View report page

40
hut his general practice is to raise the rents, and make the tenants
bear the costs of improvements. I know of instances in Stoke
Newington where as much as 7s. a week is paid for two small rooms,
and the demand for such accommodation is so great even at that
figure that the condition is imposed that no tenant with children is
received. It is not difficult to see what such a condition of tenure
leads up to, and how necessary it is for those who can only afford two
rooms to limit their families This is one of the causes, in my opinion,
of the falling birth-rate in our large centres of population. Extortionate
rents for poor class property have a great deal to answer for ;
they cause a high death-rate, a high infectious sickness-rate (for
communicable disease must run through the whole of the susceptible
members of the crowded family—if not of the whole house), physical
and moral decadence, and the restriction of families. Now the birthrate
is the chief asset of the State, and this housing question is not
only one of local interest and concern, it is a grave national question
affecting the health, morals and vigour of our country. It is the most
pressing and important subject which London has to deal with. The
remedy of municipalising such property bristles with difficulties, but
if it were practicable it would be the most beneficial public health
measure conceivable.
Where private enterprise succeeds in dealing with the housing
problem, it generally only succeeds by tolerating conditions of tenancy
which could not be countenanced by a health authority, and hence it
might well be suppressed; but all municipal enterprise is handicapped
by the payment of such exaggerated compensation or purchase
money that an excessive expenditure of capital is entailed in any
improvement scheme. If a house of £50 a year rental is made to
bring in £100 by subdividing it into a series of small tenements in
which people are allowed to house themselves like rabbits, then the
compensation for expropriation should be estimated on the £50
annual valuation, and not on the £100. The community is now
compelled to pay Extravagantly for removing an evil for which the
owners of slum property should properly be made responsible
Failing the enforcement of responsibility against the slum owner, the