View report page

142
owner must go through the house when he collects the rents?—
Yes.
17,748. Then would you think that the man who holds this
property, and who regularly deals in this class of property, and
who must be perfectly well acquainted with the fact that it is
in a condition which not only violates the law of the land but
violates all good taste and good feeling, is a fit person to take a
public position on the governing body of that district; do you
think that, especially when the vestry contains 12 or 14 such
members, or something like that number, they would constitute
an authority to which the sanitary inspectors would be
very anxious to present reports as to the bad condition of the
property?—But you must first prove the man to be a regular
delinquent. I should not say that if ho was a regular delinquent
he was an eligible person to take part in parochial affairs ;
but your question is so general that if I answered it it would be
a wholesale condemnation of some one or other, which I am not
prepared to pronounce unless the man is proved to be a
delinquent. But I have heard of such things as owners of
property going round to collect the rents, and doing the places up
frequently, and laying out a very large sum of money, and then
I have it on evidence again that in two or three weeks time the
place has been as bad as ever again. I have frequently heard
of instances of that sort, and I could prove them.
17,749. Things of that kind exist in Clerkenwell as a sort of
theory. They are things that have been heard of but not seen,
are they not?—Not so much theory ; they are too substantial for
theory.
17,750. I do not want to generalize but to particularize.
Here are owners of property of the class of which I have been
reading a description. They collect their rents every week, and
to collect their rents they must go to the door of each tenement-room
; therefore they must positively be acquainted with
the condition of these tenements ?—Yes.
17,751. Then if the owner, knowing this state of things, fails
either to put his house in order or to report its condition to the
proper authorities, he is clearly, from your own reasoning, a man
who would be unfit to take part in the management of the affairs
of the parish?—The question is too general to be answered.
17,752. I think it is very specific?—I could not give a Yes or
a No to a general question of that kind. If a man was proved
to be guilty of omitting to do what was his plain and distinct
duty, and what he felt that his tenants expected him to do,
and what was necessary to be done for the tenants' good, and
his tenants did not abuse what he choose to do for them, then