View report page

12
presented the marked contrast almost invariably noticeable in the case of common lodging-houses as
compared with neighbouring premises. The difference in the two houses, both under the management
of the same individual, as regards cleanliness and freedom from vermin was very striking, and as regards
the condition of the bedding the state of the two houses sufficiently indicated the improvement which
the existence of a regulation dealing with this matter and its enforcement by adequate supervision
exercised by the Council'3 inspector are capable of bringing about.
The apportionment of responsibility for these dirty conditions as between landlord and tenant.—
The proposed new by-law of the Kensington Vestry places the obligation of maintaining, in a cleanly
state, bedding, &c., in furnished rooms, following the lines already adopted in the case of common
lodging-houses, upon the keeper and not the occupier. It is desirable, however, that the sanitary
authority should have power to control the condition of bedding in registered houses which are not
let in "furnished" rooms, and here it would appear necessary to make the occupier responsible. It
is a very commonly held opinion among deputies and others interested in property of the "furnished"
room class that, having regard to the habits of the people for whom such rooms provide shelter, it
is useless to attempt to maintain cleanliness. It is undoubtedly the case that much remains to
be done in certain parts of Kensington in the way of promoting habits of personal cleanliness,
and it is desirable that the exceedingly useful operations of the Baths and Washhouses Commissioners
should be further extended with this object, and more particularly that this should be
effected in such a way as to appeal if possible to those who stand in most need of the facilities
provided. Again, practically no use has hitherto been made of the power given to the sanitary authority
under the "Cleansing of Persons Act, 1897." An arrangement for the use of a gas oven and bathing
and other facilities at the workhouse was entered into but the scheme has proved an abortive one.
In Kensington the difficulty of dealing satisfactorily with this question is enhanced on account of the
fact that the sanitary authority has no disinfecting station of its own. In Marylebone steps have been
taken to provide, at the Vestry's disinfecting station, bathing accommodation and appliances for disinfecting
clothes, and as Dr. Dudfield observes "thousands of cleansing operations are carried out in the
course of the year, much doubtless to the comfort of dirty and verminous persons." Similar provision
is very much needed in certain parts of Kensington. It would be ridiculous, however, to attempt to
excuse the condition of rooms such as those found in large numbers in Kensington on the ground of
the uncleanly habits of the occupants.
Yet the attempt is sometimes made. People who know little of the conditions of management
of property of the kind now in question, and more often persons who are interested in keeping down
to a minimum the cost of such management by the avoidance of expenditure in connection with
cleansing operations and repairs, are apt to insist, adopting the phraseology of a pamphlet which
obtained notoriety at the time of the Housing of the Working Classes Commission, that it is "the
pig that makes the stye and not the stye that makes the pig." The experience afforded by common
lodging-house administration and by the working of by-laws regulating tenement houses in several
London districts in which these by-laws have been enforced, conclusively demonstrates how large a
degree of benefit can be made to accrue from improving the condition of the habitation, and there can
be no doubt, on the other hand, that the want of proper supervision and the neglect to put in force
the by-laws regulating houses let in lodgings are the factors mainly responsible for the continued
existence of conditions such as those which obtain in the tenement-houses in several streets and groups
of streets in Kensington. Wherever there is neglect to secure that the standard of house accommodation
shall not fall below a certain minimum, there is a tendency to the development of conditions such as
those which exist in these groups of streets. More or less accidental causes may determine the origin
of the mischief, but its growth to serious proportions is dependent upon the absence of effective sanitary
supervision. A man of large experience in connection with the management of property in one of
these groups of streets practically admitted recently that this was the case. He was explaining that
his houses paid him well, but added that he was "not in it early enough," and that the people who
made the money were those who let out the rooms "before the Kensington Vestry began to wake up,"
as he expressed it, to what was going on.
That a very large return has been yielded by tenement property in some parts of Kensington
of late years cannot be doubted. The facts relating to a particular case were obtained by inspector
Steward and are set out on p. 24 of Dr. Dudfield's monthly report No. II. of 1896. The property in
question, an eight-roomed house, was held by a non-resident tenant paying £40 6s., or 15s. 6d.
a week, in rent and obtaining a return by letting "furnished" rooms nightly, at the rate of £91 per
annum. The same man rented other houses in the district and let them on similar terms. The
furniture of most of the "furnished" rooms in Kensington which I visited was still, to quote what was
said of it in the report of the Royal Commission of 1884, "as a rule, in its wretchedness beyond
description." Dr. Dudfield's estimate, therefore, that in such a house as the above "out of the £51
difference between the owner's rent and the tenants' takings, the tenant clears at least ten shillings a
week, or £26 per annum," may be held to be well within the mark. As to the owner, Dr. Dudfield
writes, "It appears that he acquired the house 10 years ago for £185, the ground rent being £5. The
estimated rates and taxes amount to £7, the repairs to, say, £10." Deducting these charges from
£40 6s. there remains a profit of £18 6s. or "more than 9 per cent. per annum, assuming the value
of the house to be £200." If nothing were spent on repairs the property would yield, on the same
basis of calculation, nearly 15 per cent.
To a considerable extent the enhanced rentals paid for these "furnished" rooms are attributable
to the failure to maintain proper sanitary supervision. For it is, generally speaking, only people who
come from groups of streets such as those now referred to who can be compelled to pay such exorbitant
rents. In other words neglect to supervise on the part of the sanitary authority makes it possible for
groups of houses, or of streets, to become recognised as possessing a special character of their own;
those who iive in these houses find difficulty in obtaining accommodation elsewhere, and this fact in
itself tends to the inflation of rents of rooms in the groups of houses possessing the special character.