followed by Mr

order, and self-respect. Her efforts were crowned with singular success, and thousands of people have been -the w housed in decent homes and helped to lead more comfortable and better lives. To the Seventh Earl of Shaftesbury belongs the credit of having passed the first Housing Act in 1851, a small measure dealing with common lodging-houses. He was W.T. M. Torrens, who, in 1868 and 1879, in both of which years a Conservative Government headed by Mr Disraeli was in power, was responsible for Acts enabling individual insanitary houses to be dealt with; while in 1875 and 1879 Lord Cross, the Conservative Home Secretary, carried through the measures which first gave to local authorities powers to deal with insanitary areas by means of clearance schemes. Mr Disraeli had indeed long before, in his well-known book 'Sybil,' called attention to the condition of the people,' as he described it, and had urged the necessity of what is now termed Social Reform.' His ideas had been scoffed at by the philosophical Radicals of the Manchester School as a 'policy of sewage,' and it was not till over thirty years after the publication of 'Sybil' that he obtained a majority which enabled him to carry these ideas into practice. He was the first British Prime Minister to bring forward a housing policy, and may in some ways be regarded as its author. His policy was carried further by his successor, Lord Salisbury, whose Government was responsible for the great consolidating and amending Act of 1890, Part I of which dealt with the subjectmatter of Cross's Acts, namely, large insanitary areas; Part II with small groups or even single houses which had been previously dealt with by Torrens's Acts; while Part III extended the power of local authorities to build themselves and so to provide new accommodation, which had first been conferred on them by one of Lord Shaftesbury's Acts.

atter

How serious were the evils with which Parliament had to deal may be learnt from some of the evidence given by Lord Shaftesbury before the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes in 1884. This Commission was notable from the fact that the late King Edward VII, then Prince of Wales, whose deep interest in questions of social welfare is well known, was

a member of it. Lord Shaftesbury, describing his early investigations into the subject, mentioned cases where fire engines had to be used to destroy vermin; where a house was built over a sewer and there was a hole in the floor through which sewer rats, twenty at a time, made their way into the lower room; of a cellar, inhabited by a woman and two children, through which all the filth of the house above flowed in an open wooden tube into the sewer; of a room, inhabited by a woman and three children, the floor of which was less than a foot above an open cess-pool; and of houses in Bermondsey built upon piles over a swamp into which all the filth was cast and from which water for washing and drinking was drawn!

The continuance of such horrors as these has long been rendered impossible by the operation of the Public Health Act, which was greatly strengthened and extended by Disraeli's Government in 1875 and has been further amended since. Similarly, the London Building Acts, and Building bye-laws all over the country, have rendered impossible the creation of new insanitary areas. In point of fact we passed from a condition of no regulation to the opposite extreme of too much regulation. We became positively bye-law ridden, and the cost and difficulty of building was greatly increased by perfectly unnecessary bye-laws, restricting unduly the choice of materials, compelling broad macadamised streets when a narrow carriage-way lined with strips of grass and trees would have been not only much cheaper but far less unsightly, and imposing the same conditions on country cottages, where light and air abound, as on town dwellings. It is rather remarkable that it has proved to be almost as difficult in recent years to get rid of unnecessary and vexatious restrictions as it was to obtain any kind of proper control in earlier days.

Turning to the action taken by Local Authorities in clearing slums under Cross's Acts as subsequently amended, a great deal has been accomplished in many of our great towns. In London the Metropolitan Board of Works and their successors, the London County Council, had completed altogether before the War thirty-one schemes, involving the clearance of 93 acres, the displacement of 43,844 persons, and a net cost to the rate

O

payers of 2,185,0001. Of these the largest single scheme Was that of Boundary Street, Bethnal Green, which comprised nearly 15 acres of the most appalling slums with a population of 5719. During the same period new accommodation was provided for 44,623 persons, mostly on the sites of the old houses by means of the creation of block dwellings under the 'Rehousing' requirements of the Acts. Rehousing' is, however, a misnomer, since, owing to the much higher rents which had to be charged for the new dwellings, very few of the persons displaced availed themselves of them, but found homes in cheaper vacant accommodation in the neighbourhood, which, however, it was believed led to a general levelling up of housing conditions. In the case of Boundary Street, it was estimated that only 3 per cent. of the original population returned to the old site. Moreover, it must not be supposed that the slum dweller invariably dislikes his slum. On the contrary, many of these poor people, who have never known anything better, love them; they are their homes and they do not want to be displaced. The writer of this paper remembers that when he was the Tabard Street clearance scheme was in contemplation, Chairman of the Housing Committee of the L.C.C. and he and his Committee were received almost with fury by

ed

Some of the inhabitants when they were visiting the

area, who strongly objected to any interference with

their homes.

The great Tabard Street scheme was left unfinished when the War broke out, and is being completed now. It includes two other smaller areas, Grotto Place and Crosby Row, the total acreage amounting to over 16 acres. This scheme supplies a good example of the danger to public health caused by the existence of these insanitary areas. In the year 1910, when it was originally I brought forward, the death rate for the whole of London was 14.9 per thousand, and for Southwark, in which the area was mainly situated, 18.2. In the Tabard Street area it was 36.8 and in Grotto Place 39.1. Turning to phthisis, the most common product of slum conditions, the average death rate for London was 1.38, for Southwark 1.98, for Tabard Street 3.88, and for Grotto Place no less than 6·10. It is interesting to record that taking London as a whole, the death rate in the

slum areas which have been cleared averaged 40 per thousand, while in the model dwellings which had been erected on the sites it averages 12 per thousand only.

As regards other great cities, Birmingham cleared an immense area of no less than 45 acres north and east of New Street in the 'eighties under Cross's Act, the whole area dealt with comprising altogether 93 acres; but in some parts of it the existing houses were not actually demolished but were patched up, obstructive buildings being removed, etc. Since then the Corporation have relied chiefly on the patching-up' policy, using their powers under Part II. of the Housing Act of 1890. It is plain that this policy obviates the expense, delays, and cumbrous machinery of Part I, and certainly many insanitary districts have been greatly improved, confined courts having been thrown open, and back-toback houses demolished; but it cannot be said that the result is as satisfactory as where complete clearances have taken place. Liverpool showed exceptional activity, clearing large districts near the docks, and by erecting exceedingly cheap tenement dwellings, which it was possible to do before the War, succeeded in rehousing on the sites considerably more than half the persons dispossessed, which was never found possible in London. Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Brighton, and Plymouth are other notable examples of towns which undertook big clearance schemes before the War.

The War, of course, put an end to this activity, and the house shortage which has existed since has made its resumption very difficult. Much, however, remains to be done. To take the case of London, the L.C.C. have given very careful consideration to a report made in 1911 by the late Sir Shirley Murphy (then Medical Officer of Health), in which he had marked down no less than 1900 groups of three or more houses in London which were either congested or insanitary. A selection of twenty-two of the largest areas most urgently requiring remedying has been made, and six of them are being proceeded with at once, the Brady Street scheme in Bethnal Green being well advanced. In addition to this, sixteen schemes in various parts of the country have been confirmed by the Ministry of Health, and thirty-six local authorities have either submitted schemes

ed have them under consideration.

thous

The duty of the ommunity to put an end to these horrible slum condi

ions is becoming

more and more recognised.

ningh In this connexion two observations may be made. the first place, whatever may be thought of the isdom or unwisdom of local authorities undertaking he provision of new accommodation in competition ith private enterprise, it is certain that only local uthorities armed with compulsory powers can clear lums. There are endless interests involved in every sanitary area, lessees and sub-lessees, etc.,

ble, and the ground landlord has in most cases parted ith all control over his property. These interests have o be extinguished by compulsion before any clearance an be effected. In one known instance a ground landord arranged with the L.C.C. to declare an area on his roperty insanitary, as it undoubtedly was, and to use heir compulsory powers, he bearing the entire cost f the clearance scheme. This was the Nightingale treet Scheme on the Portman Estate.

The other observation is that it has long been my pinion that, having regard to the national importance f removing slums, and the heavy cost which clearances lways involve, the State ought to make a contribution owards the expense of the schemes, instead of allowing he whole of it to fall on the local ratepayers. This was roposed as long ago as 1912 in the Housing bill brought orward in that year, and in 1913 and 1914, by members f the Unionist Social Reform Committee, which, howwer, was rejected by the Liberal Government of the lay. In 1919 Dr Addison adopted this principle, and y the Housing and Town Planning Act of that year he State undertook to pay the entire net cost of housing perations, including slum clearances, over and above he proceeds of a ld. rate. The effect of this, however, vas to impose an enormous and unlimited liability on

he State, and the present plan, which will be carried out y the provisions of the new Bill now before Parliament, 8 that the State should make a contribution not exceedng one half of the net cost.

It may be asked why these schemes involved so much Ost. The answer is that excessive compensation used o be paid to slum owners. The local authority had to