View report page

14
It thus appears that in Kensington, as had already been seen to be the case in St. Pancras,
about one-third of the overcrowding admitted by tenants to exist arose merely from misuse of space,
and therefore permitted of being abated by modification of sleeping arrangements without involving
the displacement of a single family. Again, overcrowding from misuse of space was found, as
in St. Pancras, to be uncommon in three and four room tenements. Further the experience
already gained in St. Pancras to the effect that "as regards overcrowding from insufficiency of space
the three and four room tenements may be left almost entirely out of the question," was strikingly
confirmed in Kensington. Indeed, in the latter parish, in no instance was a tenement, consisting
of more than two rooms, found to be overcrowded from actual insufficiency of space.
These considerations may well be borne in mind in attempting to gauge the magnitude of the
task to be undertaken in attempting to deal with overcrowding in particular districts. In discussing
this matter in its relation to St. Pancras last year I was led to the conclusion that there was a tendency
to exaggerate the difficulties of this question, and having regard to certain considerations, which were
set out in detail in my report on St. Pancras, I estimated that "to entirely abolish overcrowding in
St. Pancras would involve in reality a less displacement of population than was for instance entailed
by the carrying out of the scheme undertaken by the Council at Boundary-street, Bethnal-green." A
study of the Kensington figures, and application to them of a similar line of argument, leads to the
conclusion that, in Kensington, the number of those for whom other accommodation would be
needed (were overcrowding entirely done away with) would not exceed some two or three thousand
persons.
In all that has been so far said concerning overcrowding the question has been merely as to
tenements admittedly overcrowded. An element of uncertainty must, however, always exist as to the
extent to which reliance can be placed upon the statements made by tenants. In those parts of
London in which little or no attention has been given to this question of overcrowding the information
obtained is probably correct in the large majority of instances. In localities, however, in which
inquiries have been made by officers of the sanitary authority, and in which notices to abate overcrowding
have been served (more particularly if legal proceedings to secure penalties for infringement
of by-laws regulating the provision of cubic space have been instituted), there is no doubt a tendency
for the information obtained in the ordinary course of inquiry to err on the side of understating the
actual amount of overcrowding existing.
In Kensington, during the latter part of 1898 and the early part of 1899, precedent to the
commencement of my inquiry, occasional night visits had been made by the vestry's inspector in the
"special area," and in a tew instances proceedings against keepers of houses let out in furnished
rooms, and against occupiers of such rooms, had been instituted, and fines had been inflicted. The
moral effect of these proceedings was very apparent at the time of my enquiry, and it is highly probable
that the statements made to me, as to the extent of occupation of rooms in this part of Kensington,
coming as they did, for the most part, from persons who were keenly alive to the possible consequences
of admitting the existence of overcrowding, were on the whole less worthy of credence than statements
made in other districts, in some of which the tenants had never been questioned before on the subject
of overcrowding. The alertness with regard to this question manifested in North-West Kensington was
not a little remarkable. Occupiers of tenements knew "all about the cubic feet," and were concerned
in some cases, perhaps for the first time, as to providing themselves and their children with breathing
space. Again, keepers of houses let in furnished rooms were taking the necessary steps to enable
them to fall into line with by-law requirements. There was abundant evidence that numbers of
persons who had regarded the requirement of the law with indifference for years were making arrangements
necessary to ensure their not been fined by the magistrates, now that there was the suggestion
of an intention on the part of the vestry to carry the law into effect. It was particularly noteworthy
that the difficulties attending these arrangements were for the most part not very great, and were
insignificant in comparison with the magnitude of the improvement brought about.
While the overcrowding prosecutions of the Kensington Vestry had produced a noticeable effect
in the north-western district, particularly in the streets in which night visits had been made, it is not
likely that any comparable effect had been produced on the attitude of persons towards the overcrowding
question in the other parts of the parish, and the particulars ascertained may, I think, be taken as
being correct for these other parts of Kensington, although probably they are distinctly understated as
regards the north-west district itself.
The results of the occasional night inspections made in the "special area" by inspector
Steward, between November, 1898, and April, 1899, are given by Dr. Dudfield in his monthly reports,
Nos. XI. and XIII. of 1898, and Nos. II. and IV. of 1899. Several cases of serious overcrowding were
discovered, proceedings were successfully instituted and fines were imposed. Furthermore, a handbill
was prepared for circulation in the district, setting out the particulars concerning these proceedings.
Dr. Dudfield also drew attention (13th monthly report, 1898, p. 183) to the fact that a more severe
penalty than the mere infliction of a direct money fine was held in reserve, inasmuch as under sec. 7
of the Public Health London Act, 1891, a petty sessional court was empowered to close the house on
the application of the sanitary authority, in the event of two convictions for overcrowding within a
period of three months being obtained.*
The by-laws as to houses let in lodgings in force in Kensington contain a provision to the effect
that "the keeper of a registered house and any lodger therein shall not suffer more than two persons of
different sex, if above the age of 12 years, to occupy the same sleeping room." The most striking
outcome of the night inspections made in Kensington was the evidence brought to light as to the
occupation of rooms in contravention of this by-law. In a four-roomed house in the "special area"
*Dr, Dudfield writes in his annual report for 1898—"A case did subsequently arise, and the application to
close the house was duly made, but the magistrates, who imposed substantial tines on the offenders, declined to
make an order to close the house, influenced, apparently, by their conception of the inconvenience it might cause
to the occupants of other rooms."