“The principal sanitary improvements during the last five years related almost exclusively to the drainage, whilst the overcrowding and impure state of the dwellings of the poor have been but little interfered with.”
The more serious blemish was pointed out by Dr. Hunter in his report of 1865 to the Medical Officer of the Privy Council on the subject of overcrowding, and the removal of persons from houses about to be destroyed:—
“There is no authority which can deal with London in these matters as a whole, and they are matters in which uniform treatment is quite necessary. The local authority which finds the whole of its district overcrowded, naturally hesitates before beginning action which may relieve one house only to overfill the next, and may reasonably think that such action, unless done thoroughly, not only through the district, but through the whole capital, might prove hurtful.”[101]
And his opinion is weighty. But the local authorities were very far from doing what they might have done to abate many of the insanitary evils connected therewith.
Dr. William Rendell said[102]:—
“We have had till now but one Inspector of Nuisances—an unwilling man….
“This is not a question of a defect in the law. These bodies have the power of appointing Inspectors, but when Inspectors are appointed it brings of course a large amount of work in low property, and expense and trouble are incurred. Therefore the easiest way to avoid it is not to have Inspectors enough, so that the work may not be found out.”
In fact, the fuller the information on the subject is, the more clear it is that most of them did not want to move in the matter.
The evidence of witnesses, not under Vestry control, examined before the Select Committee on Metropolitan Local Government in 1866, throws some light on this point.
Mr. James Beale, himself a vestryman, said:—