View report page

15
"inhabited by persons of the working class, shall, without the
"consent of the Council, be erected or re-erected within the prescribed
"distance to a height exceeding the distance of the front or nearest
"external wall of such building from the opposite side of the street."
As regards buildings in the future upon new streets, the Act granted
a space of 10 ft. down to the level of the ground; then they had given
an angle of about sixty-three and a half degrees, an angle which was
such that the distance from the wall was equal to twice the height of
the building.
Dr. Longstaff, Chairman of the Building Act Committee of the
London County Council, who was active in the promotion of the Bill,
was recently discussing its merits at the Parkes Museum. The
Doctor stated "that Parliament threw upon the County Council
"the imperative duty, under certain circumstances, of (at practically
"whatever cost) buying out unhealthy buildings of persons of the
"working-class, and seeing that more suitable dwellings were placed
"thereon." Perfectly true! may I commend this opinion to the consideration
of the Council when they next consider the question of
" The Bell Lane and Great Pearl Street areas?"
Housing of the
Working
Classes Act,
1890.
I have been very unsuccessful in the application of this Act to worn
out property. To begin with, I do not think Magistrates
like it; and although very strong evidence
has been produced in support of some prosecutions
which I have been interested in, more difficulties
have occurred with it than I have experienced with
any other Sanitary Act. As an illustration, I will
mention the houses in Hanbury Street and Samuel Court. These
were represented through the activity of a Committee of your Board.
Proceedings were instituted at Worship Street Police Court. Counsel
appeared on both sides. The owner contended that, as he could and
would do everything the District Board required, no Closing Order ought
to be made. The houses were worn out and thoroughly dilapidated. No
damp course was present, and the walls were wet in many places. The
plaster was rotten and filthy. The front and back walls were in some
cases dangerous. The magistrate granted an adjournment from time
to time, and finally, after some six months had elapsed, the summonses
were withdrawn upon the owner contributing Ten guineas
towards the expenses of the prosecution.
As evidence that the prosecution was justified, I may cite the fact
that the front and back walls were renewed down to the ground floors;
a damp-proof course was inserted into all outside and party walls; the
floors were excavated and ventilated; new; woodwork was generally
introduced, and new sashes and window frames were supplied. New
plaster was added to both walls and ceilings. Fresh drainage was pro-