And no additional burden cast on the labouring classes?—No material additional burden.
Of course the diminution of out-door relief would diminish the means of unduly paying high rents?—Certainly, it would.
The sanitary condition of many of these dwellings is described in the reports of Mr. Bland, the medical officer already quoted.
It may hereafter excite surprise, that the labouring classes have hitherto been left exposed to such influences as those described in the last evidence, and in the evidence previously cited, as to the pernicious operation of exemptions from payments of rates on the parties intended to be benefited.
My inquiries into the effects of the administration of the old poor law brought before me numerous instances of such devastation, the effects of which would not be obliterated during the lives of a generation. Examples might also be presented of the deterioration of property by the irruptions of an ill-regulated population by the running up of undrained and badly-constructed dwellings in the finest suburbs of the metropolis, and other towns throughout the country. Any regulations of the nature of Building Acts confined to towns, or to particular districts, or that were unequally or oppressively administered, must powerfully tend to increase such evils to the labouring classes, to the ratepayers, and to the owners of all suburban property.
Frequent opportunities are, however, presented and commonly lost for the erection of improved tenements for the use of the labouring classes, on the occasion of taking down old tenements and erecting new ones to form new streets, under the authority of Buildings’ and Towns’ Improvement Acts. It is usually assumed that the general effect of the “clearances,” as they are called, occasioned by the formation of new streets, though attended with the present inconvenience of disturbing the occupants, is ultimately of unmixed advantage, by driving them into new and better tenements in the suburbs. I have endeavoured to ascertain by inquiries, with the aid of the relieving officers, how far the assumption is justified by the experience of such alterations as have been already made in some of the crowded districts of the metropolis, by taking down inferior tenements to form new streets.
It is found to be difficult to trace the individuals of a population so removed, and the inquiries on the subject are incomplete; but they tend to show that the working people make considerable sacrifices to avoid being driven to a distance from their places of work; that the poorest struggle against removal to a distance from the opportunities of charitable donations; and that where new habitations are not opened to them in the immediate vicinity, every effort is made by biddings of rent to gain lodgings in the nearest and poorest of the old tenements. To the extent to which the displaced labourers succeed in getting lodgings in the same neighbourhood, as a large proportion of them certainly do, the existing evils are merely shifted, and, by being shifted, they are aggravated. On a survey of the newly-built houses in the suburbs to which displaced labourers can go, it appears that the labourer, to use the expression of Dr. Ferriar, is almost “driven to hire disease,” for if he do not find any lodging near his place of work, he is driven to a choice amongst tenements of the character of those found in the parts of Kensington out of the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Building Act, without sewers or drains, without water or proper conveniences on the premises, without pavements or means of cleansing the streets; where exorbitant rents are levied, where adequate means of moral or religious instruction are yet unprovided, and where they will neither gain in health nor in morals.
On reference to such past experience it appears to suggest itself as an expedient arrangement, that on the removal of old tenements and the occupation of the old ground by building new houses and streets for a superior class of tenants, or for public buildings, some provision should be made against the aggravation of the existing evils as respects the old occupants; that it should be required to be shown, for example, that appropriate unoccupied tenements are in the market, and on failure to do so, provisions might be made (on the principle of those provided for preserving accommodation for the labouring classes in enclosure bills) for the construction of appropriate tenements, in which qualities of the nature of those described by Mr. Sydney Smirke might be ensured. If the attention and power by which large public alterations are obtained were, at the same time, directed to the construction of new dwellings for the labouring classes, instead of spreading existing evils, all such alterations might certainly, and at remunerative though not at increased rents, be made the means of greatly improving the condition of those who stand in the greatest need of attention and aid for improvement.
The most important immediate general measure of the nature of a Building Act, subsidiary to measures for drainage, would be a measure for regulating the increments of towns, and preventing the continued reproduction in new districts of the evils which have depressed the health and the condition of whole generations in the older districts. Regulations of the sites of town buildings have comparatively little effect on the cost of construction, and it may in general be said that a Building Act would effect what any enlightened owner of a district would effect for himself, of laying it out with a view to the most permanent advantage; or what the separate owners would effect for themselves if they had the power of co-operation, or if each piece of work were governed by enlarged public and private views. Had Sir Christopher Wren been permitted to carry out his plan for the rebuilding of London after the great fire, there is little doubt that it would have been the most advantageous arrangement for rendering the whole space more productive, as a property to the great mass of the separate interests, by whom the improvement was defeated. The most successful improvements effected in the metropolis by opening new lines of street, and the greater number of the openings projected are approximations at an enormous expense to the plan which he laid down. The larger towns present instances of obstructions of the free current of air even through the principal streets, and of deteriorations which a little foresight and the exercise of an impartial authority would have prevented. In one increasing town, a builder made a successful money speculation by purchasing such plots of ground as would enable him to erect impediments and extort compensation for their removal from the path of improvements in building. The improvements affecting whole towns are also frequently frustrated by the active jealousies of the occupants of rival streets. It would appear to be possible to provide an impartial authority to obtain and, on consultation with the parties locally interested, to settle plans for regulating the future growth of towns, by laying down the most advantageous lines for occupation with due protection of the landowners’ interest. The most serious omissions in the building of common houses are so frequently oversights as to make it probable, that if it were required that a plan of any proposed building should be deposited with a trustworthy officer, with a specification of the arrangements intended for the attainment of the essential objects, such as cleansing and ventilation, the mere preparation of the document would of itself frequently lead to the detection of grievous defects. An examination of Mr. Loudon’s specification of the requisites of cottages will show that a large proportion of the most important of these are independent of the cost of construction.