View report page

72
housing.
Last year there were slight increases in the average number of inhabitants per room in
tenements of 2, 3, and 5 rooms.
Rooms in tenement
1
2
3
4
5
1906
2.1
2.2
1.7
1.5
1.3
average number of occupants
per room.
1908
2.1
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.2
1909
2.1
2.0
1.7
1.4
1.4
The children enumerated in 1906 constituted 30.4 per cent. of the total inhabitants, in
1908 31.6 per cent., and last year 31.7. These proportions are of importance in connection
with the averages of inhabitants (of all ages) per room, and in connection with the " theoretical
overcrowding."
Taking the usual theoretical standard of overcrowding—viz., an average exceeding two
persons per room—it appears that, in 1906, 1,470 tenements and 7,526 persons were " overcrowded,"
in 1908, 1,820 tenements and 7,523 persons, and in 1909, 1,551 tenements and 7,639
persons. Reducing those figures to percentages, they compare thus:—
"Overcrowded." 1906. 1908. 1909.
Percentage of all tenements 33.6 37.1 33.9
Percentage of all inhabitants 50.6 49.3 50.2
Percentage of children under 10 years 74.6 72.5 73.0
The average numbers of occupants per room in each class of tenement, as found on
registration and as determined last summer in houses already on the Register, are given
below. It will be seen that the averages for houses on the Register in tenements of two and
three rooms were very slightly higher last year than those for houses added to the Register.
Doubtless that is due to the closer aggregation of inhabitants which has been noted in the
preceding paragraphs.
No. of rooms 1 2 34
Houses registered, 1909 2.1 1.7 1.6 —
„ „ previously 2. 1 2. 0 1.7 1.4
The percentages of tenements in each group of houses in which the inhabitants exceeded
an average of two persons per room were—
" Overcrowding."
Tenements.
Inhabitants
all ages.
under 10.
Houses registered, 1909
28.5
46.8
71.8
„ „ previously
33.9
50.2
73.0
The task of securing the annual cleansing of houses let in lodgings (or " tenement
dwellings " as they ought to be styled) has been rendered more difficult by the decision given
in March of last year in the Appeal Court (King's Bench) case of Arlidge v. Islington Borough
Council.
Under the Islington by-laws relating to houses let in lodgings the responsibility of
carrying out the annual cleansing required under by-law No. 15 was placed upon the owner,
the definition of "landlord" in the by-laws being that of "owner" in the Public Health
(London) Act, 1891. The definition of " landlord " in the Paddington by-laws is much
narrower, the person who lets the tenements or on whose behalf such tenements are let, being
made the responsible person. The Islington case was decided on the point that a " landlord "—
irrespective of definition—could not, unless he reserved a special right to do so, enter a
tenement to carry out the cleansing without committing a trespass. On that account the
case of Borough Council of Paddington v. Walkley—for not performing the customary cleansing—