View report page

10
row of buildings in Little North Street to the general line of frontage thereof, nor
upon the old foundations in Nelson Court, subject of course to the provisions of the
Building Act, 1855."
This letter would have been more satisfactory if the writer had stated,
in addition to his opinion, that the erection of houses in so limited a space
should be restricted; that the Metropolitan Board intended to insert a clause
in the new Building Bill which should prohibit the erection of new houses
in any locality which has a less space for air, light, and ventilation than
twenty feet in width; and that every newly erected house, whether in a new
or old Court, should have that amount of space in front, and a space of at
least ten feet square in the rear.
So soon as the working classes are thoroughly alive to the importance
of living in healthy habitations, and the ratepayers become convinced that it
is much cheaper to prevent disease than to support the sick and provide for
widows and orphans; then something more effectual will be done than has
hitherto been accomplished, both in the prevention of the erection of unhealthy
dwellings and the taking down of such as now exist.
From the letter of the Architect of the Metropolitan Board it would
appear that the vested rights of those persons who embark in building speculations
are protected, while the vested rights of the poor, which are their
health and comfort, are disregarded. Can anything, I would ask, be more
absurd than to prohibit the erection of buildings in newly-formed places
unless such places are of a prescribed width, while new houses are permitted
to be erected upon old foundations without regard to the width of the Court
or Alley ? It is either necessary for health, or it is not so, to build houses
which shall have a width of twenty feet in front, but if such an open space
be necessary, then it cannot signify whether houses are erected in new or
old places.
A Bill for the Amendment of the Building Act was brought into the
House of Commons by Mr. Tite and Colonel Hogg in the Session of 1866-7,
which was prepared by the Metropolitan Board of Works, and in each
successive Session it has, with some alterations, been read a first time, but
it has not, in any Session, reached a second reading. It is to be hoped that
better success will attend its introduction in the approaching Session. As
the sanitary clauses of this Bill are, however, very defective, it might be
better to omit them altogether from the new Bill, and incorporate them in a
new Sanitary Bill, which should be taken charge of by a member of the
Government.
The Metropolis Buildings and Management Bill should therefore be
divided into two parts; the one relating to the profession of an Architect
and the business of a builder, and the other to all the sanitary requirements
of a dwelling house; the former part might be advantageously left in the
hands of the Metiopolitan Board, and the latter should be undertaken by the
Government.