plumstead.
[143] Goddard, 1882, Select Committee, p. 576.
[144] Mr. Hunter Rodwell, Q.C., M.P.
[145] 41 and 42 Vic. cap. 32.
[146] 41 Vic. cap. 16.
[147] P.P., vol. xxix.
[148] J. Simon, vol. ii., 1874.
CHAPTER V
1881-1890
THE census of 1881 showed that the population of London was 3,816,483
persons--an increase this time of well over half a million of persons
in the decade.
In the central parts of London, with the single exception of
Clerkenwell, the resident population continued to decrease. In the
City, the decrease was nearly one-third; in the Strand nearly a fifth,
and the parish of St. George, Hanover Square, was now added to the list
of those on the decline.
In the East, in Whitechapel, Shoreditch, and St. George-in-the-East,
the population had declined, whilst in Bethnal Green the increase had
been at a much slower rate. But Mile-End-Old-Town, where there had
been a good extent of unbuilt-on ground, had added over 12,000 to its
population; and Poplar over 40,000.
In the North, with the single exception of St. Marylebone, all the
parishes showed increases; Hackney, the great increase of over 60,000,
and Islington the still larger one of nearly 70,000.
In the West, there were large increases in Paddington and Chelsea, in
Kensington an increase of over 42,000, and in Fulham over 48,000. In
the parishes nearer the centre--St. George, Hanover Square, St. James'
(Westminster), and Westminster, the population had decreased.
On the south side of the river, with the exception of the parishes of
St. Olave, and St. Saviour--both in Southwark, and near the City--every
parish or district showed an increase. Notably was this the case in
Camberwell, where the increase was 75,000, and most remarkable of all,
Wandsworth, where the huge increase of over 85,000 persons was recorded.
Thus the movements of population were shown by this census of 1881 to
be very much on the same lines as those in 1871--a diminution in the
central parts, and increases of various magnitudes in the outer parts.
Interesting information was once more given as regarded the constituent
parts of the population.
It was shown that of the residents in London in 1881, the proportion
of persons born in London was practically the same as in 1871. Of
every 1,000 inhabitants in London, 628 were born in London, 308 in the
rest of England and Wales, 13 in Scotland, and 21 in Ireland--the rest
elsewhere.
The flow of people from the country to London was thus continuing at
much the same rate, and the metropolis was still being fed with labour
at the expense of the agricultural districts.[149]
"A contingent untrained in the pursuits of town life" was thus annually
thrown upon the labour market of London. But they imported a fresh
strain of healthy country people into the constituent elements of the
town population, and helped to stay part of the deterioration which
necessarily ensued from the insanitary conditions of life in London.
As to the causes of the shifting of the population in London, the same
story continued to be told by the Medical Officers of Health.
Thus the Medical Officer of Health for the Strand wrote (1882-3):--
"The material decrease in population is largely connected with the
gradual transition of houses from residences into business premises,
the construction of new and wider thoroughfares, and the erection of
public buildings, combined with the resulting consequence inevitably
associated with such changes, a considerable augmentation in the rental
or annual value of house property."
In St. James' (1882)--
"The large decrease of population (3,754 in last decade), coupled
with the fact that the rateable value still has an upward tendency,
clearly shows that the character of the parish is undergoing rapid
change--offices, warehouses, and clubs taking the place of residences
as the centre of trade continues to increase and move westward, and
greater facilities are afforded for business men to live in the
suburbs."
Some of the Medical Officers of Health were perturbed by the class of
persons coming into their district. Thus the Medical Officer of Health
for Whitechapel drew attention to the fact that of the 70,435 people
in his parish no fewer than 9,660 were foreigners, mostly Russian
and Polish Jews. Others of them were feeling anxious under the ever
increasing numbers.
The Medical Officer of Health for Paddington wrote (1881):--
"Occupying, as the population of Paddington does, a limited area with
definite boundaries which do not admit of extension, a continually
increasing population can only mean a continually increasing complexity
of the problems of sanitation."
Upon one most interesting point as regarded the influx of population
into London the Medical Officer of Health for Lambeth threw some
valuable light.[150]
"The evil of overcrowding is aggravated by causes which derive their
origin from the effects of that condition itself. A lowered standard
of health, always the accompaniment of close building, is a factor in
the further increase of pressure in an already congested district.
An unsatisfied demand in the labour market for physical strength is
a necessary outcome of that quality in the district affected. Muscle
and bone in such a locality is at a premium, and that which cannot
be supplied in its full development from within must be sought and
obtained from without."
"Here, then, is a vicious circle of concurrent cause and effect.
Overcrowding is the cause of physical weakness: physical weakness
results in an unsatisfied demand in the labour market: the unsatisfied
demand is the cause of an influx from without: again that influx
results in overcrowding."
Once, then, that the influx of the physically strong began to
diminish--the element which had contributed most to the maintenance
of the physical vigour and health of the population of London--it
was evident that deterioration would ensue, and the only means of
counteracting that result was to improve to the utmost possible the
sanitary conditions in which the people lived.
The census of 1881 is remarkable as being the last to show an increase
of country-born immigrants into London. That tide was soon to begin to
ebb.
The immigrants, however, were far from being all of a desirable
character.
The Medical Officer of Health for Camberwell pointed this out:--
"A considerable percentage of our population is composed of persons
whose natural tendency is to grovel--beggars, thieves, prostitutes,
drunkards, persons of feeble intelligence, persons of lazy and
improvident habits, and persons who (like too many of the poor) marry
or cohabit prematurely and procreate large families for which they are
totally unable to provide; and such persons gravitate from all quarters
to large towns and there accumulate.... A large town like London will
always attract undesirable residents."
With the increasing population the number of houses in the metropolis
increased also.
From 418,802 inhabited houses in 1871 the number had gone up to 488,116
in 1881, and the same tale was told as to the crowding of houses on the
land as in previous years.
The Medical Officer of Health for Bethnal Green (1880) stated that
in his parish most of the available ground was already fully built
over. The Great Eastern Railway Company, the School Board for London,
and the Metropolitan Board of Works, were largely demolishing small
house property. "If this sort of thing goes on much longer," he
wrote, "it looks very much as if London in a few years would become a
huge agglomeration of Board Schools, intersected by railways and new
streets."
The correct record of the population enabled once more an accurate
death-rate to be calculated. The death-rate, which had been 24·6 per
1,000 in 1871, had fallen to 21·3 in 1881.
That was most gratifying testimony to the good results following the
sanitary work carried out, under many difficulties, in London, and an
encouragement to perseverance.
The vital subject of the housing of the huge masses of the people of
London was, during all the earlier years of this decade of 1881-90,
uppermost in the minds of those who were solicitous for their welfare.
The Act of 1879 had done but little to help to a solution of the
tremendous problem.
A short experience of it, and of "Cross's" Housing Act, had shown
that instead of "owners" being visited with heavy penalties for their
iniquities, they were being actually rewarded. In fact, they secured
under these Acts not only a full, but an inordinately high compensation
for their property--regardless of its infamous condition--and the
ratepayers of London were mulcted in large sums to pay them for it.
"I desire," said the Medical Officer of Health for Hackney in 1883, "to
express a very strong opinion that it is most unfair to the ratepayers
that they should be compelled to pay for uninhabitable property which
has been allowed by the owners to get into a dilapidated state for want
of substantial repairs such as cannot be required under the Nuisances
Removal Acts...."
The first scheme which was initiated by the Metropolitan Board in 1875
was only completed at a net cost of £151,763, which sum had to be borne
by the ratepayers of London; though why they should have been made to
pay for the "owners" neglect which had led to the evil conditions of
his property is not very clear, except that Parliament willed it so.
By 1882 the total number of insanitary areas dealt with by the
Metropolitan Board, or in process of being dealt with, was fourteen.
The houses in these areas had been inhabited by 20,335 persons in 5,555
separate holdings, 3,349 of which consisted of one room only.[151]
They were acquired by the Board at a cost of £1,661,000. Parliament
had imposed upon the Board the obligation to provide accommodation
for at least as many persons of the working classes as were displaced
by the destruction of the houses on these areas. As the Board were
not empowered to undertake the building of the houses in which to
re-accommodate the displaced persons, the sites, after having been
cleared, had to be sold to persons or companies, who were put under the
obligation to erect workmen's dwellings thereon; but inasmuch as the
land had been bought at its value for commercial purpose, which was
far higher than its value for residential houses, this Parliamentary
obligation entailed upon the Metropolitan Board, and through them upon
the ratepayers of London, an enormous loss.
The Goulston Street scheme in Whitechapel, for instance, was acquired
at a cost of £371,600. When sold, under the conditions imposed by
Parliament, it realised only £87,600; and the Whitecross Street scheme
(in St. Luke's), which cost £391,000, when sold realised £76,350.
The whole of the transactions, so far, resulted in a net loss to the
Metropolitan Board, or in other words, a net charge upon the ratepayers
of London of over £1,100,000.
As Mr. Chamberlain described the result, in an article he contributed
to the _Fortnightly Review_ of December, 1883:--
"Torrens' and Cross' Housing Acts are tainted and paralysed by the
incurable timidity with which Parliament ... is accustomed to deal with
the sacred rights of property....
"The individual wrong-doer is to remain unpunished--retribution for his
sins is to be exacted from the whole community."
The enormous cost of carrying the Acts into effect stayed the hand of
the Metropolitan Board, while the length of time, stretching out into
years, required for the various proceedings, militated against the
success of the schemes so far as providing residences for the displaced
people.
An example of the working of the Act was described in 1883 by the Rev.
S. A. Barnett.[152]
"In 1876 the dwellings of 4,000 persons in this parish (Whitechapel)
were condemned as uninhabitable, and the official scheme for their
demolition and reconstruction was prepared. During the next four years
the 'scheme' ploughed its course through arbitration and compensation
with a puzzling slowness.
"It was indeed a 'killing slowness,' for, during all those years,
landlords whose claims had been settled spent nothing on further
repairs; tenants, expecting their compensation, put up with
any wretchedness; while the Vestry, looking to the approaching
reconstruction of the houses, let streets and footways fall to pieces.
It was not until 1880 that the needful demolition was seriously begun.
Since that date the houses of some thousands of the poor have been
destroyed."
And then he described the slowness of the reconstruction, and added:--
"Such is the seven years' history of the Artizans' Dwellings Act in a
parish under the rule of the Metropolitan Board of Works."
He expressed his opinion that the prime source of the evil was not in
the law, but in the local administration; but the complications of
ownership, the endless legal difficulties and formalities, the numerous
arbitrations, necessarily consumed years of time before the land could
be cleared for building, and then the actual building of the new houses
was by no means rapid.
The mode of procedure was attended with such difficulties and
disadvantages, and the administration of the Acts so clogged, that a
Select Committee of the House of Commons was appointed and sat in 1881,
and again in 1882, to inquire into the causes of the want of success,
and to consider in what way the law might be further amended so as to
make it really workable.
The condition imposed as to re-housing, and which was so rigorously
insisted on, did not by any means achieve the desired result.
According to Mr. Lyulph Stanley[153] in 1884: "Not one single person
of all the poor displaced in the carrying out of the Gray's Inn Road
improvement, powers for which were obtained in 1877, had been re-housed
by the Board."
The Medical Officer of Health for Whitechapel, in his evidence in 1881,
also showed that many of those in the houses which were to be pulled
down were not working men at all.
"Many of the people do not come into the Whitechapel District for the
purpose of getting employment. They have other motives; they come from
all parts of the country; a great many are tramps, and come up for the
purpose of begging, some for stealing, and some to obtain the advantage
of the charities which exist in London, and many of them to get out of
the way and hide themselves."
By this time, moreover, the possibilities of getting accommodation
further afield was beginning to come into view.
"With the facilities for coming by the early trains and the various
tramways that we have now at a cheap rate, the rents of many of the
inhabitants of Whitechapel would not be increased by moving from it."
That the obligation to re-house was imposed alone upon the public
authorities and upon railway companies was rather inequitable. In
many districts the destruction of houses, and the unhousing of the
inhabitants, was carried out on a far larger scale by private owners,
and no such obligation was imposed upon them. The policy, therefore,
was decidedly onesided, and was very costly to the ratepayer who was in
no way responsible for the proceedings of the private house-owner who
had caused all the trouble.
The Committee reported in June, 1882. They expressed their opinion
that--
"Nothing would contribute more to the social, moral, and physical
improvement of a certain portion of the working classes than the
improvement of the houses and places in which they live."
They stated that "very great hardship would often follow if the
provision for the replacement in or near the area of displacement were
wholly done away with."
"The special calling of many of the work people, the hours of their
work, the employment of their children, the maintenance of their home
life, the economy of living together in a family, the cheapness of food
owing to the nearness of the great evening markets, &c., render it very
desirable that a large portion should be enabled to re-house themselves
in or near their old houses of living, and if no fresh dwellings be
provided the evils of overcrowding will at once increase.
* * * * *
"Still, it is equally true that these observations do not apply to the
whole population. Many without any special calling may live in one
place as well as another. The facilities of transit recently offered by
cheap trains, by boats, by tramways, &c., have enabled many to live in
the suburbs who can do so consistently with their calling."
"Your Committee are of opinion that the existing law, which requires
that the improvement scheme shall provide for the accommodation of, _at
the least, as many persons_ of the working class as may be displaced,
may be relaxed, and that the accommodation to be required should vary
from half to two-thirds."
As a matter of fact very few, if any, of the families thus dispossessed
returned for the purpose of occupying the new buildings.
Indeed one witness[154] said that--
"Neither the Peabody Trustees, nor--more or less--the other Artizans'
Dwellings Companies would take in the class of people who had been
displaced."
The Committee called attention to the importance of favouring in every
way facilities of transit between the metropolis and its suburbs by an
extension of cheap workmen's trains.
And they also recommended that--
"All existing sanitary legislation should be more fully enforced,
especially in those parts of the suburbs where buildings are so rapidly
springing up."
A Bill was at once introduced into Parliament, the object of which was
to lay down such rules for estimating the value of the premises to be
purchased as would prevent the owners of insanitary property obtaining
an undue price for it--"the intention of Parliament being that the
owner should not gain by having allowed his property to fall into an
insanitary state."
It was passed, and as an Act it further empowered the Secretary of
State, under certain circumstances, to dispense with the obligation
of re-housing the people to a greater extent than one-half of those
displaced.
Into the detailed intricacies of many of these Housing Acts it is
really useless to enter; and the enumeration of the details tends to
obscure the broad and essential features of the whole subject.
In the effort of the "owners" to repudiate the responsibility for their
or their predecessors' infamous neglect, and to shift the blame for the
appalling state of affairs on the middlemen and the occupiers; in the
effort of the middlemen to evade their responsibilities by availing
themselves of every obstructive device the law so lavishly placed
at their disposal, and of both of them to extort the utmost amount
of money they could for their disease-begetting, death-distributing
property; the unfortunate occupiers were the immediate sufferers and
victims, and a huge wrong and injury was inflicted upon the community.
It was mere tinkering with the subject to pass an Act removing some
petty technical difficulties for putting some previous and very limited
Act in force, and to diminish the expense and delay in carrying out the
Act.
It was farcical to amend the Standing Orders of Parliament, fixing
twenty instead of fifteen as the minimum number of houses in any one
parish which could be acquired by the Metropolitan Board without
preparing a re-housing scheme, as if that would revolutionise the
condition of the housing of the people of London, and yet something not
far short of revolution was required if the housing of the people was
to be reformed, and put on a proper sanitary basis.
It is manifest that what was being dealt with by these Acts was only a
fragment of the great housing question, and that such destruction of
insanitary buildings as could possibly be effected by these means would
amount to but a fraction of those unfit for human habitation in London,
and would not touch the thousands of inhabited houses in every parish
of London which were insanitary in varying degree, and dangerous to the
individual and public health. It is clear, too, that if the insanitary
conditions of the housing of the people were to be dealt with on a
large scale, and with success, measures must be taken to secure the
sanitary condition of the houses which such legislation did not touch.
Otherwise general improvement was impossible, and existing conditions
must continue indefinitely to flourish, and to produce their inevitable
and enormous crop of deadly evil.
How urgent was the need for reform in some parts of London may be
gauged from the description of the condition of things in Bethnal Green
in 1883, given by the Medical Officer of Health of the Parish:--
"The portions of the district I have examined include nearly 2,000
houses.
"I have visited and carefully examined almost every one of these
houses, and I must confess that a condition of things has been thereby
revealed to me of which I had no previous conception, for I do not
think I visited a single house without finding some grave sanitary
defect; in a very large number the walls of the staircases, passages,
and rooms are black with filth, the ceilings are rotten and bulging,
the walls damp and decayed, the roofs defective, and the ventilation
and lighting most imperfect.
"The dampness of the walls is in some instances due to defects in the
roof, but in many the moisture rises from the earth owing to the walls
being constructed without any damp-proof course....
"In almost every house I visited I found the yard, paving, and surface
drainage, in a more or less defective condition, a quantity of black
foetid mud having accumulated in places."
And all this was nearly thirty years after Bethnal Green had been
endowed with a local sanitary authority.
Returns given occasionally by the Medical Officers of Health revealed
the appalling state of insanitation in which people still lived;
streets where in nearly every house nuisances dangerous to health were
found to exist; a "Place" in St. Pancras where the death-rate in 1881
had been 57 per 1,000, or 2-1/2 times as much as that for London; a
"Place" in St. Marylebone with 22 six-roomed houses, where the births
were less in number than the deaths, and the existing population were
extinguishing themselves. And overcrowding had increased in many parts
of the metropolis, and some of the Medical Officers of Health had come
to regard it as inevitable and impossible to prevent.
The reports of the Select Committees of 1881 and 1882, and the outbreak
of cholera in Egypt in 1883 which awakened apprehensions of its spread
to England, quickened public interest in the sanitary condition of
the metropolis, evoked a stronger expression of public opinion upon
the existing evils, stirred up lethargic Vestries and District Boards
to some special show of activity, and awakened the Local Government
Board, and brought it into the field as an active inciter of the local
sanitary authorities to adequate efforts to improve the sanitary
condition of the people, and to grapple with the terrible problems of
insanitary dwellings, of overcrowding, and the consequent physical
misery and degradation of hundreds of thousands of the people.
The position of affairs had become clearer than it had ever been
before, and its magnitude and importance was beginning to be
appreciated, and the iniquities which were being allowed, and the evils
which were tolerated, were coming more into the light of day and were
being better understood and realised. Though in many ways there had
been progress and improvement, yet in many others, of the most vital
consequence, it was evident things were scarcely moving at all.
It was now manifest that at the rate the demolition of slums and
the re-housing of the people could be carried out, a very great
length of time must elapse; so great that the remedy must be of the
slowest, whilst, by itself, it would be wholly inadequate; and it was
beginning to be realised that many of the local authorities, instead of
administering the laws they were charged by Parliament to administer,
were even obstructing and opposing sanitary reforms.
Once again the alarm of cholera woke up the Vestries, and some of the
recorded results of such wakening are an illuminating exposure of the
normal state of inaction on their part, and of the chronic insanitary
condition of their parishes not revealed at other times.
In Westminster:--
"In anticipation of cholera a thorough inspection by a house-to-house
visitation through the whole of the united parishes has been
undertaken. Naturally many defects were found, and directions given as
to what was required. The work has been completed and I consider that
the parishes are now in a very satisfactory condition."
In Poplar, 2,114 houses were inspected, of which only 334 were found to
be in good order.
In Lambeth, six men were engaged temporarily for the purpose of a
special inspection.
"11,493 houses were visited; 5,594 required sanitary improvements....
In many houses several defects were reported, bringing up the total of
sanitary improvements to 12,014."
In Bermondsey, no fewer than 5,992 notices were issued for the
execution of sanitary works which were required.
The Sanitary Act of 1866 had enacted that--
"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."
But by many Vestries the duty had been either entirely neglected or
very imperfectly performed.
The Medical Officers of Health were unceasing in pressing upon their
employers the necessity of inspection.
"It is only by the constant inspection and re-inspection of property
inhabited by tenants of this class (tenement-houses) that the houses
can be kept in decent sanitary condition," wrote the Medical Officer of
Health for Bethnal Green.
"My opinion of the value of regular house-to-house inspection
throughout the year," wrote the Medical Officer of Health for Poplar,
"is more confirmed than ever, and that such is needed for the proper
sanitary supervision of the district."
"It is by constant inspection," wrote another Medical Officer of
Health, "that the Vestry can best do its duty in preserving the lives
and health of its parishioners."
"Facts are stubborn things," wrote the Medical Officer of Health for
St. Mary, Newington, after 28 years' sanitary work himself, "and they
clearly demonstrate the necessity for a continual supervision of the
dwellings of the poor (more especially) and for as constant an attack
on all removable insanitary conditions. This after all is the real work
to be done."
But the Vestries and District Boards paid little heed to this advice.
Naturally, inspection was not welcome to sanitary defaulters or
misdoers; naturally, the light of the sanitary policeman's lantern
into the dark places of slum-owners and 'house-knackers' was resented.
It was an invasion of the rights of property, of the privacy of an
Englishman's home, even if he did not live in that home himself, but
let it to somebody else to live in. "Why should not a man do as he
liked with his own?"
And so, as inspection was, from the house "owners'" point of view,
an unpopular thing, too much money was not spent by Vestries upon
Sanitary Inspectors' salaries, and even in the best inspected parishes
or districts the portion inspected was small indeed compared with the
whole of the parish or district. How much was left undone, and left
undone for years, was proved over and over again by whole areas being
represented by their Medical Officers of Health as insanitary, or by
their having to shut up houses as unfit for human habitation.
The attempt made by Parliament in 1866--in the scheme embodied in the
35th Section of the Sanitary Act--to provide a remedy for overcrowding,
and to secure the maintenance of a moderate standard of cleanliness
and sanitation in the tenement-houses, had been an excellent one; and
Parliament improved the scheme in 1874 by extending its scope. Almost
the whole of the existing evils lay in these tenement-houses, for it
was there where the great mass of the disease, filth, and misery of
London was to be found, and there where the greatest overcrowding, and
the deepest moral and physical degradation existed.
But with the few exceptions already described practically no use had
been made of the powers.
"Vested rights in filth and dirt" had still too large a representation
upon, and too powerful a grip of the local sanitary authorities for any
action to be adopted which would entail trouble upon the possessors of
those rights.
Some Vestries, for form's sake, had made regulations but never put them
in force. A few had tentatively put them in force, and promptly dropped
them. A large proportion of them did not take even that much trouble,
but simply ignored them altogether; and so, some seventeen years after
the Act was passed, the whole scheme had ceased to be operative, and
was in complete abeyance.
In December, 1883, the Local Government Board, having realised the
gravity of the situation, endeavoured to get the Vestries and District
Boards to take action, but the Local Government Board could not compel
them to make such regulations, as there was no power of compulsion, and
there was no penalty for refusal to enforce or even to make them.[155]
The Vestries and District Boards were, in fact, masters of the
situation, and could act or not act, just as they pleased--and most of
them did not act.
Various were the excuses made by the Vestries for doing nothing.
The feeling which prevailed in the Vestry of Clerkenwell was that--
"The regulations generally were of such an inquisitorial and
troublesome character that they were unsuited to an Englishman's home.
For instance, it was shown that in some cases even clergymen occupied
lodgings which would be reached by these regulations."
And yet there were 4,700 houses in the parish to which such regulations
would have been applicable, and where their application would have been
of the utmost benefit to thousands of families. And from 1866 up to
1884 this power might have been, but was not used.
The Vestry of Bethnal Green was--
"Unanimously of opinion that it was unnecessary to make the
regulations, and considered the existing powers sufficient."
The Vestry of St. George-in-the-East resolved--
"That whilst fully recognising the necessity of continuing to carry out
with vigour the general sanitary laws, the Vestry did not consider it
advisable in the present depressed condition of trade in the parish to
incur the additional expense of enforcing special sanitary regulations
for houses let in lodgings" (estimated to number above 4,000).
In Westminster, the District Board resolved that no further steps
should be taken as regarded making or enforcing regulations, as the
Board--
"Already possessed ample powers under existing statutes to enable it
to deal promptly and effectively with such sanitary defects as the
proposed regulations are intended to remedy"--a contention which, if
true, threw discredit upon themselves, as there were thousands of
filthy and insanitary abodes in that district which were not dealt with
at all.
St. Pancras Vestry refused (1883) to make regulations, though its
Medical Officer of Health had made more than one appeal to them to do
so.
"I would beg to remind the Vestry that until proper regulations are
made and enforced in St. Pancras for this class of houses, the Vestry
have not exercised to their full extent the powers they possess
for improving the condition of their poorer parishioners, and that
the moral and physical welfare of those who are least able to help
themselves is a question which concerns the Vestry as much, if not
more, than any other it is their duty to consider."
And in the following year he wrote:--
"Upon the Metropolitan Sanitary Authorities rests a great
responsibility, for it is absolutely within their power to insist
upon all dwelling-houses being maintained in condition fit for human
habitation, and they may, within limits, prevent overcrowding, which is
no less disastrous to health than to morality.
"I have repeatedly recommended the Vestry to adopt regulations for
houses let in lodgings, and have pointed out the power they would then
possess for ensuring tenemented houses being maintained in proper
sanitary condition. I would desire, in my last report, to urge upon
them the further consideration of this subject."
There were doubtless difficulties in putting regulations such as
these in operation--as, indeed, there are in putting all laws in
operation--but two Vestries had put them most successfully in
operation, and therefore the difficulties were not so great as those
who were opposed to them insisted.
Some of the Vestries stated that they could equally well attain the
same results under the powers of the Nuisances Removal Acts; but that
was not the fact, for there were many and considerable advantages in
this form of procedure over the procedure prescribed in other Acts
relating to health and sanitation. Indeed, the Medical Officer of
Health for Fulham declared (in 1884) that--
"This section gave almost all the legal power that could be wished for
to place the dwellings of the poor in a proper sanitary condition."
And in the following year he wrote:--
"It will therefore in future be the fault of the Sanitary Authority if
the dwellings of the poor are not kept as they should be."
The Medical Officer of Health for Camberwell, discussing the general
aspect of the matter, wrote (1884):--
"I cannot help remarking on the feebleness which constantly spoils the
best intentioned sanitary legislation, and which is conspicuous in the
enactments relating to houses let in lodgings.
"The Local Government Board have declared that certain enactments are
in force, but they cannot compel the Vestries to frame any regulations
of their own, nor even can they compel Vestries to carry out and
enforce regulations which the Vestries have framed and the Board have
sanctioned.
"Now I am one of those who think that by the judicious regulation of
lodging-houses of certain kinds, and in certain localities, very much
good might be effected, and much advantage would accrue both to the
lodgers and to the public. But it is clear that it ought never to have
been left to individual Vestries in a place like London, to adopt or
not to adopt, the enactments referred to, simply according to their
pleasure, still more that they should never have been allowed to frame
inconsistent orders or regulations....
"The opportunity (of the Act of 1874) might have been seized, not for
giving an empty power to the Local Government Board, but for requiring
the Metropolitan Board of Works to frame suitable regulations for the
whole of the metropolis, which the Vestries might have been required
to enforce as they are required to enforce other provisions of the
Sanitary Acts."
A similar opinion was expressed by the District Board of St. Olave,
Southwark, which, after stating that it had been one of the first to
make regulations, it had been found unnecessary or impracticable to
enforce them, went on to say:--
"The fact of the enactment having been practically inoperative
throughout the metropolis, ... it was considered that it would be
unjust to enforce stringent regulations in the district, while in other
parts of the metropolis regulations might differ in principle, and be
neglected in practice: and what the Board wanted to see was a system of
sanitary regulations which should be strictly uniform throughout the
metropolis, and in which there should be no option on the part of local
authorities of enforcing or neglecting."
The explanation of this general inaction was the simple and obvious one
that on those bodies there were many whose interests ran counter to
the adoption of the Act, and what its adoption entailed; the sanitary
obligations, the annual lime-washings, &c., would entail expense;
they were not going to inflict the cost upon themselves or upon their
friends if they could avoid doing so. And as they could avoid it, the
great bulk of the local authorities deliberately ignored the remedy
devised by Parliament, and with most reprehensible callousness let the
evils go on and increase. But while they remained inactive, death and
disease did not.
Progress in sanitation was retarded also somewhat by other
circumstances.
The Medical Officers of Health were under no obligation to reside in
their district, and were at liberty to take private practice, and so
the whole of their time was not given to their public duty.[156]
But furthermore, they were in a state of dependence on their employers,
which naturally would often prevent their reporting fully upon sanitary
matters, though, happily, there appear to have been few who were
influenced by this consideration. And some of the Vestries and District
Boards did not hesitate to put pressure upon their Medical Officers
to prevent energy on their part. It was stated in evidence before the
Select Committee in 1882 that a Medical Officer would very soon "bring
a hornet's nest round his ears if he attempted to do his duty strictly
and independently."
Lord Shaftesbury declared, in 1884,[157] that he was quite certain
that--
"They would never have the laws of health properly given effect to,
until they asserted the independence of the Health Officers."
Nor were the Sanitary Inspectors as efficient as they might have been,
though there had been a great improvement in the class of man appointed.
The Chief Sanitary Inspector for Clerkenwell[158] reported:--
"The two men (in Clerkenwell) are not very active. It is the greatest
trouble I have to get the men to do their duty."
"The Sanitary Inspectors have not always shown as much zeal and
interest as they might have done, but lately they have improved.... It
is openly talked about in a good many districts in London that a system
of bribing goes on."[159]
But those who were energetic were also discouraged by the same pressure
which damped some of the energies of the Medical Officers of Health.
The Medical Officer of Health for Fulham wrote, in 1884:--
"So many are the vested interests that Sanitary Officers are obliged
in the performance of their duty to interfere with, that they must
be prepared to meet with injustice and opposition in almost all
directions. It is not at all surprising that the dwellings of the
poor in London should be in an insanitary condition seeing the great
obstacles public sanitary officers have in the performance of their
duties."
And yet there were many who did their work well, and who did much
to improve the conditions of living of those who were under their
care or charge; and did it in the face of many obstacles and much
discouragement, and of all the opposition that vested interests could
bring to bear against them.
Many of the Vestries and District Boards were not only not above
reproach, but were strongly to be condemned.
Sir Charles Dilke, then President of the Local Government Board,
speaking in 1883, said:--
"There were some parishes in London which had very zealously tried to
work the existing law, but, on the other hand, there were more parishes
the government of which was a flagrant scandal."
And Mr. Chamberlain, in an article in the _Fortnightly Review_ of
December, 1883, wrote:--
"In the metropolis, where the evil is greatest, the want of an
efficient and thoroughly representative municipal government stands in
the way of reform.
"The Vestries, often in the hands of cliques and chosen at elections
which excite no public interest, are largely composed of small
house-property owners, who cannot be expected to be enthusiastic in
putting the law in force against themselves."
And in the House of Commons, on the 4th of March, 1884, Sir Charles
Dilke stated that--
"In Clerkenwell, the two joint dictators of the parish, who had control
of the Vestry and its leading Committee, one of them being Chairman of
the principal Committee, were the largest owners in the whole district
of Clerkenwell of bad or doubtful property.... In Clerkenwell there
were fourteen house-farmers on the Vestry and twelve publicans who
seemed to work very much with them."
Nothing more decisively demonstrates the hostility of the Vestries to
the Act of 1866, indeed to all this branch of sanitary reform, than the
fact that they would not make adequate provision for the performance of
the sanitary duties imposed on them by divers Acts of Parliament.
A return compiled by the Medical Officer of Health for Bethnal Green in
1885, from information supplied him by the Medical Officers of Health
of thirty-eight Vestries, shows how the local sanitary authorities
crippled sanitary work by a wholly inadequate staff of Inspectors.
Number Number of
Parish or District. of Inhabitants to
Inspectors. each Inspector.
Greenwich 1 148,545
Newington 1 117,870
Mile-End-Old-Town 1 111,607
Lambeth 4 69,683
Poplar 2 86,671
Bermondsey 1 88,770
Shoreditch 2 62,754
St. Pancras 4 60,389
Paddington 2 55,567
Marylebone 3 50,294
Hackney 4 56,431
Bethnal Green 2-1/2 51,958
Camberwell 4 59,500
In the whole of the metropolis there were 103 Inspectors of
Nuisances--a rough average of one Inspector to about 40,000 of the
population.
How could it be expected that one Inspector could look after a town of
40,000 people?
Consistently, and, year after year, insistently, did the bulk of the
Medical Officers of Health complain of the lack of sufficient Sanitary
Inspectors, and point out the necessity for more Sanitary Inspectors;
some begged for them--but to nearly all these appeals the Vestries
turned a deaf ear.
Every now and then some incident occurred or some exposure was made
of some abominations of insanitation which were a revelation of the
extraordinary methods adopted by some men in utilising land for
building houses regardless of all sanitary consequences whatever to
others.
In the _Times_ of December 18, 1883, an article was published entitled
"A Curious Site for Industrial Dwellings."
"The things which are done in London under the shadow of legal right
are sometimes startling."
In Bethnal Green were two disused burial-grounds--"Globe Fields" and
"Peel Grove." Parliament authorised a railway line to be constructed
through "Globe Fields."
Foundations had to be made for the arches, and trenches had to be dug
in the burial-ground.
The Medical Officer of Health, on inspecting the place, found a
horrible condition of things. But with many precautions against loosing
some virulent epidemic in the locality, the human remains were removed
and re-interred elsewhere, and, it is stated, part of the ground was
built over.
Fuller particulars were given as to the Peel Grove Cemetery. The
ground, several acres in extent, had been leased by a pawnbroker
and started as a cemetery as a speculation. The statements made by
the writer in the _Times_ are specially illuminating. The cemetery
was opened about 1840 without consecration. The Bishop refused to
consecrate the ground as burials had taken place in it already, and
as some difficulties were consequently experienced, the speculating
pawnbroker acted, it is said, for some years as chaplain.
Ultimately, somehow or other, a chaplain was appointed.
About 20,000 persons had been buried in it, six deep, and packed as
closely as it was possible to pack them--not even earth between the
coffins, so anxious was the owner to economise space; large numbers who
died of cholera in 1849 having been buried there.
The last interment took place in September, 1855.
In 1883, the ground having served one financial purpose, it became
desirable to utilise it for another financial purpose, and the proposal
was made to erect houses upon it, and an agreement was entered into
with a builder for the erection of blocks of dwellings thereon. This
builder commenced excavations for the purpose of laying foundations,
and he had sent in drainage plans for a block of industrial dwellings
to the Vestry of Bethnal Green.
"Is such an obvious violation of the laws of health and decency to be
permitted?" said the writer.
"The Vestry are alive to the situation, and appear to be willing to do
all in their power to avert the catastrophe. But the law on the subject
is by no means clear.... It is little short of scandalous that such
doubts should exist. It is repugnant to every feeling of decency and
propriety to invite human beings to live in densely packed crowds over
a charnel-house."
The sanitary condition of any city or district must, as has already
been pointed out, depend very largely upon the system of local
government in existence at the time, and its efficiency or inefficiency.
This was specially true of this great metropolis with its millions of
people, its vast extent, its great diversities.
To all intents and purposes the main features of the local government
of London had undergone little change since 1855. There was still the
"City" with its special law, special area, and special government, to
which had been added the Port Sanitary Authority.
And there was the Central Authority, the Metropolitan Board of Works;
and there were the local sanitary authorities, the Vestries and
District Boards--and to them had been added the Metropolitan Asylums
Board, another indirectly elected central body. But there were very
manifest and prominent defects of the very gravest nature in this
system of London government, and in 1884 the Government of the day made
an effort to construct a better system.
Sir William Harcourt introduced the London Government Bill into the
House of Commons.
"While London grew," he said,[160] "the Corporation remained
stationary."
"The central body must deal with the large affairs, ... a central body
doing all the great things."
"The central principle of the Bill is this, that there should be some
common control over the Vestries which shall give them a uniform action
for the benefit of the whole community instead of leaving them as they
now are, independent of any such control."
"What is the great evil? It is that the metropolis is broken up into
fragments acting on a different principle, some doing ill, and those
who do well suffering in consequence of the ill-doings of their
neighbours."
"When the danger (of invasion of cholera) threatens a great metropolis
like London, all must desire and want a central authority which should
advise, which should assist, which should compel every part of the
community to take those measures of precaution which are necessary for
the safety of the whole. No such authority exists at this time.
"If a Vestry refuses to make sanitary bye-laws, or to carry out a
proper system of sanitary inspection, you are absolutely powerless
to compel them to do so. A single parish may become a plague-spot
in London from which disease may be spread all around, and the
Metropolitan Authority have no authority to make the parish do as it
ought to do."
Mr. Gladstone said[161]:--
"The local government of London is, or, if it is not, it certainly
ought to be, the crown of all our local and municipal institutions.
"The principle of unity (of London) has already been established under
the pressure of necessity as a matter which could not be resisted. It
has been established in the Metropolitan Board of Works.... There can
be no doubt we have established a principle of unity, and that we have
found it satisfactory.
"The supply of water and the supply of gas ... two of the most
elementary among the purposes of municipal government, have been
handed over to private Corporations for the purpose of private profit
because you have not chosen to create a complete municipality for the
metropolis.
"And that is not all.
"The defects of the present system are admitted.... Surely if there
are these great and intolerable defects they ought to be remedied by
the action of some genuine popular local authority. But we have got no
genuine popular local authority....
"London, large as it is, is a natural unit--united by common features,
united by common approximation, by common neighbourhood, by common
dangers--depending upon common supplies, having common wants and common
conveniences.
"... Unity of Government in the metropolis is the only method on which
we can proceed for producing municipal reform."
The Bill was strongly opposed in Parliament, and was withdrawn at
a late period of the Session, "but its introduction and discussion
had done much to awaken interest and mature opinion on the question
of the practicability of the government of London by a single
municipality."[162]
Up to this time, though overcrowding had occupied so prominent a
position in the great health problem of London, no returns of the
amount of overcrowding actually existing had been obtained, nor had
any estimate even been attempted. The reports of the Medical Officers
of Health showed in many graphic descriptions that overcrowding was
prevalent in every part of London--more acutely so in some districts
than in others--but as to the amount no information was available.
The first reliable figures over a large area--a large central district
of London--were collected by Mr. T. Marchant Williams, Inspector of
Schools for the London School Board, and published in the _Times_ of
February 22, 1884.
He wrote giving some of the results of his recent investigations into
the social conditions of the people residing in his district.
"My sole desire," he wrote, "is to record facts. It will be my
endeavour to show that these facts are sufficiently typical or
representative of the social condition of the elementary school
population of London to serve as a trustworthy basis for a fairly
accurate estimate of the stupendous difficulties the School Board for
London has to contend with."
"The Division of Finsbury includes the following parishes:--
(1) St. Giles'-in-the-Fields { The whole population in
{ St. George-the-Martyr { 1881 was 503,851; number
(2) { St. Andrew, Holborn { of children of school age,
Clerkenwell { 3-13 == 91,128, 95 per
St. Luke { cent. of whom have been
Stoke Newington { scheduled by the Officers
Islington { of the School Board."
(1) In St. Giles'-in-the-Fields there were 9 efficient elementary
schools, 4 churches, 6 chapels, 102 public-houses, 27 milk shops.
He gave the number of families scheduled for elementary school purposes
residing _in more than two rooms_ as 382, which represents about 14
per cent. of the whole number of scheduled families.
28 per cent. of the families lived each in 2 rooms only,
and 58 " " " " " 1 room only.
(2) In the parishes of Bloomsbury, St. George-the-Martyr, St. Andrew,
Holborn, and part of St. Giles'.
The number of families scheduled for elementary school purposes
residing _in more than two rooms_ was 395, which is about 10 per cent.
of the whole number of scheduled families.
About 45 per cent. lived in 2 rooms only.
" " " " 1 room only.
(3) Lower Division of Clerkenwell and St. Luke's.
The number of families scheduled for elementary school purposes
residing _in more than two rooms_ was 3,886, which is about 37 per
cent. of the whole number of scheduled families.
33 per cent. lived in 2 rooms only.
30 " " 1 room only.
He gave similar information as regarded three other sub-districts, and
then went on:--
"The foregoing statistics show that there were at the beginning of the
present year, in the Finsbury division--
"10,490 families consisting of 41,044 persons, living, each, in _one_
room only, and 17,210 families consisting of 82,215 persons, living,
each, in _two_ rooms only, a total of 123,259 persons living in one or
two rooms.
"For every efficient elementary school in the division there are more
than 8 public-houses, for there are in the division 111 efficient
schools, while the public-houses number 912; the grocers' shops, 682;
bakers' shops, 409; dairies, 350; coffee shops, 427; churches, 74;
chapels, 32; mission rooms, 47; registered lodging-houses, 101."
And then he summarised his figures for the City Division:
Number of children of school age == 6,986
" " churches and chapels == 71
" " public-houses == 408
Number of families living, each, _in more than two rooms_ was 1,972,
which is about 33 per cent. of the scheduled families.
About 43 per cent. live, each, in 2 rooms only, and
nearly 24 " " " 1 room only.
The _Times_ commented, in a leading article, on this information.
"Everywhere, and by all sections not immediately affected, the scandal
and almost the absurdity of the brutish degradation of an enormous
number of habitations in the greatest and most opulent city in the
world are thoroughly recognised.... Habits of life such as lodgings
of the kind now common among London workmen foster and encourage are
a positive danger to the whole of society. Only by one rank is the
question treated as of no pressing importance. That happens to be the
body of persons directly interested.
"... No more instructive contribution has been offered towards a clear
perception of the dimensions of the problem than those given by Mr.
Marchant Williams....
"Incidentally the census, by the School Board, of the classes it was
founded to teach, contains the precise materials for informing the
public of the extent of the overcrowding which has been shocking the
moral sense of the nation. Formerly, when instances of overcrowding
were cited, it might have been fancied they were exceptions or
exaggerations. Mr. Williams' report allows of no possibility of a doubt.
* * * * *
"The Finsbury educational division contained, in 1881, a population
of 503,851. Of these, 41,044 live in single rooms, at an average
rate of four a room; 82,215 occupy suites of two rooms, at a rate
exceeding four persons and three-quarters for each. For a family of
two to monopolise a whole room is a luxury, and to possess two rooms
is a marvel. Some rooms are made to hold ten, and many to hold six or
seven....
"A home partakes of the life of the dwellers in it. They mould and
incorporate it with their being, and it helps to mould and fashion
them. The 123,000 owners of an undivided and indivisible quarter of
a hovel in Finsbury, and the other hundreds of thousands in like
case elsewhere in the town, are curtailed of the essential parts of
the rights of humanity by the miserable accident that their locality
refuses them reasonable standing room. Family life is an impossibility
for a whole family collected in the single room 12 to 15 feet by 6
to 10. In a multitude of instances those tenanting a single room are
several families, not one. They have to distribute the floor by square
inches, and grow up with less regard to decency than a cat or a dog."
And in another letter written a few days later, Mr. Marchant Williams
added:--
"It was only the other day that I discovered in one of these streets
(near Fitzroy Square) a house containing nine rooms, each of which
accommodates on an average eight persons!
"... The rents in the most crowded parts of my district amount as a
rule to about a third or fourth of the maximum wages earned by the
tenants."
He mentions a case, a riveter:--
"He had recently abandoned the room in which he, his wife, and six
children had lived for two years."
"I have more than once when going my rounds been accosted by a landlord
in a state of abject terror, lest I might be arranging to rob him of
some of his victims. The landlord's defence invariably is that he is
obliged to levy high rents because the tenants frequently run away by
night and leave no trace behind them of their whereabouts."
More and more did the feeling grow that something must be done to
ameliorate the conditions under which the working classes and poorer
people were living, and on the 22nd of February, the Marquess of
Salisbury, in the House of Lords, moved in an Address to Her Majesty
for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the housing
of the working classes.[163]
"The attention of persons of every class, of every creed, and school of
politics, has been turned to this question," he said.
H.R.H. the Prince of Wales said:--
"I feel convinced that your lordships, in common with all classes of
Her Majesty's subjects, will be gratified to learn that the noble
Marquess has asked for a searching inquiry into this great and
momentous question with regard to the housing and the amelioration of
the dwellings of the poor and of the working classes, and that Her
Majesty's Government have decided to issue a Royal Commission for that
purpose.
"As your Lordships know I take the keenest and liveliest interest in
this question.
"I can assure you, my Lords, that I am deeply flattered at having been
appointed a member of this Royal Commission."
The Government accepted the motion, and a Royal Commission was
forthwith appointed and immediately began its work.
While the great question of housing and overcrowding was under
discussion and was being investigated, and efforts being made to deal
with it, various other matters forming part of the general sanitary
evolution of London were attracting attention, or gradually developing.
In October, 1882, the limits of the Port of London were extended
seawards, and in the following year the powers of the Port Sanitary
Authority were extended.[164] Most of the powers of an Urban Sanitary
Authority under the Public Health Act of 1875 were conferred upon
it, and the Medical Officer of Health reported that he believed the
legal powers of the Authority would be found "amply sufficient for the
sanitary control and supervision of the Port."
The Authority extended its attention now to the inspection of imported
meat. It was a matter of the first importance to watch carefully the
food supply of the people. The trade of frozen meat had been rapidly
growing, and from time to time large quantities arrived in unsound
condition, which it was most necessary should be prevented going on to
the market.
In connection with another very important article of food--namely,
milk--action was also taken.
The effect of the order made in 1879 by the Privy Council, as to
dairies, cowsheds, and milkshops, had been very beneficial, and a
marked change for the better in the conditions under which the milk
trade was conducted was the result. That Order was revoked in 1885 by
the Privy Council, and a new one passed extending the powers of local
authorities in the matter, and prescribing further precautions to
secure the sanitary condition of all dairies and cowsheds, and for the
protection of milk against infection or contamination.
Another beneficial sanitary improvement was effected in 1883, by
the extension of the benefits of the infectious hospitals of the
Metropolitan Asylums Board.
The Royal Commission on Fever and Smallpox Hospitals, in 1882,
stated that in their opinion it was of paramount importance that the
hospitals of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, to which so many classes
of persons might become liable to be removed, should be made as little
unattractive as the nature of the case admitted, and they considered
that the pauper character which attached to the hospitals of the Board,
and which rendered them repulsive to all but the indigent, would
disappear if the distinction between paupers and non-paupers were
abolished.
This suggestion was partially given effect to by the Diseases
Prevention (Metropolis) Act of 1883, which enacted that, subject to
certain arrangements, the admission of any person suffering from
infectious disease into any hospital provided by the Metropolitan
Asylums Board, or the maintenance of any such person therein, should
not be considered to be parochial relief.
The plan was only partly successful, but as years went on the hospitals
were increasingly used by persons other than those of the legally
recognised pauper class.
In the years 1884 and 1885 the hospitals demonstrated their great
utility. There was a severe epidemic of smallpox. From its outbreak in
1884, to its subsidence in the autumn of 1885, no less a number than
12,425 patients passed through the hospitals, hospital ships, and camps
of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, and the arrangements for the removal
to hospital of cases of infectious disease, from the whole of the
metropolis, worked smoothly and satisfactorily.
The gain to the community in thus removing infectious cases from its
midst was immeasurable.[165]
In 1885 the Report of the Royal Commission which had been inquiring
into the Housing of the Working Classes was published. It presented
to the general public a mass of facts of which previously they had
taken but little heed, and the vast importance of which they had
utterly failed to realise; and it brought into the forefront of social
questions the vital question of the public health, and the imperative
necessity of remedying evils which were eating into the very vitals of
the community.
The Royal Commissioners depicted the widely prevalent and dreadful
overcrowding which existed, and which in certain localities was
becoming more serious than ever, and they gave numerous instances of
it. They described the fearsome condition of tenement-houses, and of
the people living therein--the inadequacy of the water supply--the
defective sanitary accommodation in houses--the lack of air space--the
absence of ventilation--the use of cellars and underground rooms as
dwelling-places--the limitless filth.
And they pointed out the dreadful results of this condition of
things--physical, moral, and material--the prevalence of disease,
the heavy death-rate, the destruction of bodily health, the dreadful
immorality resulting from overcrowding, the degradation to which masses
were doomed, the incitement to drink, and depravity, and crime. They
declared that:--
"Even statistics of actual disease consequent on overcrowding would not
convey the whole truth as to the loss of health caused by it to the
labouring classes....
"Nothing stronger could be said in describing the effect of
overcrowding than that it is even more destructive to general health
than conducive to the spread of epidemic and contagious diseases."
And they pointed out that there was much legislation designed to meet
these evils, yet that the existing laws were not put in force, some of
them having remained a dead letter from the date when they first found
place in the statute book.
And they investigated the causes of many of these things--and they
assigned the blame for some of them--and they passed in review the
conduct of the local governing authorities--and they recapitulated
the existing laws upon these various matters, and suggested certain
alterations, and made various valuable recommendations.
There was, in fact, placed on record a calm, unimpassioned, and
unexaggerated statement of the evils which masses of the population
of the great capital were enduring in the last quarter of the highly
civilised and enlightened nineteenth century.
It was a thorough confirmation of all the reports of the Medical
Officers of Health, and of the facts set out, and pressed by them, year
after year, upon the attention of the Vestries and District Boards, and
which had so persistently been ignored by so many of those authorities.
The Commissioners classified the--
"Unquestioned causes which produced the overcrowding and the generally
lamentable condition of the homes of the labouring classes."
The first was--
"The poverty of the inhabitants of the poorest quarters, or in other
words the relation borne by the wages they received to the rent they
had to pay."
The next was the demolition, for various reasons, of houses inhabited
by the working classes and poorer people, and the consequent
displacement of the people.
The third was the relation between the owners of property upon which
the dwellings of the poor stood, and the tenants of those dwellings.
"The other great remaining cause of the evil was the remissness of
local authorities."
From their very origin, these "authorities" were unsatisfactory
instruments for the performance of the public duties.
"But little interest was, as a rule, taken in the election of vestrymen
by the inhabitants," instances having been known of vestrymen in
populous parishes being returned by two votes, on a show of hands.
Elsewhere it is reported they elected each other.
The Commissioners referred to the "supineness" of many of these
metropolitan local authorities in sanitary matters, and to the
"laxity of administration of some of them." And still worse, to the
self-interested action of vestrymen.
Thus on the Vestry of Clerkenwell, they said, were--
"Thirteen or fourteen persons who are interested in bad or doubtful
property, including several 'middlemen'; and ten publicans who, with
the exception of one or two, had the reputation of working with the
party who trade in insanitary property; and accordingly this party
commands a working majority on the Vestry."
"It is not surprising to find that the Sanitary Inspectors whose
tenure of office and salary is subject to such a body should show
indisposition to activity."
"The state of the homes of the working classes in Clerkenwell, the
overcrowding, and other evils, which act and react on one another, must
be attributed in a large measure to the default of the responsible
local authority."
"Clerkenwell does not stand alone: from various parts of London the
same complaints are heard of insanitary property being owned by members
of the Vestries and District Boards, and of sanitary inspection being
inefficiently done, because many of the persons whose duty it is to
see that a better state of things should exist, are those who are
interested in keeping things as they are."
And in another part of their report they wrote:--
"It is evident that the remedies which legislation has provided for
sanitary evils have been imperfectly applied in the metropolis, and
that this failure has been due to negligence in many cases of the
existing local authorities."
The part of the evidence which was of greatest value and interest was
that which laid bare the responsibility for the dreadful conditions
under which such masses of the people lived.
Apart from the measure of responsibility which fell on Parliament
itself, and it was no light one, it is clear that those conditions were
due (1) in part to the various classes of "owners," (2) in part to the
people themselves, and (3) in part to the local authorities.
As regarded _owners_, there were first the ground landlords, who
themselves, or whose predecessors had leased their land for building
purposes, or with houses thereon to a tenant.
It would appear clear that these ground landlords or freeholders, or
lessors, had power to enforce against the person who held directly from
them the repairing clauses of leases. But the existing condition of
things showed that they did not do so.
One of the witnesses, giving evidence about a particular property,
said:--
"By the terms of even the old leases the tenant was supposed to keep
the place in proper repair.... The property has gradually deteriorated
in consequence of neglect."
And Lord Salisbury, who asked:--
"I suppose it is practically impossible for the ground landlord to see
that the conditions are kept?"
Was told in reply:--
"The only way in which it is possible for him to do that is to keep a
very active supervision over his property.
"If that was done by ground landlords, and had always been done by
them, you would have personal supervision carried out by a sufficient
number of people to ensure the conditions being kept."
Any idea of property having its duties as well as its rights appears to
have been non-existent.
Next to the land-owner was the numerous and varied class of house
"owners," from the man who leased the land from the landlord and built
the house, or who had leased the house and had sub-leased it to some
one else. And often there were sub-lessees, until in some cases there
was a chain of persons holding different interests in the same house.
And there was the class of persons who take a house and break it up
into tenement-rooms, and who were known as "house-knackers," or house
jobbers, or house farmers, or as "middlemen," these last being defined
as any one who stands between the freeholder and the one who occupies.
Some interesting descriptions of some of these "middlemen" were given.
One of the largest in Clerkenwell was a Mr. Decimus Ball, and there was
also a Mr. Ross--both of whom were on the Vestry.
The witness stated that these men had neglected the houses, and in many
cases were very extortionate in their demands against the occupants.
Mr. Ball had many houses which were inhabited by families in single
rooms, but which up to a short time previously were inhabited by whole
families to a house.
Mr. Ball's profit is "perfectly enormous if he does not do any
repairs." And he made very few; and if the rent were not paid on the
Monday morning, he threatened to raise it.
Probably the most notorious "middleman" was a certain Mr. Flight.
"He must have been the owner of thousands and thousands of houses in
the metropolis." (18,000, it was said.)
"He owned property in every part of London, and the squalid nature of
that property, the wretched condition in which it has been kept, the
avoidance of all decent rules by which habitations are governed, was
something very fearful."
"Middlemen," it was stated, sometimes appeared to be making 150 per
cent. per annum, but they assert that repairs have to come out of that.
Repairs, however, were only executed once in three or four years, and
in the others they get their 150 per cent.
"If the house-farmers do no repairs for years the profits are large....
They collect their rents very sharply.
"The middleman makes the tenant pay an excessive rent because he
insists upon making an excessive profit."
The great work which the Commission did was in the enlightenment of
the public, and the material they afforded for the formation of public
opinion in the right direction. Subsequent experience showed that
the recommendations made--excellent and helpful as so many of them
were--did not by a long way cut deep enough to extirpate the more
serious evils.
"It is evident," wrote the Commissioners, "that the 35th Section of
the Sanitary Act of 1866 (dealing with tenement-houses) which contains
a remedy for some of the evils which have been described is likely to
remain a dead letter in many districts of the metropolis until some
improved means be devised for putting it into action." They recommended
that the local authorities who had not already made and enforced
bye-laws under the section "should proceed to do so."
But no compulsion was suggested to make them do so, or for the only
effective alternative, the provision of other machinery to act in their
default, and so the local authorities were in this matter allowed to
remain in their position of complete independence and to continue their
policy of inactivity--if not obstruction.
As to inspection, and the inadequacy of a sanitary staff, much evidence
had been given, but, they remarked:--
"It is evident that where work is performed according to the custom of
certain districts of the metropolis it really does not matter whether
the staff of inspectors be large or small."
They summed up their general view in the following passage:--
"Without entering upon questions of policy of far wider application
than the more immediate subject-matter of the present inquiry, Your
Majesty's Commissioners are clearly of opinion that there has been
failure in administration rather than in legislation, although the
latter is no doubt capable of improvement. What at the present time is
specially required is some motive power, and probably there can be no
stronger motive power than public opinion."
And with that view they recommended that inquiries should be held as
to the immediate sanitary requirements of different districts, and the
reports be presented to Parliament.
Public opinion, however, is hard to move, and usually slow in moving;
and when it has at last decided on definite action Parliament is slow
in giving effect to the decision, and, when Parliament at last acts,
the legislation itself is frequently defective. And so the outlook was
rather hopeless.
Various other more concrete amendments were, however, suggested in the
various Housing Acts to render them more effective for their purpose.
And, as a result, in the session of Parliament of 1885 a Bill was
introduced dealing with the "Housing of the Working Classes."
Lord Salisbury, in moving the second reading, said[166]:--
The Bill he introduced was to a certain extent "a compromise." "No
one need expect to find that it contains any magic formula which will
cure all the evils of which this House and the public have heard a
great deal, and there is nothing startling, sensational or extreme in
its provisions. We are hoping to cure these evils by slow and gradual
steps, by the application of remedies apparently not far-reaching
in their character, but still judiciously directed to the precise
difficulties which arose in each department of our inquiry."
The Bill duly passed (48 & 49 Vic. cap. 72).
Most of the reforms embodied in it were of a trifling character and
such as could have only the most limited and gradual effect.
This Act extended generally the operation of the Labouring Classes
Lodging Houses Acts of 1851 and 1867, and substituted the Metropolitan
Board of Works for the Vestries and District Boards as the authority
under the Act.
A really useful plan was authorised by it, namely, the sale, at a
fair market price, to the Metropolitan Board of certain prison sites
in London for housing purposes. And one other good thing done was
depriving the owner of insanitary premises, which had been pulled down
by order of the local authority, of the power to require the local
authority to purchase such premises.
But merely again to declare--
"That it shall be the duty of every local authority entrusted with the
laws relating to public health and local government to put in force the
powers with which they are invested so as to secure the proper sanitary
condition of all premises within the area under their control"--was
futile, considering that the authorities in question had steadily
ignored the same direction, made nineteen years previously, in the Act
of 1866.
Lord Salisbury wound up his speech with the following abnegation of
Parliamentary power:--
"We must not imagine that it is anything we can do in this House, or in
the House of Commons, that will remove all these evils. It must be done
by that stirring up of public opinion which these investigations cause;
it is to this that we must look for any real reform, it must be from
the people themselves, from the owners, builders, and occupiers, when
their attention is drawn to the enormous evils which past negligence
has caused, it is from them that the cure of the sanitary evils which
have so largely increased the death-rate must come."
Considering, however, the accumulated mass of evidence which had shown
beyond all question that it was the owners and builders who were mainly
responsible for those "enormous evils," and who were still hard at work
adding to them and perpetuating them, it was rather hopeless to expect
"the cure of the sanitary evils" to come from that quarter.
Unfortunately two general elections, and the heated discussion of great
political questions, threw even these great health questions into
the background, and not so much immediate benefit as was to be hoped
followed the inquiry of the Royal Commissioners.
It is an awful handicap to the welfare of a community, and of a nation,
when those who should take a principal share in the duty of raising
the physical, social, and moral condition of the people over whom they
can exercise influence, and who are more or less under their control,
not alone stand idly aside, but absolutely exploit the misery and
helplessness and ignorance of masses of the people.
The Imperial Government may make most excellent laws, but the physical
and sanitary welfare of the people cannot be secured by a local
governing authority alone, nor their moral and religious welfare by the
Churches alone.
There is a great sphere of life where those who stand in the relation
of land-owners or house-owners to tenants could exercise an enormous
influence for good, and where nobody else could exercise it so
effectually or so easily.
But the disaster has been that in the great metropolis--the greatest of
all cities--a vast proportion of those who ought to have been active
in using this influence, have never made the slightest effort to use
it, whilst others have used their position, and the dependence of the
people upon them, solely to wring from them the last farthing that
could be extracted.
And these were the men who made the loudest protests and outcry against
legislation and against administration which was to make them do that
which the vital interests of the community and of the State required to
be done.
The root of the evil connected with the housing of the people in London
lay with the disregard of "owners" for the condition of their tenants.
Many "owners" appeared to be under the impression that their investment
in house property was to be as free from trouble or labour as money
invested in the national funds is; and so long as they got the rent
they expected, they did not trouble themselves about the state of
the houses or of the people living therein. They were loth to spend
money on them, as that curtailed their income, and the argument was
constantly used that it was useless spending money to put the property
in order, when anything they did to it would be promptly destroyed.
And they cared not who were their tenants so long as a high rent was
obtainable from them.
Some declared that the people were so sunken, so degraded, so filthy,
and depraved, and destructive, that nothing they could do could secure
their property being kept in a sanitary or decent condition.
Doubtless in many districts and many cases the conduct of the tenants
was as bad as bad could be. As one of the Medical Officers of Health
wrote in 1883:--
"It must be borne in mind that many of the occupants of tenement
property are careless and filthy in their habits; and in addition are
very destructive; fittings put up one day are pulled down and destroyed
the next; ash-bin covers, closet doors, and even flooring boards, share
the same fate."
And many were the "owners" of various degree who endeavoured to justify
their neglect on this ground.
Were such an argument admitted, the owner could claim to be exonerated
from the duty of keeping his property in proper order, and the evil
conditions and consequences resulting from his neglect would go on
increasing indefinitely, until a state of things destructive to the
community was ultimately reached.
Viewed broadly, and impartially, there was much truth as regarded the
misconduct and uncleanliness of great numbers of tenants, but the
central fact was that the "owner" was the person mainly interested in,
and benefited by possession of the property, and therefore primarily
responsible for maintaining it in a condition which should not endanger
the health of the community.
If, through the neglect and indifference of his predecessors, the
property had fallen into a bad state, the consequences equitably fell
upon him, just as the consequences of any other bad investment by his
predecessor would have done. He had inherited something which was not
worth as much as he anticipated--that was all; but the consequences
must not be shifted on to the community, nor must his tenants be made
the victims.
And if he allowed his property to become a danger to his tenants, and
through them to the community at large, the community had an absolute
right to protect itself by insisting that he should be prevented from
so doing.
The only way in which, in the interests of the public, abuses can be
prevented is by holding the person responsible for them who has the
power of preventing them. And that was just what in this case the
"owners" did not like.
Building constituted an important part of the housing problem. The
Medical Officer of Health for Lambeth, in his report for 1887, gave
an interesting account of the process of building in London which
shows how even the amended Building Acts had failed to secure those
conditions of air and space which are essential for health.
"In proximity to the centres of business every available plot of garden
or recreation ground has been converted into building sites. Houses
constructed from materials of the poorest quality and by workmen
employed only for the cheapness of their labour, have been hurried into
occupation.
"The system of close building, at first confined in its application to
the consolidation of the inner zone, has been adopted in the outer, and
with the demand for shelter, which increases in a progressive ratio
with the growth of the population, the once open suburbs must ere long
become indistinguishable in the monotony of house row and pavement.
"The art of close building appears a progressive one. In its infancy,
twenty years ago, the art has now arrived at a stage nearly approaching
perfection. In the earlier examples the space allotted to garden land
was larger than that built on. Then the size of the two quantities
reached an equality--then the covered ground becomes a larger quantity
than the uncovered land, until the final stage of development is
attained when the extreme limit of encroachment permitted by the
Building Act is reached, and garden land is represented by a yard 100
superficial feet in area."
Extraordinary loopholes in the sanitary laws, moreover, were constantly
being discovered which almost neutralised the original enactment.
Thus the Medical Officer of Health for Camberwell remarked in his
report for 1888:--
"It has been long known to the Sanitary Committee that there has never
been any efficient supervision of the drainage and other sanitary
arrangements of houses in course of construction.... It is true that
every builder has been required before constructing his private drains
and connecting them with the public sewers, to send in a plan of his
proposed drainage for the sanction of the Surveyor. But there has been
no machinery by which builders could be compelled to carry out their
private works in accordance with the plans submitted, and to ensure
that the details of their works had been carried out in a workmanlike
or efficient manner. The inspections of houses even recently built have
shown that sanitary nuisances complained of have been largely due to
scandalous neglect of duty on the part of those concerned in carrying
out the drainage works, and that in most cases the plans sent in have
not accorded with the arrangements finally adopted."
Various, indeed, were matters connected with the public health which
unexpectedly came cropping up; sometimes matters thought to have been
disposed of but only partly so, sometimes, wholly new origins and
ramifications of insanitation.
Thus in 1886 the Medical Officer of Health for the south part of
Poplar District drew special attention to a grievance long previously
complained of and for many years endured.
"A greater scandal cannot well be shown in matters vital to health
than that in spite of abundant evidence of the magnitude of the evil,
thousands and tens of thousands of families living in houses, the rates
of which are payable by the landlords, may at any moment, without a
particle of fault of their own, be suddenly denied one of the first
necessaries of life--water--through the neglect and wilfulness of
others."
The main remedy open to the water companies to recover rates from
defaulting non-resident owners of tenement-houses was the simple
expedient of discontinuing the supply of water. This course was open
to a double objection--first, tenants who had paid their rent were
deprived of that for which they had constructively paid; and secondly,
a tenement-house deprived of water might speedily become a focus of
disease.
"That disease and death are directly traceable to this want," wrote the
Medical Officer of Health, "no one acquainted with sanitary work in
London can doubt. Take this instance. Water cut off, drains stopped,
opening up of ground and drains, removal of filth accumulations, horrid
stench, diphtheria, death.
"In Hanbury Place--having six houses--there was no water supply for
twenty-six days, and families numbering each seven, nine, two of six,
and others had to exist in May, 1885, with choked drains, yard flooded
with sewage, and no water--and all because of non-payment of rates by
the landlord."
In 1887 Parliament happily dealt with this evil, and by an Act passed
in that year--
"Water companies were prohibited from cutting off the water supply from
any dwelling-house for non-payment of water rate, if such rate were
payable by the owner and not the occupier of the premises...."
In the middle of this decade, too, anxiety revived, owing to the state
of the Thames, a matter which it was hoped had been finally disposed
of. The discharge of sewage at the new outfalls make the river in those
parts much what it had previously been in London.
A Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the subject. They
reported that they found a condition of things which they "must
denounce as a disgrace to the metropolis and to civilisation." They
said that in 1884 "the sewage water from the outfalls manifestly
reached London Bridge."
"At Greenwich Pier the water was very black, and the smell exceedingly
strong."
"At Woolwich the river for its whole width was black, putrid,
sewage--looking as if unmixed and unalloyed. The stench was
intolerable."
"We are of opinion that it is neither necessary nor justifiable to
discharge the sewage of the metropolis in its crude state into any part
of the Thames."
This evil was surmounted by the adoption by the Metropolitan Board
of Works of a system of treatment of the crude sewage. Chemical
precipitation was effected by adding to the sewage certain proportions
of lime and protosulphate of iron, and allowing it to remain for an
hour or two in settling tanks. The effluent water was let flow into the
river, and the sludge was carried down the river in barges and cast
into the sea.
The public interest evoked by the inquiries made by the Royal
Commissioners on Housing, and the publication of their Report,
certainly quickened the activity of many of the local authorities.
In several of the parishes and districts the Regulations under the
Sanitary Acts of 1866 and 1874 were being more readily adopted, and
being put into force on a slightly more extended scale; and in every
case it was reported that the results had been satisfactory, a great
improvement taking place in the houses which were registered.
A report of the Inspector of such houses, for Bermondsey, describes
this well:--
"108 were placed on Register by Vestry. The majority of these houses
are situated in the lowest and most densely populated parts of the
parish. They are occupied by the very poor, costermongers, dock
and waterside labourers, &c. They contain 509 rooms, occupied by
386 families, numbering 1,434 persons. 285 rooms were overcrowded.
With three exceptions the overcrowding has been abated. Previous to
registration the number in each house was 13, present average 9."
"The sanitary condition of the said houses has been greatly improved.
Staircases, &c., are now regularly swept and washed. In 85 houses the
walls have been stripped and whitewashed. Many of the walls had 15
layers of paper, thus hiding filth and harbouring vermin. Ventilation
in them is also improved. Many owners rendered much assistance."
Several inquiries of the sort suggested by the Royal Commissioners
were held in the course of the ensuing years and reports presented to
Parliament, but it is much to be doubted whether they had any effect
in so inciting public opinion as to make it insist on the recalcitrant
local authorities carrying the laws into effect.
Clerkenwell, Mile-End-Old-Town, Bethnal Green, and Rotherhithe, were
inquired into, and reported on. The tale was much the same as that set
forth time after time, and year after year, by various Medical Officers
of Health--want of adequate sanitary supervision, numerous neglects by
the Vestries, especially the neglect to make, or, if made, to enforce
Regulations under the Sanitary Acts of 1866 and 1874.
The initiative of dealing with the existing condition of things rested
with the Vestries. It was forcibly pointed out that complaints could
hardly be expected either from the owners of insanitary houses, on whom
the cost of the improvements would fall, or from tenants who are too
often indifferent to considerations of health and cleanliness, and who
in any case would fear to offend their landlords by complaining.
Rotherhithe came in for the strongest condemnation. Of it the
Commissioners reported:--
"It is, in fact, no exaggeration to say that the results of lax
administration abound in Rotherhithe, and especially in houses occupied
by poor persons."
The increase of the sanitary staff was recommended, but the obdurate
Vestry resolved not to increase it.
The absolute necessity of inspection was demonstrated every day of
the year to every Vestry and District Board in the metropolis by the
results of such exceedingly limited inspection as was carried out.
In St. Luke, in 1890, of 1,348 houses inspected 296 were found "in fair
sanitary condition."
In Hackney, in 1887, 5,213 were inspected; 3,620 of them were found
to be wanting in some sanitary requirement, or were so dirty as to
necessitate orders being served for whitewashing and cleaning. In one
street 111 houses were inspected, and in 97 nuisances were found.
In St. Marylebone, in 1884, 2,136 orders were sent out for repairs and
various sanitary improvements. In Hammersmith, 3,377 notices to abate
nuisances were served in 1886. In Westminster, 1,609 notices served for
sanitary defects.
The Medical Officer of Health for St. Saviour, Southwark, reported
(1890-1):--
"The importance of house-to-house inspection may be estimated by the
fact that of 491 houses inspected, it was found necessary in nearly
every instance to serve notice for the carrying out of urgent sanitary
requirements."
In Camberwell there were, in 1889, between 30,000 and 40,000 houses
in the parish, "of which probably one-half should be inspected
periodically."
The Medical Officer of Health of Bethnal Green stated:--
"In my district we have a population of about 130,000, and about
18,000 houses, and we have two Inspectors. Of course there should
be periodical inspection, that is to say, every house in the parish
should be visited at least once a year by a Sanitary Inspector, but
that with the present staff would be utterly impossible. In my district
there is no house-to-house visitation; we simply attend to complaints
as we receive them, and this completely fills up the time of the two
Inspectors."
And he further stated[167]:--
"In my district the Sanitary Inspectors are not under the control of
the Medical Officer of Health."
It is of course manifest that if houses had not been inspected, and the
necessary sanitary improvements enforced, things would have gone on
rapidly deteriorating, and with that deterioration would have come all
those causes of disease which would endanger the lives of the occupants
and create fresh centres for spreading disease broadcast.
It might have been thought that the numerous inquiries into the
condition of the working classes in factories and workshops would have
laid bare nearly all there was to lay bare.
A report to the Board of Trade on the Sweating System in the East
End of London, by J. Burnett in 1887, rudely dispelled such an idea,
and opened out to public view a new vista of causes, deleteriously
affecting the public health, a new area of insanitation. Though the
evils depicted had become acuter, they evidently had been going on for
years.
"The system may be defined as one under which sub-contractors undertake
to do work in their own houses or small workshops, and employ others
to do it, making a profit for themselves by the difference between the
contract prices and the wages they pay their assistants.
"The mass of those employed under the sweating system labour in
workshops where much fewer than 20 are engaged, or in the houses which
may be single rooms of the 'small sweaters.'"
After referring to the numerous branches of the tailoring trade, he
said:--
"Immense numbers of people of both sexes and all ages have rushed into
the cheap tailoring trade as the readiest means of finding employment.
The result has been an enormously overcrowded labour market, and a
consequently fierce competition among the workers themselves, with all
the attendant evils of such a state of things.... Matters have been
rendered infinitely worse by an enormous influx of pauper foreigners
from other European nations. The result has been to flood the labour
market of the East End of London with cheap labour to such an extent as
to reduce thousands of native workers to the verge of destitution...."
"There are, of course, in addition many English workers employed in the
same trade and in the same shops, but their number is gradually being
reduced, owing to the severity of a competition in which those who can
subsist on least are sure to be victorious.
"The object of the sweater being his own gain, the inevitable tendency
of such a system is to grind the workers down to the lowest possible
level....
"The character of the workshops, or places used as workshops, varies
considerably. The smaller sweaters use part of their dwelling
accommodation, and in the vast majority of cases work is carried on
under conditions in the highest degree filthy and unsanitary."
"In small rooms, not more than nine or ten feet square, heated by a
coke fire for the pressers' irons, and at night lighted by flaring gas
jets, six, eight, ten, or even a dozen workers may be crowded.
"The conditions of the Public Health Acts, and of the Factory and
Workshop Regulation Acts, are utterly disregarded, and existing systems
of inspection are entirely inadequate to enforce their provisions even
if no divided authority tended to weaken the hands of the Inspectors.
"Some of the shops are hidden in garrets and back rooms of the worst
kinds of East End tenements, and a third of them cannot be known to the
Factory Inspectors.
"It is in regulating the hours of the women that factory inspection
should be of most service, but how can two or three Inspectors keep
in check the multitude of sweating dens of East London? Basements,
garrets, backyards, wash-houses, and all sorts of unlooked for and
unsuspected places are the abodes of the sweater."
Early in the following year Lord Dunraven, in the House of Lords, moved
for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the sweating
system.
"The evils which existed there were caused by natural laws which were
not by any means of necessity unwholesome in any degree.... But his
belief was that though the causes were perfectly natural in themselves
they had been allowed to run riot, and had not been put under proper
control, and had thus produced the present terrible state of things....
"Large workshops were the exception. In the 'dens' of the sweaters
there was not the slightest attempt at decency; men and women worked
together for many consecutive hours, penned up in small rooms and
basements, garrets, backyards, wash-houses, and all sorts of unlikely
places, were the abodes of the sweaters."
And he quoted the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops:--
"To add to the evils of overwork pursued by these people, we must note
the overcrowded, ill-ventilated, and excessively hot state of the
workrooms; ... it is surprising how such people can live under such
conditions.
"... It was," he said, "a ridiculous and scandalous thing that
Parliament should pass Factory and Sanitary Acts regulating the hours
of labour of women and children, and that those Acts should be grossly
violated."
Lord Sandhurst said:--
"It might appear to their Lordships almost incredible that within three
or four miles of that House a state of things, involving so much human
misery, could possibly exist as was to be found at the East End of
London."
The Select Committee was appointed. The results of its inquiries are
stated in the next chapter.
In 1888 the local government of London underwent a most notable change.
In the early part of 1887 various rumours gained currency as to
questionable dealings in connection with the lettings of land owned by
the Metropolitan Board. Certain officials of the Board were mentioned.
The details do not fall within the history of the sanitary evolution of
London, except so far as they affected the central governing authority
of London. The allegations made received increasing confirmation,
and early in 1888 a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into
and thoroughly sift them, and early in May the Commission held its
first sitting, the Metropolitan Board affording every facility for the
thorough investigation of the matter.
Before that time, however--namely, in March--the Government had
introduced into the House of Commons its proposals as regarded the
local government of England and Wales generally; and the opportunity
was taken to deal with the great problem of London government which
had so long vexed and perplexed successive governments, and which was
becoming more and more insistent as years went on, and London was
accordingly included in the general scheme.
By the measure now introduced London was to be created--not a
Corporation, nor a Municipality, but a County--with a Council as the
governing authority of the County.
Mr. Ritchie, introducing the Bill into the House of Commons,
said[168]:--
"We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that whereas every other borough
in the country possesses a body directly representing the ratepayers,
no such body exists in London.
"There is no one elected by, or responsible to the ratepayers.
"We propose to take London, as defined under the Metropolis Management
Act, out of the counties of Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent, and we propose
to create it a County of London by itself, with a Lord Lieutenant, a
Bench of Magistrates, and a County Council of its own.
"We propose that the Council shall be directly elected by the
ratepayers, as in all other counties and boroughs--that the franchise
shall be the same--and that it shall consist, as in all other cases,
of elected and selected members; the elected members sitting for three
years, the selected for six years (one-half of their number retiring
every three years).
"It will take over the licensing powers and all the duties of the
Metropolitan Board of Works, which will cease to exist."
The "City" of London was to be allowed to retain its separate existence
within the new County, together with its ancient privileges and
immunities for the most part unaltered and untouched.
The Bill developed into an Act, which created a new central authority
for London, under the title of the London County Council.
The area of the new "Administrative County" of London was made
co-extensive with that of the former district of the Metropolitan Board
of Works.
And to the new Authority was transferred the powers, duties, and
liabilities of the Metropolitan Board of Works; and to those were added
functions much wider and more extensive than those of that Board.
The Act also conferred upon the Council the power of appointing a
Medical Officer of Health for the County, and additional powers of
making bye-laws.
It did not, however, materially interfere with the Vestries and
District Boards, nor did it alter their relation to the Central
Authority. Practically it left them untouched.
The Council was to consist of 137 members, of whom 118 were to be
elected triennially by direct election in the various metropolitan
constituencies, and 19 to be elected by the Council itself as Aldermen.
Finally, the Act set a limit to the existence of the Metropolitan Board
of Works.
While the Bill was going through Parliament the Royal Commission had
been pursuing its inquiry into the allegations made against that Board,
and had ascertained that several of the officials had been carrying on--
"... A nefarious course of proceeding by which they had been able to
obtain for themselves large sums of money out of dealings with the
Board's land."
And that--
"... Two of the members of the Board in the architectural profession
had availed themselves of their representative position to make
personal profit out of some of the business which came before them."
Under the growing disfavour with which public authorities were regarded
who were only indirectly elected, and so not amenable to the influence
or control of the electorate, it is improbable that the existence of
the Metropolitan Board of Works would have been much prolonged. But it
was an unfortunate ending to a great public body which had done really
great service to London.
Its own final words[169] may be quoted in its defence:--