View report page

58
All that has been here said goes to show the practical impossibility of giving effect to
the provisions of the Act, under Part I., to any adequate extent, excepting at a prohibitive
cost. The more hopeful plan for dealing with the question of the housing of the working
classes would seem to be that of securing a reduction of rents in town, by bringing the country
into competition; by the erection of cottages, and by increased travelling facilities—a subject to
which attention has been called in these reports on more than one occasion, long years ago. The
Amending Act of 1900 affords facilities to the County Council, and to Borough Councils which
may adopt Part III. of the Act of 1890, for the acquisition of land outside the county, and
beyond the district of the Borough Council; it may be expected, therefore, that steps will be taken,
ere long, to give at least experimental trial to the plan which, if associated with increased travelling
facilities, may do something towards the solution of the most difficult saiiitary problem of the
new century. Be this as it may, I think it may be safely concluded that Part III., rather than
Part I., will, in the immediate future, engage the attention of the County Council and the
Borough Councils; as it is, practically, the only Part under which they can hope to contribute in
any substantial degree to the solution of the problem.
Some account of the powers under Part III. exercisable by a Borough Council, may
fitly be preceded by a retrospect of the proceedings which brought about the desired amendment
of the law. The late Vestry, in 1897, requested the County Council (then sole local
authority under Part III. for London, without the City), to acquire a number of houses in the
Notting Dale district of Kensington, with a view to adapt them for occupation by the working
classes. The request was endorsed, in a petition, by many influential persons, and by the
Ruri-decanal Chapter, which comprises the entire body of the Clergy in Kensington.* The
Council being of opinion that the Vestry possessed "ample powers, under section 94 of the
Public Health (London) Act, 1891, for dealing with the evils existing in connection with the
houses," suggested that that body should "exercise their powers of inspection and regulation
of houses let in lodgings under the section with a view to mitigating such evils."
The said "powers," relating to registration, inspection, &c., of houses let in lodgings or occupied
by members of more than one family—exercised since 1886—-had been found inadequate:
hence the application to the Council; for, as was stated at the time, "what is needed is such
regulation and inspection as the local authority under the Housing Acts can alone exercise with
effect, by becoming the owners of the houses, and the landlords of the occupiers, with powers
of regulation by bye-laws." The Vestry's application having failed, a further recommendation
was made by me; viz.—that the Council should be requested to "include in their next General
Powers Bill a clause to enable the sanitary authority to put Part III. in force in their District."
But no action was taken. The subject received attention again in July, 1898, a Conference of
the sanitary authorities on "the housing of the working classes" having been convened by the
Bermondsey Vestry. The resolutions adopted by the Conference are set out in the minutes
of the Vestry (21st September, 1898, page 404). One directed—
"That the County Council be approached with a view to the insertion of a clause in their
General Powers Bill for 1899, to enable the Vestries to erect Municipal Dwellings under
Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890."
This resolution was referred by the Vestry to the Sanitary Committee, together with—(a) a
letter from the Vestry of Battersea stating that they had requested the County Council to insert
a clause in their next General Powers Bill empowering local authorities to erect dwellings for
the working classes, and asking the Vestry to take similar action; (6) a letter from the North
Kensington Ratepayers' Association supporting the view expressed by the Battersea Vestry; and
(c) my seventh monthly report (July 20th, 1898, p. 86) dealing with the subject, and again
arging the Vestry to request the County Council to include in their next General Powers Bill a
clause "giving to sanitary authorities concurrent power with the Council to put in force Part III.
of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890." The Sanitary Committee recommended the
Yestry to do this, and their report was adopted. A communication was forthwith addressed
to the Council, which elicited the satisfactory reply that they were in favour of local authorities
being empowered to adopt Part III., and had referred it to their Parliamentary Committee
to report as to the proper steps to be taken to give effect to this view. This power
was conferred on the Borough Councils by the London Government Act, 1899 (sec. 5), but was
"to be exercised only within the borough." But by section 1. of the Housing of the Working
Classes Act, 1900, it is enacted that, "where any Council have adopted Part III. ....
they may, for supplying the needs of their district, establish lodging-houses for the working
classes under that Part outside their district."
With this introduction, I proceed to a consideration of the provisions of Part III.,
which consolidated, with certain amendments, the repealed Lodging-Houses Acts, 1851 to 1885,
formerly known as Shaftesbury's Acts; its object being to secure the provision of suitable homes
* The correspondence between the Vestry and the County Council was set out in the tenth monthly report for 1897 (Oct.
13th p 188) and also the petition, which was signed by the members for the Parliamentary Borough, the members of the
County Council for North Kensington, Mr. T. W. Wheeler, K.C., Mr. W. F. Craies. and (officially) by the Chairman and the Clerk
of the Board of Guardians, and the Churchwardens of St. Clement's, Notting Dale.