View report page

69
It is thus shown, that the statements made before the Royal
Commission, in regard to Clerkenwell, are utterly untrue,
complaints belonging to other parishes being jumbled up with
those referred to our parish, and everywhere there is gross
misrepresentation, to say the least, as well as hasty statements
founded upon careless examination. To the latter, I would
refer the false reports made, for there can be no special motive
unless it be to force the Municipal Bill.
That there are certain Courts and Alleys which should have
been done away with, when I condemned them, 10 years ago,
is true. The want of ornamental repair in many houses, which
have been almost wrecked by the destructive occupiers, has been
great. The "bitter cry," however, has awoke the groundlandlords
who have caused a great many improvements to be
made in numerous houses in the parish, which could not have
been enforced by law.
The great difficulty is to find a means of reforming the habits
of the occupants of the poorer houses. That the condition of
the premises depends upon the occupiers, is constantly seen on
visitation; for in some houses and tenements, everything is
clean, and orderly, while in others, everything is dirt, disorder,
and destruction.
The above mis-statements having been considered as facts,
and appearing to show that, as Sir Charles Dilke puts it, the
Parish of Clerkenwell is the worst in the Metropolis, the next
point was to account for this state of things. This was attributed
to the working together of house-farmers and publicans
on the Vestry, preventing Sanitary matters being properly
attended to. But it is curious to note, that among the owners
or lessors of all the properties above mentioned, one only (No. 7)
is a vestryman; so that there is no relation whatever in the
light of cause and effect,