View report page

138
17,720. So that in Clerkenwell you get the best men that present
themselves?— Yes.
17,721. Your words were something like these : that the men
of property were the men naturally to take an interest in parish
affairs?— Yes.
17,722. But do you think it generally a desirable thing that
the owners of nuisances should be the men who should sway
the local government of the district in which their nuisances
exist?— I do not think that they should be the men to sway
the government of the district in which the nuisances exist;
but other tradesmen are "owners of nuisances" sometimes
as well as those you refer to, and I believe that if one of
the vestrymen was found to have a nuisance existing he would
be pounced upon much more sharply than another person who
was not a member of the vestry.
17,723. Has that been your experience?— Yes; and even in
regard to assessments I have known vestrymen more severely
dealt with than people who are not vestrymen.
17,724. Are Mr. Ball and Mr. Ross, and other gentlemen similarly
situated, pounced upon more severely than others?— I think
they would be if a conspicuous nuisance came to be known.
17,725. Do you not consider that they own a great deal of
property which might fairly be described as conspicuous
nuisances?— No, I cannot say that I am of opinion that they
do.
17,726. Do you not think that house after house in which
four, five, and six people are crowded into one room, those
houses being in a very dilapidated condition, the drainage being
in many cases bad, the water supply being bad, are nuisances
which are dangerous to the health of the parish?— I should
think so, if it existed ; but the property itself would not be the
nuisance ; it would be its being allowed to be occupied by more
persons than should occupy it.
17,727. You split the distinctions so very finely that I fear I
can scarcely follow you. A house that has four rooms and six
people in each room would be a nuisance ; if the people were
out of the rooms you think it would not be so much of a nuisance?—
Certainly.
17,728. But then the property would not be held if the houses
were empty?— But you asked me just now whether I did not
think that the property held by these people constituted a
nuisance in itself, as I understood your question. My answer
to that is this, that the property itself, no matter how extensively
it is held, would not constitute a nuisance. A nuisance might