View report page

87
was no sign of dampness, which was subsequently corrected by an admission that there
was slight dampness in the walls of No. 7. This witness was crossTexamined at some
length by Counsel for the Borough Council as regards rising dampness, which evidently
impressed the Inspector of the Ministry of Health as he apparently paid particular
attention to this question during his subsequent inspection and pointed out to the
witness the dampness extending to a height of approximately 5 feet at No. 8. Every
house was, in fact, very damp, and it was so obvious that it required no expert
knowledge whatever beyond that possessed, for example, by the tenants.
Dealing with the East Street properties to which reference has already been
made, the houses were damp, of the back-to-back type; without through ventilation;
situated on a very cramped site; without yards; they lacked satisfactory internal
ventilation and proper food storage; some rooms were dark and the basement rooms
were wholly below the ground level; they were without sinks; the water-closets
were situated under the street pavement and approached by an area 4ft. 6ins. wide
by the side of the footway.
It must also be remembered that back-to-back houses are in themselves considered
unfit for human habitation under Section 22 of the Housing Act, 1936. In framing
this Section, Parliament no doubt had the best advice available, including that of
architects and surveyors.
Evidence was given at the Inquiry by a witness of great experience, and in high
standing with the Property Owners' Protection Association, that the houses provided
healthy and comfortable accommodation for the occupants and were ' 'ideal homes
in a neighbourhood like Hackney in the centre of London for a married couple with
one or two children." Let me quote further from the typewritten statement put in
by this witness: "There is only one defect which can be alleged against them, they
have no back yard and no back windows. As to this it is counteracted by the fact
that if the front door is opened and the front window on the upper storey is opened,
a current of fresh air is at once set up, and this operation can be put into motion as often
as necessary." The italics are mine. This ventilation by intermittent draught is
indeed to my mind a novel idea even for the experts of the Property Owners' Protection
Association. How the ventilation was to be carried on in damp and foggy weather
at night or during a cold snap was not explained. But here are some other details
of these "ideal homes." They were three-roomed dwellings. They had windows
only in front. The lowest room was sunk in the earth, the ceiling at street level, and
it contained a copper. Provision for cleanliness consisted of the copper and a tap
in the area—the sole water supply. To get water, whether for cooking, dish or
personal washing, or the copper, the tenant had to go into the area by the side of the
public footway. There was no sink. All dirty water had to be poured down the
water-closet pan under the public footway. The copper could only be used with
difficulty. This expert in ventilation surely should have realised that the natural
course for the fumes from the copper to follow was into the upper rooms, a happening
which opening the lowest door only accentuated. Washed clothes could be hung
to dry either in public at the side of the footway or in the rooms, and it should be
noted that the tenants could not afford to send clothes to a laundry. The position
of this family with illness in the house, and children not infrequently get diarrhoeal
diseases, with a tap in the area for water, when all excreta, etc., must be brought
across an open area to be emptied into a water-closet under the public footway, can
be imagined. No food storage facilities were provided, the only situations possible
for this were in the basement room ventilated into the area by the side of the room,
or in a living room.
The plausible attitude of the Property Owners' Protection Association is shown
in the following letter which was received by a Hackney clergyman and which
apparently was in effect a reply to the Bishop of London's letter to his clergy on the
subject of slum housing. It can also be regarded as an outstanding piece of misleading
propaganda.