View report page

91
latter. Besides, the sites after such clearances might be unsuitable
for the building of dwelling-houses.
Difficulties of Reconstruction in Central London.
—These difficulties are mainly two—namely, cost of land and cost
of building.
As London becomes more prosperous the price of land rises. It
is limited in quantity, and will be sold at a high market value
whether for business purposes or for dwelling-houses. This, of
course, is equally true of land in London upon which insanitary
houses are standing, particularly if the land is in Central London.
Consequently, in order to acquire such land, a high market price has
to be paid. In such cases the ground landlord can obtain perhaps
three or four times more rent for his land than any artisans'
dwellings company, or other body, would be prepared to pay in
order to erect dwelling houses for the working classes at rents
within their reach,
° Reference may be made in passing to another change which is taking
place, and which may be heartily welcomed, namely, the removal of factories
from the central parts of London (by which a commercial saving is effected in
the long run). Even from Finsbury a number of such removals are taking
place, and each migrating factory carries with it a colony of workers and
adherents. Such migration obviously relieves congestion in central districts.
† Speaking in the House of Lords on March 6, 1901, Lord Northampton
expressed this difficulty in the following words:—"The one great central
difficulty was the financial difficulty. There had been on his own estate a site
partially cleared waiting to be dealt with until the remainder of the leases fell in.
The leases had now expired, and in the houses which were now so old that they
must be cleared away, 264 persons lived. They depended for their living on
being near their work, and there was 110 place for them to go to when they were
turned out. The land had been estimated at 9d. per foot super., and 6d. or 7d.
could easily be obtained for it. He had asked one of the great industrial building
companies what they would give for the land, and they said that they could not
afford to pay more than 2d. per foot if a dividend of 5 per cent were to be paid to
their shareholders. Who was to pay the difference between this 2d. per foot and
the 9d. which might be obtained for the land ? The ground landlord was only a
life tenant, and it was questionable whether he had the legal right to be
philanthropic. Some ground landlords had paid this difference, but others would
not and could not, and nothing could be expected from them. If the County
Council paid the difference it would have to come out of the rates, and as the
rates increased the industrial companies found it more and more difficult to pay
heir way."—Times, March 9, 1901.