View report page

54
In order to better understand the present condition of house property
and overcrowding in the borough, it will be desirable here briefly to
refer to the history of the subject.
As far back as 1856, Dr. Griffith, then Medical Officer of Health
for Clerkenwell, furnished a special report on the sanitary condition
of that portion of the borough. In this report he states that the
population of Clerkenwell in 1831 was 47,634, and in 1851, 64,778.
The number of inhabitants per acre was about 180 in 1856. In
other London districts in 1851 we find the following numbers of
persons per acre, e.g., Lewisham, 2; Wandsworth, 4; Hampstead, 5;
Kensington, 16; Islington, 30; St. Pancras, 61; Westminster, 71;
the City, 128; Shoreditch, 169; Clerkenwell, 170; Whitechapel, 196;
Holborn, 237 ; St. Luke, 245 ; Strand, 250; and East London, 290.
Dr. Griffith adds: "The number of houses in Clerkenwell in 1851
"was 7,549, corresponding to eight persons to each house. To have
"preserved this relation in regard to the increase of population
"647 new houses should have been built in the district by the end
"of 1856. There can be no question, however, that very few houses
"have been built in the district, but many have been pulled down.
"Hence the inhabitants must live in a more crowded state than in
"1851. Many of the houses [and this is probably equally true of
"St. Luke at that time] are in a most unsatisfactory condition,
"especially those in the courts, being unprovided with back windows
"or back yards, and being walled in by higher houses, so as to be
"almost entirely excluded from ventilation, which is still further
"prevented by the courts being closed by a wall at the end. Many
"of the houses are also extremely dirty; the drainage is either none
"or very imperfect; frequently there are no privies, and when these
"exist the soil is retained in foul cesspools evolving the most
"offensive odours, and sometimes there is but one privy for 50 or
"100 persons. Were I required to give a rough estimate I should
"say that not more than one-third of the houses are in a satisfactory
"state in regard to the above particulars. Many of the houses are
"quite unfit for habitation even were they cleaned and many of the
"above deficiencies supplied, being too small and confined. It
"seems as if there were some difficulty in general in providing
"proper dwelling houses for the poorest class. The model lodging