Housing for the Working Classes in the East End of London, 1890-1907

This dissertation has been 69-15,967 microfilmed exactly as received

STEFFEL, Richard Vladimir, 1935- HOUSING FOR THE WORKING CLASSES IN THE EAST END OF LONDON, 1890-1907. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1969 History, modern

University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan

_ Richard Vladimir Steffel 1969 © ______

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED HOUSING FOR THE WORKING CLASSES IN THE

EAST END OF LONDON, 1890-1907

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

j By Rj Vladimir Steffel, A.B., B.Sc. in Ed., M.A. ******

The Ohio State University 1969

Approved by

Adviser Department of History PREPACE

The general acceptance of public responsibility for providing decent housing for the poorer working classes in England was a slow and recent development, the major stimulus coming from the Pirst World War.

Attitudes of most Englishmen toward public housing were the same before and after the war and were largely determined by a poor law mentality as regards the indigent, which advocated minimal government action.

Permissive legislation, nevertheless, erected a base and the amending process strengthened the powers of local authorities. The objective of this study is to trace the interaction of various levels of government and public opinion grappling with the urban crisis.

It is a case study of housing in the East End of

London, with emphasis on the role of the London County

Council from 1889 to 1907. It has become accepted that the majority of the working class lived in or near poverty in the 1880s and

1890s, the basic cause being underemployment. Lacking a steady income casual laborers were forced to live in overcrowded and substandard houses. Laissez faire and

ii rugged individualist ideas coupled with paternalism

and philanthropy assumed that housing was outside the

legitimate domain of government. Only gradually did

government, with its more objective and nonmoralizing

attitudes* step in. The national government passed

legislation which was permissive and thus dependent on

local authority initiative. In London the County

Council attacked the slums by trying to prevent large

scale urban decay, which meant that vestries and

district boards had to be made more responsible in

exercising their authority and more responsive to the needs of the inarticulate segments of their community.

The LCC itself moved to clear away the worst slums and merely pursued the policy of its predecessor, the

Metropolitan Board of Works. Although the LCC worked vigorously, its approach was on a similarly limited scale. The question of rebuilding slum areas presented the Council with a predicament. The majority party advocated municipal housing, despite strong public opposition.

The County Council thus encroached on the area of private enterprise with its high design and structural standards both goading and hampering private developers.

Consequently, the Council got its chance to show what could be attained. The Council, however, soon permitted

iii its standards to give way under the exigencies of

economics. Moreover, when it realized that slum

clearance and redevelopment scarcely made a dent in the housing crisis, it redirected its energies to

erecting suburban estates. Finally, the County Council grappled with other aspects of urban living, such as transport, parks and social services. But the Council and allied agencies did all this in piecemeal fashion without a comprehensive plan.

If this dissertation fails to evoke the struggle between personalities and parties or the tensions of party factionalism, this is because this material has not been found. And it may never be found.

From 1889 to 1899 local government in London was divided between the London County Council and forty-one vestries and district boards. The Council maintained trunk roads, bridges, tunnels, main sewers and parks; it regulated public health and housing, it supervised places of entertainment, and established the building code. The vestries and district boards ministered to the needs of the poor, constructed and maintained local sewers and streets, provided street lighting, collected refuse, maintained parks, and erected bathhouses.

Although parliament replaced the weak Metropolitan

Board of Works in 1889 with the LCC, it omitted the

iv vestries and district boards from the reform. There

were twenty-nine vestries and twelve district boards.

The vestries varied in population from 19,000 to

199,000 and the boards from 19,000 to almost 86,000.

In 1899 the vestries and district boards of works were

replaced by twenty-eight boroughs which inherited the

same functions. The city of London successfully

defended its freedom.

I wish to thank Prof. Philip Poirier for his

judicious advice and patience. These qualities of the

"enigmatic tsar" were invaluable in preparing the

dissertation. Thanks is due to Pro^. Clayton Roberts

for his deep interest in London housing and willing ear

on our walks around Russell Square; also to Prof.

Robert Bremner who has eclectic interests in Anglo-

American social problems.

I am especially grateful to the staffs of the

Members’ Library and the archives of the Greater London

Council. Their cooperation and extreme kindness made my work most enjoyable. I am indebted to Mr. C. W.

Baker of the Charlwood Alliance Co. for kindly

permitting me to use the archives of the East End

Dwelling Co. I am grateful to the staffs of the

British Museum, the Public Record Office, and the

v Institute of Historical Research, University of London.

I am also thankful to the London School of Economics for making available the Booth Papers, and the Passfield

Trust for permission to read the Passfield Papers.

Finally, Miss Jane Gatliff and her Interlibrary Loan staff for tracking down minuscule pamphlets and quickly getting them to The Ohio State University.

Especial thanks go to James Addis for helping me in the darkroom and to Lyn Shimp for carefully and patiently typing this dissertation.

vi VITA

10 October 1935 Born - New York, New York

1957 A.B., Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio

1959 ...... M.A., The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

196 1 ...... B.Sc. in Ed., The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1961-1962 .... Teacher, Strongsville High School, Strongsville, Ohio

1962 ...... Graduate Assistant, Department of Slavic Studies, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1963-1965 .... Graduate Assistant, Department of History, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1965 ...... Instructor, Department of History, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1966-1967 .... Assistant Professor, Department of History, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia

1968-1969 .... Instructor, Department of History, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

vii FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: History

Modern England. Professor Philip P.. Poirier

Tudor-Stuart England. Professor Clayton Roberts

Twentieth Century America. Professor Robert Bremner

United States, 1865-1900. Professor Robert Bremner

Europe, 1648-1815. Professor John Rule

viii TABLE OP CONTENTS

PREFACE ...... ii

VITA...... vii

LIST OP TABLES...... x

LIST OP FIGURES ...... xi

Chapt er

I. PLIGHT OP THE WORKING CLASSES ...... 1

II. SLUM CONTROL...... 29

III. SLUM CLEARANCE...... 71

IV. MUNICIPAL HOUSING: ATTITUDES AND ACTION THROUGH 1892 ...... 126

V. PUBLIC HOUSING POLICY IN FLUX: 1893-1907 ...... 161 VI. ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS AND PLANNING REDEVELOPMENT...... 201

VII. TOWARD COMPREHENSIVE URBAN REDEVELOPMENT...... 254

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 287

APPENDIX

STANFORD'S LONDON, 1894...... End Paper

ix LIST OP TABLES

I. Slum Clearances in Greater London, 1875-1907 124 II. Decennial Population Changes in Metropolitan London and the Tower Hamlets, 1801-1911 193 III. Decennial Count of Foreign Born in Metropolitan London and the Tower Hamlets, 1861-1901 194

IV. New Construction in the Tower Hamlets, 1892-1897 197

x LIST OF FIGURES

I. London, 1889 and 1964 2 II. Ann Street Scheme 80

III. Queen Catherine Court Scheme 84

IV. King John’s Court Scheme 85

V. London Terrace Scheme 89

VI. London Terrace 90

VII. Burford's Court, etc., Scheme 109

VIII. Burford's Court, etc., Scheme 110

IX. Slum Clearance in the Tower Hamlets 123

X. Brook Street Scheme 143

XI. Cable Street Scheme 150

XII. Housing in the Tower Hamlets 198

XIII. Lowood Building, Cable Street 218

XIV. Tench Street Scheme 232

XV. Beachcroft Buildings, Brook St. 239

XVI. Cranford Cottages, Brook St. 239

XVII. Dellow Building, Cable St. 240

XVIII. Winnipeg Buildings, Preston's Rd • 240

XIX. St. Lawrence Cottages, Preston's Rd. 241

XX. St. Lawrence Cottages, Preston's Rd. 241

xi XXI. Brightlingsea Buildings, Ropemakers Fields 242

XXII. Boundary Street Estate 242

XXIII. Boundary Street Estate 243

XXIV. Boundary Street Estate 243 XXV. Boundary Street Scheme 245

XXVI. Boundary Street Scheme 246

XXVII. Katharine Buildings, East End Dwelling Co. 249

XXVIII. Ravenscroft Building, East End Dwelling Co. 249

xii CHAPTER I

PLIGHT OP THE WORKING CLASSES

The East End is bounded on the west by the City of

London, on the south by the river Thames, on the east by the river Lea, and on the north by Victoria Park. This area traditionally has been called the Tower Hamlets.

When local government was reorganized in 1964 the London

County Council boroughs of Stepney, Poplar, and Bethnal

Green were combined to form the new Greater London

Council borough of Tower Hamlets.'*' At the beginning of the 18th century the East End had a population of 143»869.

Most of the inhabitants were clustered near the City in an area stretching along the Thames. Gradually the people moved eastward toward the Lea and north from the docks.

Migrants from rural England, Scotland, and Ireland swelled the population. By mid-century the Tower Hamlets were fairly developed and had a population of 376,265.

In 1899 fourteen parishes were consolidated to form Stepney, Poplar was formed from three parishes, and Bethnal Green parish was reformed as a borough. For a map of this area in 1894 see "Stanford's Map of the County of London" in the appendix.

1 FIG. I LONDON, 1889 & 1964

GREATER LONDON. 1964

CITY TOWER HAMLETS

LONDON. 1889

N) Prom the 1840’a to the end of the 1870's migrants poured in and with natural increase the population grew hy a quarter of a million— from 309,012 in 1841 to 566,147 in

1881. The high mark was recorded in the 1901 census when

597,102 residents were enumerated. Gradually the popu- 2 lation receded until today there are 202,560 inhabitants.

By the 1890's the East End was over-built and densely populated. It was partly cut up by canals and railroads.

Vacated middle class homes had been converted into sweatshops and warehouses introduced to suit the needs of commerce. There were dwellings in the midst of docks, and in the shadows of shops, slaughterhouses, warehouses, and gas works. Here lived the cheap tailors, bootmakers, sackmakers, matchbox makers, costermongers as well as the dock laborers. They lived close to their work and close to the markets. Transportation from the suburbs was inconvenient and so expensive even on workmen's trains that few could afford the fares.

Many of the inhabitants tried to live decently and soberly, but could not get good wages, skilled jobs, or steady employment. Twenty shillings per week was considered the absolute minimum for survival. A

2 Population. Decennial Census, 1851-1911, Parliamen- tary Papers, 1852-53 [1631], LXXXV, 6-8; 1862 [^5'51,‘T; 196; 1872 [C 676-1], LXVI, Pt. ii, 15; 1883 [C 3563], LXXIX, 3? 1893-94 [C 6948-1], CV, 3; 1902 [Cd 785], CXX, 31; 1912-13 [Cd 6258], CXI, 241. Hereinafter cited as PP. 4 government study into the condition of the working classes in London revealed that more than half of the dock laborers, lightermen, carters, scavengers, navvies, etc., employed and unemployed, earned less than twenty-one shillings, and another 20# were perched on the edge of poverty earning 21 to 25 shillings a week. At the time of this study— which appeared in 1887— 45# of these workers were unemployed; therefore, although statistically their wages were at the edge of poverty, their average incomes were below the poverty line. The aristocrats of labor were lightermen and bargemen; they easily earned up to 40 shillings a week. The majority lived in one room or less. Rent for 60# was under 4/- per week, and 40# paid less than 3/-*

The plight cf the poor working classes cannot be exaggerated. Overcrowding, insanitary conditions, substandard or decayed housing, and high rents were the order of the day. While the average rent per room was

2/6 to 3/- per week, many poor were crowded six to ten into a room measuring only eight feet by ten feet.

Overcrowding was defined by the Registrar-General as more than two persons to a room. Even two persons in one euch room was high by any standard. In this room the family

*5 •'Condition of the Working Classes: Tabulation of Statements, HP, 1887 [C 5228], LXXI, 332-33, 410-11, 422-23, 426-27. 5 ate, slept, relaxed, and sometimes worked. How could a woman keep her house clean in such an environment? She cooked there, she washed and dried clothes there, and everyone bathed there. Floors of softwood sometimes laid directly on the earth v/ere difficult to scrub and if they were rotten they were impossible. It was inhuman to expect a woman to fight this losing battle. Add to this the irregularity and insecurity of their incomes from which 20 to 25$ went for rent.

Speculative builders were not in business to cater to the poor. However, not even the housing trusts and the 5$ or semi-philanthropic housing companies alleviated these conditions * Peabody Trust founded in 1862 and the East

End Dwelling Co. founded in 1883 erected a number of blocks in the Tower Hamlets, but neither group success­ fully reached the poor. Their strict rules and barrack buildings kept many for whom the tenements were intended away. Moreover, they insisted that their tenants have a steady income and a sober temperament. Even land cleared by the Metropolitan Board of Works and sold to these groups at an economic loss was insufficient to keep rents down. The rents were too high for the original inhabit­ ants and for the poor. The Select Committee on the

Artizans' and Laborers' Dwellings Improvement Acts in

1882 reminded the Peabody Trust that its quasi-public 6 status obliged it to assist the poorer segments of the 4 working classes. Slum dwellers were forged from two distinct groups: those with low incomes and society's less desirable elements— thieves, prostitutes, and misfits. This last group was of minor importance for slums were a convenient haven for them from society, and they can therefore be omitted from the discussion. It is the poor and those who hovered at the level of subsistence who are of primary concern here. True many did not strive to get out of the slums. This was so because hopelessness or fatalism became an accepted part of their life. Also many assumed the slums were merely a temporary stop on their road to higher standards. But it quickly became permanent due to precarious employment, and hope gave way to despair.

Originally poverty may or may not have been a cause of their attitudes. What was fundamental was that poverty held them back.

The crux of the housing problem, as with most social problems, was poverty on the one hand and attitudes toward the poor on the other. These attitudes changed slowly. Many believed that the source of the

Select Committee on Artizans' and Laborers' Dwellings Improvement Acts, PP, 1882 (235), VII, x. Hereinafter cited as SCALDI. working classes’ misery was ignorence, immorality, and vicious habits. The poor were improvident and

intemperate and licentious. What many moralists failed

to grasp was that crowded and overcrowded living

conditions drove men to the pub for escape and companion­

ship. As the world weighed heavily, one drink led to

another and the pub became a vice instead of a safety valve. Insecurity led to drink; drink to poverty. It was a vicious circle. Beatrice Potter, as a rent

collector for the East End Dwelling Co., understood why

they did not resist: they had nothing else to live for, and though she did not moralize, she was almost ready to

prohibit drink. "The Drink demon destroys the fittest and spares the meaner nature," she wrote in her diary in

1886; "undermines the constitution of a family, and

passes on to stronger stuff. There are times when one

loses all faith in laisser-faire [and] would suppress

this poison at all hazards, before it eats the life of 5 the nation."

The 1887 white paper presented a sample of living

conditions and income from selected districts including

St. George in the East. It underlined the uncertain

Beatrice Webb, "Diary of Beatrice Webb," X (7 Nov. 1886), 69-70. (Unpublished typescript in the Passfield Papers at the British Library of Political and Economic Science.) existence of the unskilled who worked on the docks. Yet the study concluded that earnings were understated and rent overstated. It assumed the rent to be less than 25$ ZT of their incomes. At this time Charles Booth was laying the ground work of his survey which uncovered the depth of poverty and exposed its economic causes. In spite of these revelations, attitudes were still mixed in 1908 when the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws and Relief of

Distress received as evidence a special report from the dioceses concluding: "in urban districts economic conditions are to a large extent responsible for poverty, in parishes where rural conditions prevail such poverty 7 as exists is due mainly to moral causes." The majority report of the royal commission acknowledged that poverty in the towns was serious and that industrial and Q commercial instability were the causes. Nevertheless,

^Condition of the Working Classes, PP, 1887 [C 5228], IX3CI, 314.

7 Royal Commission on the Poor Laws and Relief of Distress, PP, 1909 [Cd 4850], XLII, 321. Hereinafter cited as rEFL. Q Majority report submitted by Lord George Hamilton, chairman, Sir Samuel B. Provis, permanent secretary to the Local Government Board, Prank Holdsworth Bentham, A. H. Downes, MD, senior medical inspector for poor law purposes to the Local Government Board, kav. Thory Gage Gardiner, T. Hancock Nunn, Rev. L. R. Phelps, Octavia Hill, and C. S. Loch. "the vital issues in the problem," it claimed, were "moral rather than economic." And the way to cure this was through personal work, refusal of relief, or treatment in order to "strengthen and develop self-restraint and q independence of character." The minority report did not moralize,1^ It divided those in poverty into two groups— the able bodied and the non-able bodied. In analyzing the causes of destitution among the able bodied it isolated underemployment as the primary cause for pauperism. Low wages, insanitary living conditions, excessive working hours, outdoor relief, drunkenness or excessive expend­ iture on drink were not the main causes. They were all injurious, but if a man with low wages had steady employ­ ment there was no significant increase in pauperism. The minority report pointed to "high earnings and short hours and healthy conditions. . .combined with the method of casual employment" as the major cause of "demoralization of character, irregularity of life and a constant recruiting of the pauper army." It concluded that this

9RCPL, PP, 1909 [Cd 4499], XXXVII, 495-96.

^Minority report submitted by Rev. H. Russell Wakefield, alderman and ex-mayor of St. Marylebone, Francis Chandler, sec. to the Amalgamated Carpenters and Joiners, George Lansbury, and Beatrice Webb. 10 system so demoralized a man that it made him unsuited to employment even if he could obtain i t . ^

Creeds of individualism and economic liberalism shaped the prevailing climate of opinion for much of the

19th century. Any interference by the state was inter­ preted as compulsion and collectivism. The prevailing view of poverty in these years was pessimistic. It was a permanent aspect of society. The state coald not alter or change the worker's lot. Any change in his condition had to be personal. This could be assisted by inculcating in the laboring poor the virtues of self- reliance, self-discipline, and thrift. If need for charity arose then it was to be administered on an individual basis. Only the deserving poor were to benefit from philanthropy, the undeserving would have access to the work house. Outstanding exponents of this view were Octavia Hill, Charles Stewart Loch, and Helen

Bosanquet. To them the source of failure lay in individual character not in any deficiencies of the social system. Although they refused to question the causes of poverty, they were willing to rationalize the machinery for dispensing aid to those in distress.

During the last quarter of the 19th century this philosophy came increasingly under attack. The "Great

1:LRCPL, PP, 1909 [Cd 4499], XXXVII, 1173 and 1177. Depression,” 1873-96, with its recurring business crises, undermined the optimistic belief in continued economic progress. Increased competition from industrializing countries which had been former customers and growing tariff barriers led to serious doubts about England’s free trade policy. The matchbox girls' strike in 1888 drew public attention to the evils of sweated labor. The gas workers' strike of 1888 and the dockers' of 1889 were a fillip to industrial unionism and reformers.

Collectivist solutions to social and economic problems now had a more receptive audience. Reformers questioned the basic assumptions on which capitalism rested and insisted that new foundations were imperative. Their position gained strength from continued investigations into the condition of the working class. As knowledge of the causes and extent of destitution accumulated individualism and laissez faire were countered sharply.

Gradually parliament responded to the changing situation and enacted legislation to ameliorate the workers' lot.

Not only did a more realistic view of the causes of poverty emerge, but it also had become apparent that bad housing contributed directly to ill health and poverty.

The condition of the people had been questioned earlier in the 19th century. Southwood Smith, Edwin Chadwick, and Lord Shaftesbury struggled for sanitary improvement and better housing. Smith and Chadwick aimed at improved 12 public health and administrative efficiency, while

Shaftesbury was moved by Christian charity. Southwood

Smith, a sanitary inspector, in his 1838 and 1839 reports to the Poor Law Commissioners revealed the filthy and cramped quarters in which East Enders lived. Together with Chadwick, secretary to the Poor Law Commissioners, he argued for sanitary reform for dwelling houses. They wanted better garbage collection, sewers and surface draining, and widened and ventilated streets. Only through better housing conditions, they said, could sickness be 12 reduced and poor law expenditures minimized. The immediate results of this agitation were the Nuisance

Removal Acts. Local authorities were empowered to deal with premises, ditches, cesspools, urinals, and accumulations that were nuisances or injurious to health.

Eighty years after Smith's revelations the connection between health, housing and poverty was still a subject of inquiry. One of the key reports submitted to the

Royal Commission on the Poor Law concerned itself with this problem. Arthur D. Steel-Maitland and Rose E.

Squire, factory inspectors, had studied key industries,

12 S. E. Finer, The Life and Times of Sir Edwin Chadwick (London, 1952)» pp. 210-11, 224-25; Fourth Annual Report of the Poor Law Commissioners, PP, 1837-38 [147]» XXVIII, App. A; Fifth Annual Report o f T h e Poor Law Commissioners, PP, 1839 (239)» XX, App. C. 13 changing industrial requirements, unemployment, and housing in the East End. Although they concluded that slum housing was a secondary cause of pauperism, they noted that slums were incubators and disseminators of disease. Lung tuberculosis was the most debilitating and spread rapidly among the poor in crowded tenements and sweated workshops, especially in the footwear 13 industry. Specific housing legislation had been passed in

1851. In that year Lord Shaftesbury pushed through two acts. The Laboring Classes Lodging Houses Act empowered local authorities to erect housing for the working classes, and the Common Lodging House Act provided for better management and inspection of common lodging houses. The Shaftesbury acts were rarely implemented and in metropolitan London they were not applied at all. Nevertheless, parliament continued to attack the problem by legislating more permissive legislation. The Nuisance Removal Acts were consoli­ dated and expanded in 1855, and the Sanitary Act of

1866 designated overcrowding as a nuisance.

Then via the Torrens Act and the Cross Act parliament legislated against individual substandard dwellings and

13RCPL, PP, 1909 [Cd 4653], XLIII, 7, 23, 181 14 empowered local authorities to clear and rebuild slums.

Under the Torrens Act of 1868 property owners could be required to alter structurally or to demolish a dwelling which was dangerous to the health of its occupants. If the owner refused to implement an order then the local authority could do it at his expense. An amending act in 1879 extended the definition to include buildings which obstructed courts and alleys, and in 1882 buildings obstructing other dwellings. Moreover, local authorities were empowered in 1879 to erect working class dwellings and in 1882 could deal with small groups of houses.

However, with the Cross Act of 1875, the Torrens

Act fell into abeyance. In London the Cross Act delegated authority to the Metropolitan Board of Works.

Local medical officers of health and vestry or District

Board of Work officials were required to report to the

MBW any area in need of rearrangement and reconstruction because the buildings were structurally defective or so arranged as to be injurious to the health of the inhabitants. To expedite slum clearance parliament in

1879 permitted other sites to be used for housing, and in

1882 it empowered the Home Secretary to reduce the

Artizans and Laborers Dwelling Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Viet.), c. 76; Artizans and Laborers Dwellings Act (1868) Amendment Act, 1879 (42 & 43 Viet.), c. 64; Artizans Dwelling Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Viet.), c. 54, pt. II. 15 rehousing obligation up to 50$ of the original number of inhabitants. It also tightened the law's compensation clauses In spite of this legislation no substantial gains were achieved in the East End or in metropolitan London.

Both acts were permissive and most officials were unwilling to employ them. Deploring the local author­ ities' unwillingness to use the Torrens Act, the Select

Committee on Artizans' and Laborers' Dwellings Improve­ ment Acts cited it as an excellent tool to improve property without further aggravating overcrowding. The

Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes in 1884 cited the Metropolitan Board of Yforks for not exercising its powers when local authorities defaulted 16 in applying the Torrens Act. On the other hand, the

MBW was not as responsive as it could have been because it represented the vestries and district boards, not the people.

On the eve of the great waves of immigration from

Eastern Europe the public and parliament began to question

15 'Artizans and Laborers Dwellings Improvement Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Viet.), c. 36; Artizans and Laborers Dwellings Improvement Act, 1879 (42 & 43 Viet.), c. 63; Artizans Dwelling Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Viet.), c. 54, pt. I.

16SCALDI, PP, 1882 (235), VII, xi. Royal Commission on the Housing o? the Working Classes, 1884-85, PP, [C 4402], XXX, 22. Hereinafter cited as RCHWC. 16 the efficacy of the Torrens and Cross Acts. Fortnightlies, daily newspapers, pamphleteers, a select committee, and a royal commission investigated the housing problem. It seemed as if overnight the question had become vital.

No longer was there singing praise in unison to private enterprise and no longer was there unanimous optimism.

Private enterprise was unable to provide housing at prices laborers could afford. Various philanthropic 17 efforts had tried to fill the gap without success.

Men wanted to know the causes of these failures and the ineffectiveness of legislation.

It became fashionable for West Bnders to go slumming in the East End. Toynbee Hall was founded in 1883 and a number of university settlements followed. Lord

Salisbury, Joseph Chamberlain, and Richard A. Cross, as prominent contributors to the journals of opinion, all complained that nothing had been done for the poorest 1 ft classes. The most influential pamphlet to focus on slums was "The Bitter Cry of Outcast London.” The

17 William Ashworth, Genesis of Modern British Town Planning (London, 1954), Chapter IV. 1 ft Lord Salisbury, "Labourers' and Artizans’ Dwellings,” The National Review, II (1883), 301-16; Joseph Chamberlain, *'Labourers' and Artisans' Dwellings," The Fortnightly Review. XXXIV (1883), 761-76; Richard Assheton Cross* hHomes of the Poor," The Nineteenth Century. XV (1884), 150-66. 17 pamphleteer's concern was the lack of religion among the lowest classes and their drift away from the rest of society. He summarized and dramatized the conditions in which the poor lived. The Pall Mall Gazette seized upon this work and asked: "Is it not Time?" It reprinted part of the pamphlet and did a serial feature on slums. Week after week front page articles and editorials appeared. Just when the issue seemed dead or lost as in the Egyptian-Sudan crisis, the PMG 19 revived it.

A positive contribution from the PMG’s sensationalism was the calling of the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes, 1884-85. Por newsworthiness it was no match to Gordon and Khartoum. In spite of its outstanding membership the RCHWC did not advocate 20 radical solutions or realize great gains. It retraced many of the steps of the SCALDI and it redram­ atized the plight of the working classes. All members

19Pall Mall Gazette, 16 Oct. 1883-4 Peb. 1884. 20 Membership of the RCHWC: Charles Dilke, chairman, Prince Edward, Cardinal Manning, Marquess of Salisbury, George Goschen, Richard A. Cross, E. L. Stanley, William Torrens, Henry Broadhurst, Jesse Coilings, Samuel Morley, Earl Brownlaw, Lord Carrington, George Godwin, and William Walsham, the Bishop of Bedford. 18 signed the majority report and then submitted memos which reflected their attitudes toward housing. None questioned local government's responsibility in slum clearance.

The Marquess of Salisbury thought that owners were responsible for insanitary property which resulted from structural defects and that they should be authorized to re-enter their property and improve it. Goschen, Stanley, and Morley went further than the report's calling for reform of London government and pleaded for a new metropolitan government with powers to inspect and rigidly enforce the sanitary laws. Salisbury placed faith in the operation of the laws of supply and demand end in the expansion of London's suburbs to relieve pressures on central London. Goschen, Stanley, and

Morley hedged. They firmly believed that private enter­ prise was the source for additional housing, so they did not want to frighten it. On the other hand, they admitted that municipal housing had its place when erected on cleared sites. Their apprehensions were that municipal housing would create false hopes among

Londoners; it would dry up private capital, and there would be difficulties in merging public and private enterprise.

Jesse Collings with Broadhurst, Morley, Cardinal

Manning, Lord Carrington, and the Bishop of Bedford dealt with the question of rents. They held that rents in 19 central London were not established by the normal operation of the law of supply and demand. Force of circumstance, not choice, determined whether many lived in the metropolis. The only way to reduce rents was to 21 provide more housing.

The importance of the royal commission was that for a moment it focused the public's attention on the slum problem. The dramatic visits by Prince Edward and Dilke into London’s dark and dank slums moved many consciences.

Regardless, the nation quickly tried to forget its seamy world and assumed that this social problem would resolve itself. The public did not want to face up to the helplessness of the poor.

No one had any conception of the depth and breadth of urban poverty until Charles Booth made his seminal study. Charles Booth, skeptical of the speculative talk of poverty, launched the first impartial study of life and labor in London. His pilot project covered the East End districts of today's Stepney and Poplar.

He was astounded by what he discovered, and it took him time to grasp the full significance. 35$ of east

London's population lived on the edge or in poverty, and any illness or unemployment could easily increase

21RCHWC, PP, 1884-85 [C 4402], XXX, 60-67 the percentage. He was disturbed with "so much savagery as there is, and so much abject poverty, and so many who can never raise their heads much above the level of actual want." However, Booth was optimistic: the situation was serious, yet it was "not visibly fraught with imminent social danger, or leading straight to revolution." He assured the reader that "we can afford to be calm, and give to attempts at improvement the time and patience which are absolutely needed if we are 22 to do any good at all." This pilot study and his 17 volumes convinced the skeptics that poverty and slums existed on a grand scale. The poorest and most crowded sections in the East End were Bethnal Green, St. George in the East, Poplar and Limehouse. The percentage of poverty in each was 47.0$, 44.8$, and 37.6$ respectively, and the percentage of crowding— defined as two or more persons per room— was 55.0$, 53.7$, and 33.5$ 23 respectively.

Ten years later B. Seebohm Rowntree carried out a similar survey in York and revealed that comparable degree of poverty existed in the provinces. In addition

22 Charles Booth, Condition and Occupations of the People of the Tower Hamlets, 18b6-b7 (t/ondon, IB87T» P. 6. 23Charles Booth. Life and Labour of the People of London (London, 1902), 5*inal Volume, p. 25. to his study, the declining physical standards of volunteers during the Boer War revived the question of health, housing, and national interest. Little was done for housing, however. The issue was raised in the

House of Lords in 1901. The conservative government was reluctant to propose any bill because of war costs.

Lord Salisbury’s reply to criticism was to cite the activity of private enterprise and local government in improving working class housing. He stressed that parliament must rely mainly on private enterprise rather than municipalities. He advocated taking more time and gathering more information rather than "relying too much upon novel, and you may say illegitimate, methods.

Although almost ten years had passed since the

London County Council embarked on municipal housing and almost thirty years since major slum clearance had begun, scarcely enough was achieved. As the Earl of Portsmouth noted: since the royal commission's inquiry "little or nothing has been done by Parliament, and whatever has 25 been done. . .has been done by the County Council."

A substantial portion of the public in the 1900s viewed municipal housing with a "poor law" mentality. Any help

24 House of Lords, Parliamentary Debates, 4th series, 8 March 1901, pp. 1013-15.

25Ibid., p. 998. 22 to the poor was merely temporary, it was a subsidy of wages, and it was a sign of personal failure. For example, Ernest R. Dewsnup, a former Mancunian and professor of railway economics at the University of

Chicago, staunchly favored slum control and slum clearance. He repudiated laissez faire arguments against government participation in these areas. He maintained that the government’s responsibility was to promote the general welfare of the community. However, he refused to support municipal housing because people did not appreciate it. Furthermore, he claimed it destroyed self-reliance, it had pauperizing influences, and it was a subsidy of wages which actually subsidized 26 employers.

Migration to the suburbs was another approach to the housing problem. While metropolian London struggled with slum control and slum clearance, parliament in

1883 passed the Cheap Train Act. The select committee in 1882 had recommended that all railway companies be regulated by conditions similar to those imposed on the

Great Eastern Railway. Workmen's trains, it was convinced, would facilitate the flow into the suburbs. The report of the royal commission in 1885 reiterated those

26 E. R. Dewsnup, The Housing Problem in England (Manchester, 1907), pp. 2l6, 224-7 243-44. recommendations. It hoped that substantial migration would relieve the pressure on land and rooms in central

London. As population pressure diminished, the govern­ ment could ease its insistence on rehousing in central

London, and the cleared land could be used more economically. There were visions of thousands of workmen being rushed in and out of London daily. And there were pictures of healthier and happier working class families living in a rustic environment.

For those with steady and well paying ;jobs this was feasible. But for many in the East End it was incon­ ceivable. Temporary employment, irregular hours, necessity to be on hand when work was available, domestic workshops, and poor wages made it impossible to leave. This was true in the docks, footwear, tailoring, and woodwork industries. Even if transport were scheduled conveniently, when rail fares were added to rents, the laborer financially was where he started.

True he got greater value for his money, but he was in short supply of that commodity, too.

By 1900 public opinion was sure that suburban development would solve the problem of overcrowding and cut the costs of slum clearance. Peabody Trust and the

Artisans’, Laborers' and General Dwelling Co., for example, had already shifted to building on the outskirts. 24

Even the County Council switched its policy and placed

greater emphasis on erecting new estates. Yet progress

was slow. In 1905 the Royfcl Commission on London Traffic

reported on the relation of transport to housing. It

concluded that slow and imperfect transport made the

evils affecting social and economic problems quite

serious. It also concluded that "in the interests of

public health and publie convenience, and for the prompt

transaction of business, as well as to render decent

housing possible, that the means of locomotion and

transport. . .should be improved." A large number of workers did not need to live in the densely populated

areas, but cheap and efficient transport was essential.

It added that if private enterprise did not construct

the needed railways then local authorities should be

authorized to do so, for this would be cheaper and

healthier in the long run. Housing in central London

involved a loss, while suburban estates were self 27 supporting. ' Not everyone on the commission was

convinced that suburban housing was cheap and helped

relieve overcrowding. Sir Joseph G. Dimsdale cited

the London County Council estate in Tottenham and noted

27 Royal Commission on London Transport, PP, 1905 [Cd 2597], XXX, 6-11, 103, 104. 25 that after rents and rates were paid the price was so high that the poor could not afford them. Neither did he agree with the testimony of W. E. Riley, LCC architect, that further rail extention would help the poor. While

Dimsdale denounced the fallacy that suburban housing would aid the poor, George C. T. Bartley protested pQ against subsidizing either housing or transport.

Cheap and efficient transport was an essential aspect of the housing problem. More crucial, however, was the question of local government. The enforcement of legislation fell on the vestries and district boards.

Unfortunately local officials represented only the affluent segments of society; and they were hesitant and expected the Metropolitan Board of Works to fulfill their housing duties. The Metropolitan Board itself was not very efficient and even less representative of the public. Its membership was elected by the vestries and district boards of works and it tended to represent their individual vested interests. The ineffectiveness of the Metropolitan Board was condemned by some of the members of the Royal Commission on Housing the Working

Classes. London, they argued, needed a representative government which had the public's confidence. Only then

og Royal Commission on London Transport, PP, 1905 [Cd 2597], XXX, 112, 121; Proceedings of the IToyal Commission on London Transport, PP, 1906 [Cd 2751], XL, 262. would it inspect dwellings and enforce the sanitary laws.29 Similar arguments were advanced in the newspapers and fortnightlies. The impetus for reform came with the exposure of corruption. In 1889 London was reorganized and the County Council superceded the

Metropolitan Board. While the London County Council was elected directly by the electorate, it was not until 1894 that the vestries and district boards were made more representative, and they were not restructured until 1899.30 The Council lived up to the expectations of the reformers. Soon after its creation the LCC launched a campaign to modify and consolidate the various housing acts. Slum clearance and rebuilding was scattered under a half dozen different laws with different objectives, different definitions, and different obligations.

Areas could be cleared and housing built under the

Torrens Act, the Cross Act, the Street Improvement Acts,

29RCHWC, PP, 1884-85 [C 4402], XXX, 38, 66-67, 80. 30 The structure of London government from 1855, when the Metropolitan Board of Works was established, was two tier. The vestries and district boards were closest to the people and responsible for poor relief, sanitation, sewage, and streets. Above them was the Metropolitan Board of Works which was responsible for roads, bridges sewers, and housing problems that were of metropolitan importance. the Laboring Classes Lodging House Act, and special legislation for the railway companies. In addition, rehousing obligations were set out in standing orders of parliament and the London County Council. If the hope of government was to be fulfilled then consolidation and modification was imperative. With the passage of the

Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, the County

Council energetically threw itself into slum control and clearance. It also increased pressure on local authorities to rely on themselves and to utilize their powers rather than expect the LCC solely to cope with insanitary and substandard housing.

There was no single solution to the plight of the working classes. Higher and steadier wages, regular employment and regulated hours of work, as well as improved and cheap transportation would place better housing within reach of London laborers, especially

East Enders. Legislation limited some of the precar­ iousness of life, but this rarely affected the poor.

Only substantially modified attitudes would permit direct public aid to hard core poverty.

In the period from 1880 to 1907 Londoners accepted government involvement in slum control, clearance, and rehousing, and in the provision of parks, playgrounds, schools, and social centers. Private enterprise and philanthropy were not excluded, in fact, they were continually encouraged, but they lacked financial and legal resources necessary for urban redevelopment.

Londoners, however, were unwilling to tax themselves and so restrained the County Council from launching too many projects. They were convinced that the national government needed only to legislate and to lend money. But attitudes were changing faster than anyone realized and in ten years the treasury was to accept limited responsibility. CHAPTER II

SLUM CONTROL

As thousands of Englishmen herded into the cities, they put undue pressures on existing housing facilities.

Dwellings originally constructed for single family occupancy now had multi-tenancy. It was one thing to live in a one room cottage in the country and another to occupy one or two rooms of a house where there were already two or three other families. There were rural slums; however, in the country sanitation, although primitive, was not critical; fresh air was in abundance; and the children had fields to play in. Consider for a moment how these evils multiplied in the city: single family houses converted improperly meant there was less air, less floor space, and fewer sanitary conveniences per person. Lacking accessible parks the children turned the streets into playgrounds. The result was obvious: greater noise and nuisance for adults and a questionable paradise for the children. Houses were rarely refitted with sanitary facilities for the increased numbers. Cesspools overflowed in the backyards.

Sewers were poorly connected, some drained back into the

29 30 houses; in fact, some street sewers were an engineering triumph— they ran up hill. And there were the mean by-law streets, sometimes built on top of incorrectly settled sewage dumps.

Slum filth was not hidden in a few corners of the metropolis. It was visible to anyone who looked and a direct threat to his health and tranquility. Londoners groped for a means to prevent and clear slums. As they felt their way they realized that the two essentials were continuous control and will. Permissive legis­ lation which defined sanitary nuisances had not whisked them away. Prevention and effective control demanded inspection, enforcement, and compulsory power to improve or demolish dwellings. It required money to pay salaries and to purchase property. And it demanded a will to act, supported by public opinion. Even private landlords who had continual control could exercise their authority only within limits.1

Pioneers in tackling the modern industrial housing problems were Edwin Chadwick, Southwood Smith, James

Philip Kay-Shuttleworth, and Lord Shaftesbury. They uncovered the problem, defined it, directed the public's attention to it. They created the Victorian virtue of

1Donald Olsen, Town Planning in London (New Haven, 1964), Ch. 7. 31 "cleanliness next to godliness." They took the first long overdue steps to tackle this serious situation.

Cholera epidemics punctuated the urgency. Once the immediate crisis passed society quickly returned to its usual complacency. Legislation was essentially permissive, local authorities were lax either because of attitude, interpretation, or costs.

The important work in the '50s, '60s, and '70s was undertaken by Lady Burdett-Coutts for philanthropic purposes, by Octavia Hill to prove the feasibility of improved property management, and by Sydney Waterlow for profit, and by professional medical officers of health like John Simon and Hector Gavin. Their firm conviction that poverty could not be eradicated did not prevent them from trying to improve the habits and standards of the poor. They were determined to alleviate poverty, raise morality, as well as improve housing— all while making a profit. This was a tall order.

They accomplished it, but only on a limited scale. Their work demanded individuals with strong personalities who imposed on the poor the value of cleanliness and orderliness, and the importance of obeying rules in urban housing and tenements.

Parliamentarians like Torrens and Cross advanced on slums with remedial legislation. Their solutions— 32 abatement, improvement, or demolition— were also based on voluntary action by vestries and district boards.

Such legislation had no teeth to compel local authorities.

They refused to act so long as it meant spending money from which the ratepayers received no direct benefit.

And when the Metropolitan Board of Works was delegated power to act in default of the local authorities it too shrank from enforcing the law. Prom twenty years' experience grew the gradual recognition that rigorous inspection was essential and compulsion a necessity.

The growth of legislation to prevent slums came in fits of energy and periods of moral atonement inter­ spersed with large stretches of apathy. Its basic aim was to raise the physical health of the community.

The rules were scattered among a half dozen pieces of legislation and amendments thereto. The laws placed permissive powers on the local authorities. The mechanism of implementation looked simple on paper yet was difficult to carry out. Local civic pride, more often than not, was the chief reason for implementing legislation.

The foundations for improving the working class environment were the Nuisance Eemoval and Sanitary

Acts, the Torrens Acts, and the Cross Acts. The

Nuisance Removal Act of 1855 defined a nuisance as 33 premises injurious to health; the Sanitary Act of 1866 added overcrowding. The Torrens Acts, 1868 to 1882, were concerned with houses that were dangerous to health due to structural defects. If individual buildings were repaired then they could be inhabited, but if alterations and improvements were impossible then the buildings had to be demolished. The Cross Acts, 1875-82, dealt with slum clearance rather than control. These laws aimed at getting minimum structural standards: they specified that dwellings be repaired, stable, and free from dampness; that they have sufficient natural light and ventilation; and that there be proper drainage and removal of wastes and garbage. They insisted that the neighborhood did not have an undue number of offensive trades and that factories did not belch soot into the air. They even recognized the detriment of over­ crowding though avoided the question of crowding. In

1875 parliament consolidated the sanitary and nuisance removal acts into the Public Health Act for England and Wales. It judiciously omitted London which did not get a consolidating act until 1891. The confusion, consequently, enabled the vestries and district boards to dodge their duties adroitly. Excitement and hope rang through the air in the

1880s. Important blue books on the state of working 34 class housing were produced. The 1890s followed with intensive administration, and with more active government participation in slum problems. Action replaced words.

Action focused on specific evils which had been so grimly depicted in the bluebooks. Both the select committee of 1881 and 1882 and the royal commission on housing pinpointed the evils: cumbersome laws, outrageously expensive compulsory purchases of condemned property, complicated legal procedures, and failure of authorities to act. The

1885 law cheapened costs. In the late 1880s the Home

Office investigated the sanitary conditions in Mile

End Old Town and in Bethnal Green. That Bethnal Green had some of the worst properties in the East End and that it refused to take action can not be denied. Long before the LGB inquiry the inhuman conditions were exposed. Back in 1838 Southwood Smith and again in

1848 Hector Gavin depicted the insanitary dwellings in Old Nichol and adjacent streets. Then the Eastern

Argus reported that children slept in a lean-to on the bare earth in the Mount Street area; and to get to the top floor of some dwellings one had to descend into the basement first. Thi3 condition was well known to the vestry, nevertheless, the sanitary committee did not act because as Mr. Norris, a vestryman, said, "they 35 2 seemed afraid of giving offence to the owners." At the inquiry into the sanitary condition of Bethnal Green,

Norris disgusted some investigators with his testimony.

He had the audacity to assure them that the buildings in Old Nichol Street were still in "fair condition" considering their type. Norris continually frustrated the sanitary work of the vestry’s sanitary committee.

When Bethnal Green finally did resolve to institute periodic house inspections, he first demanded proof of insanitary property and neglect. Curiously, in another instance, after successful action had been taken, Norris 4 charged that the delay was caused by interests. Thus, one person like Norris, in a powerful position, could frustrate any activity. It is surprising that there was any progress.

Fifty years after Chadwick's work, London once again became the center for ideas in urban problems.

During the interval provincial cities had blazed the path. In part London’s ineffectiveness can be blamed on its government. Metropolitan London had no

^Eastern Argus, 20 Oct. 1883. 3 The Sanitary Condition of Bethnal Green. Verbatim Report of 'the Government Inquiry. 7 Nov. 1807# P. 75.

^Eastern Argus, 30 Nov. 1889 and 9 June 1894. self-government and was not united. It was governed by self styled urban squires. The Metropolitan Board of

Works, created in 1855, was purposely limited in power and protected vested local interests. Only in the late eighties did it get a reformed and vibrant central government which willingly faced modern urban growth.

Another part of the blame falls squarely on local officials. Vestries and district boards consistently refused to enforce the law beyond token levels and rarely took advantage of the permissive powers to write stringent by-laws. They lacked will even when their vigorous medical officers of health and sanitary inspectors reported appalling cases. Moreover, even public spirited inspectors could not do the job thoroughly, properly or frequently enough to achieve a degree of effectiveness. There were not enough of them.

Finally magistrates accepted a fresh coat of whitewash as evidence of repair.

Creation of urban self-government in London was not the cure-all that many reformers predicted. Money was raised solely by rates with no direct contribution from the national treasury for purchase or remodeling.

This narrow base, which was governed by a self-help philosophy, created a precarious situation. The County

Council, however, did go a long way toward laying a foundation for slum control and decent housing. It was conscious that the majority of Londoners depended on sanitary inspection to enforce minimum housing standards.

It censured local authorities which neglected their sanitary responsibilities by understaffing, and which refused to seek closing and demolition orders— the only effectual remedy for jerry-built dwellings. It attacked overcrowding. It counselled local authorities to use initiative. It continually put pressure on local offi­ cials to use part II of the Housing of the Working Classes

Act rather than depend on the LCC. It induced parliament to consolidate housing and public health legislation.

And it reviewed vestry activities, published reports, mobilized public opinion, and appealed to the Home

Office and the Local Government Board.

In order to advance on the forces of entrenchment the LCC's Housing of the Working Classes Committee requested information on insanitary areas or groups of houses from all its councilmen and aldermen, from members of parliament for the metropolis, and from any organization that could conceivably be involved with the 5 working classes. It also directly challenged the

5 London County Council, Housing of the Working Classes Committee, Minutes, I (3 Feb. 1890), 400 and 405. A few of the other organizations are the Charity Organi­ zation Society, London School Board managers, ministers of religion, East London Church Fund, and Bishop of London's fund. Hereinafter cited as LCC, HWCC, Minutes. 38

•'vested interests of filth" hy applying for concurrent powers to enforce sanitary and housing legislation.

In the LCC Minutes of Proceeding is a perfect example of purposeful incompetence which enabled private selfishness to triumph over public welfare. A vestry medical officer condemned an area. The vestry directed its surveyor to make an independent report. The vestry then chose the surveyor's report rather than the medical officer’s "presumably because that course happened to suit the pockets of the owners, one of whom was a vestryman.

Parliament, induced by the London County Councils, consolidated the acts related to working class dwellings in 1890 and the sanitary and nuisance removal acts related to London in 1891. Armed with strengthened legislation the LCC moved against inactive and irresponsible local officials. It pressed them into taking the initiative and responsibility of enforcing the acts. Under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, one half of the salaries of sanitary inspectors was payable by the Council, which was reimbursed by the

^London County Council, Minutes of Proceedings, (22 April I890), 311. Hereinafter ciied as LtlC, MP. 39

7 Exchequer. The vestries responded slowly. Only under the combined pressure of the LCC, the Mansion House Q Council on Dwellings for the Poor, the Jewish Board of

Guardians, and the newspapers did the vestries appoint more sanitary inspectors. In 1887 the Tower Hamlets had

12 sanitary inspectors. This gradually rose to 25 in

1894 and then to 36 in 1901. And the number of inspectors Q stayed around 36 through 1907. Looking at this in terms of average population per inspector, there were

48,400 people per inspector in 1887 compared to 15,700 in 1907. This was a substantial change. While the increase in inspectors was significant, it was far from enough because the working classes were not responsible for the structural faults and the uncleanliness which resulted. Sanitary conveniences were the first to break down and create nuisances. If toilets were not in the basements they were found in the back yards. The Pall Mall Gazette in 1884 described a

7LCC, MP, (1 Aug. 1893), 890; Public Health, (London) Act, 1891, 5T & 55 Viet., ch. 56, sec. 108. 8 The Mansion House Council was organized under the auspices of the Lord Mayor of London in response to "The Bitter Cry of Outcast London." Its local committees investigated complaints and inspected insanitary, poorly contructed, and overcrowded dwellings in metropolitan London. g Mansion House Council on the Dwellings of the Poor, Annual Reports for 1887 and 1898; London County Council, London Siatisiics, V (1894-95), 593-94; XIV (1903-1904), 178-8 5 ; XVIII (1907-08), 106. 40 typical yard as "only big enough to swing a cat in” and surrounded by walls so high that it actually was a shaft to carry the odors up into the houses Unfortunately the shortage of inspectors limited visits to once in three years when property should have been inspected at least twice a year. The East London Observer in 1901 called for "an army of inspectors who shall make through­ out the east end housing conditions alike, so that because the poor won't live under insanitary conditions they shall not be driven out.""^

The ICC in 1893 undertook to implement its by-law responsibilities in order "to raise the standard of private and public sanitation." It solicited and incorporated the suggestions of local sanitary author­ ities, the Sanitary Institute, the Royal Institute of

British Architects, Institute of Surveyors, and the 12 Incorporated Society of Medical Officers of Health.

The local officials, on the other hand, either defaulted or passed meaningless by-laws regulating common lodging houses. Henry Jephson, a member of the LCC, excused

1QPall Mall Gazette. 4 Feb. 1884.

^ Sast London Observer, 24 Aug. 1901.

12LCC, MP, (1 Aug. 1893), 889. 41 the Council and indicted the Local Government Board.

The LGB had circulated very weak model by-laws. Most vestries adopted by-laws with discretionary clauses which left it optional to require registration. Further­ more, the Council had no voice in framing these by-laws to control tenements or lodging houses. Consequently, the LCC lacked legal power to enforce the rules and the 13 right to make a representation to the LGB. ^ Interestingly enough when A. L. Leon, of the LCC and Limehouse District

Board, suggested that Limehouse District Board require registration of every house with more than one family, the Bast London Advertiser said that this was drastic action which meant 851° of the houses. And although it was a step in the right direction the newspaper was 14 glad the district board did not act.

At special joint meetings the County Council impressed upon the vestry authorities their obligations under the recently consolidated legislation. Council officials also informed them that the LCC would use its residual powers under section 45 of the Housing of the

Working Classes Act and section 100 of the Public Health

(London) Act to close uninhabitable and obstructive

13 "Henry Jephson, The Sanitary Bvolution of London (London, 1907), pp. 377-78.

^ E a s t London Advertiser, 18 Feb. 1899. 42 15 dwellings if they defaulted. ' It seems that the County

Council never had recourse to its residual powers in the

East End. However, its pressure on local officials was effective in instances. Poplar gave immediate attention to insanitary property between East India Dock Road and

High Street. In seven months the Housing of the

Working Classes Committee reported that many houses were demolished and others were receiving attention.

To simplify obligatory communication of action taken, tabular forms were provided to the local medical officers. The local authorities diligently filed these reports. By September 1891 they had represented 1,247 houses in the county as unfit for human habitation and four as obstructive; of these 449 were in the Tower

Hamlets and the four obstructive buildings were in 17 Mile End Old Town. More than one-third of the houses were in the East End; yet this fell short of the need.

East London newspapers from time to time discussed the sanitary condition of the area. While Whitechapel

District Board of Works proudly claimed that its

15LCC, MP, (17 Feb. 1891), 183; and (13 Jan. 1891), 6-8.

16LCC, HWCC, Minutes I (31 Mar. 1890), 471; and (13 Oct. 1890), 59TI

17LCC, MP, (28 July 1891), 879? and (3 Nov. 1891), 1106. 43 sanitary condition was never better, the Bast London

Advertiser noted that "numerous courts and alleys require ventilation, illumination, and sanitation lft prior to their complete demolition." On another occasion it pointed to 50 years of sanitary work which left derelict buildings standing so that men had a place to escape from the cold. In one abandoned building nex;t to the Salvation Army shelter, for example, "the body of a dead man was found there 19 gnawed away by rats." In another instance the Bast

End News cited court testimoney by W. C. Steadman; he 20 depicted a house as "not fit for a dog to live in."

Around 1900 both the Housing of the Working

Classes Committee and the Home Office became concerned with the decline in closing orders. The Housing of the

Working Classes Committee launched an inquiry to discover the causes for the drop in closing and demolition orders and what could be done to stimulate new activity. It diagnosed the symptoms as judicial reluctance to implement the law. This hindrance to enforcement was substantiated with evidence from an

ip East London Advertiser, 16 Nov. 1889.

19Ibid.t 15 April 1893. 20 Bast End News. 15 April 1893. 44 inquiry into local authority procedures. Poplar, for example, never used part II of the Housing of the Working

Classes Act, it always preferred the Public Health 21 (London) Act. This presumably was because it was easier to take legal action; if the person who caused the nuisance was unknown then either the owner or occupier could be cited. Also closing orders did not have to be followed up with demolition orders. The Mansion House

Council noted that what one magistrate condemned another exempted because each had different opinions of a 22 nuisance. Back in 1894 W. A. Blaxland, LCC solicitor, had realistically assessed this problem. The local authority, he wrote, had to prove to the courts that dwellings were in a condition "so dangerous or injurious to the health as to be unfit for human habitation."

A building deprived of proper light and ventilation was not a nuisance if it was in a state of repair because

21 London County Council, Housing of the Working Classes Committee, Papers, 1901-02, Case 39b, Poplar Clerk, 23 April 1902. Hereinafter cited as LCC, HWCC, Papers; also Case will be omitted. oo The Mansion House Council, Annual Report, 1889, p. 12 and 1894, p.7; London County Council, Public Health and Housing Committee, Minutes, III (30 April 1894), 672. Hereinafter cited as LCC, PHHC, Minutes. The Mansion House Council lobbied for new courts to deal with sani­ tation. They would sit in Special Petty Sessions. It also wanted the LCC to use Petty Session Courts instead of Police Courts. The LCC considered using Petty Session Courts but lacked the staff. 45 the owner did not necessarily create it nor could he abate it.2^ Or take cellar dwelling offenses as an example. They were difficult to fight. Mile End Old

Town could not get a conviction of one owner even after several notices were served. In another case under the

Metropolitan Management Act, 1855, section 103, the magistrate refused the case unless it was proved that the "underground rooms were exclusively occupied as living and sleeping apartments by the occupants summoned," Mile End's medical officer dropped the case. 24 Stepney's medical officer of health, D. L. Thomas, clearly spelled out the cause for decline. Magistrates personally inspected the premises before they issued a closing order; the owner, however, knowing the date of a visit, had time to lavishly apply paint and limewash to make the dwelling look reasonable. Dr. Thomas described

Newtons Rents, Stepney: There were 12 one room houses.

"Six of the houses had no back premises at all; no through ventilation; no separate water supply; and no

23 ^London County Council, Public Health and Housing Committee, Papers, 1893-94, Bundle E59, Blaxland, 19 March 1894, Hereinafter cited as LCC, PHHC, Papers; also Bundle will be omitted.

2^Mile End Old Town, Medical Officer of Health, Annual Report, 1891, pp. 10-11. separate water closets. The occupiers had the use of two water closets which were open to the public and were always in a filthy condition." Not only was it impossible to keep the dwellings clean but each had less than 1,000 cubic feet air space. Dr. Thomas wanted them closed. The magistrate suggested certain improve­ ments and added that he would not grant a closing order 25 because of overcrowding in the district. However, not only judges were hesitant, so were local councillors.

Mr. Ambrose, of the Limehouse District Board and LCC, doubted the value of closing property when there was no 2 ft place for the people.

During the investigation the London County Council requested the Home Office to inform magistrates of their obligations. It added that closing orders which could be followed up by demolition orders were difficult to get from judges. Magistrates were unwilling to close a house no matter how incapable of repair so long as 27 the inhabitant could not find another place to live.

The Home Office was also dissatisfied with the decline

25LCC, HWCC, Papers, 1901-02, 39a, Stepney Clerk, 3 June 1902.

2^East London Advertiser, 25 April 1891.

27LCC, HWCC, Papers, 1901-02, 36a, LCC clerk, 13 March 1902. 47 and pressed for more information about the administration of part II of the Housing of the Working Classes Act. The

London County Council filed a report based on its obser­ vation and borough information reciting the above cases.

The Home Office interpreted the report to suit its view.

It singled out the local authorities rather than the magistrates as the obstacle to enforcement. The Home

Office defended the magistrates, emphasizing that they must issue a closing order if there was good cause, and it added that ’’the Orders for demolition arising out of them are of course entirely a question for local

Authority.” It concluded that local inactivity was responsible for the drop from 1890 to 1900. It showed that of the 623 summonses taken out between 1896 and

1900 only 15 were dismissed or about two to three per cent. Yet when one looks at their figures for summons and order made only at the Worship and Thames Police

Courts a different picture evolves. Of the 54 summonses under the Housing of the Working Classes Act only 20 orders were made; on the other hand, of the 173 summonses under the Public Health Act 169 orders were made.„ 28

28LCC, HWCC, Papers, 1901-02, 39b, Charles Murdock, Home Office, 31 July 1902. 48 >

The drop in closing orders was obvious, and the charges and countercharges of responsibility by the

London County Council and the Home Office gave a clue to the answer. A Housing of the Working Classes

Committee memo pointed out that in 1890 there were

700 applications for closing orders while in 1900 only

100. Then between 1892 and 1900 there were 896 applications for closing orders of which 604 were refused or the houses were improved, while only 292 houses were demolished. Most of these applications had been made under the Public Health Act, not the

Housing Act. The memo also noted that in the past five years Poplar had not used the Housing of the

Working Classes Act and Bethnal Green was scored for 29 not replying.

The solution was not as simple as getting local officials and magistrates to deal with substandard housing. In 1885 the Mansion House Council reported that tenants refused to complain for fear of eviction.

W. Wallace Bruce noted in 1892 that even the Public

Health Act was ineffective in closing property because

2^LCC, HWCC, Papers. 1901-02, 39b, Memorandum on Closing and Demolition Orders, undated. landlords and their agents evicted any tenant who complained that the property was unhealthy. This action immediately silenced other tenants who had good reason to complain. The legal department reported that the County Council lacked authority to protect the tenant and that local authorities possessed enough powers to deal effectively with nuisances. Furthermore, to get legislation making it illegal to evict a tenant who gave evidence was difficult, while the owner could 30 easily find another excuse to remove the tenant.

The positive result of these inquiries was a simplified procedure for getting closing orders under part II. Through the 1903 Housing of the Working

Classes Act boroughs could apply to the magistrate for the order without first serving a notice on the owner 31 to abate the nuisance. The local authorities were duly notified of this and asked to reconsider cases in light of the new law.

Legal difficulties and unwillingness were not the only reasons for nonenforcement. When the Housing of

30LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1889-92, Al-II, W. W. Bruce, 10 Oct. 1892, and Blaxland and Murphy, 24 Oct. 1894.

31LCC, HWCC, Minutes. VII (3 Peb. 1904), 750. 50 the Working Classes Committee invited local authorities to inform it of insanitary property, their first reaction was to push clearance schemes under the Cross

Act or part I of the Housing of the Working Classes

Act. Sometimes a clearance scheme was necessary but more often than not the local authorities wanted to be freed of the financial and political responsibilities.

Regardless of vestry dilatory tactics, the LCC knew that there were many individual houses which could be handled without expensive schemes. Information sent to the Council by private groups and local medical 32 officers corroborated this view.

Three cases which span the eighteen years exemplify the problems the County Council faced. In the first

Mile End desired a scheme but quickly relinquished these hopes. In the second the immediate nuisance was finally abated by closing the buildings; however, Poplar advocated a scheme in which the buildings would be torn down. And finally when Poplar recommended a scheme to demolish small properties the LCC rejected it and recommended that Poplar use the new powers under the 1903

Housing of the Working Classes Act.

For example: LCC, PHHC, Papers. 1899-92, Al, no. 5, letters from the COS, 3 April 1890, 22 April 1890, and 20 May 1890; A 2-1, Murphy on W. C. Burrows' case, 11 Dec. 1890; A2-II, Mansion House Council, 21 June 1892. The properties reported in Yalford St., Mile End

Old Town were insanitary and occupied hy foreigners.

One anti-alien resident described the neighborhood as

"worse than the Black Hole of Calcutta"; and he was surprised that fever had not broken out "owing the horrible smells from the foreign Jews who now inhabit

9/10 of the street." Murphy inspected the properties and substantiated the local medical officer's report, but was opposed to a scheme under the Cross Acts because mortality and sickness were not high. The County

Council recommended that Mile End apply the Torrens

Acts. The vestry protested but did deal with the houses individually either under the Torrens or the

Sanitary Acts. Shortly after the passage of the Housing of the Working Classes Act in 1890 Murphy changed his mind and recommended a scheme under part II. The

Council, however, was not about to accept Mile End's responsibilities. It let Mile End deal with the 33 properties individually.

It took eleven years of bickering before the Arnold

Buildings, Poplar, were dealt with properly. After

33LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1889-92, A12-I, Mile End Old Town medical officer of health and surveyor, 6 June 1889; Mile End medical officer, 15 Nov. 1889; LCC, Murphy, 26 Feb. 1890; LCC clerk, 8 March 1890; Mile End clerk, 11 Aug. 1890; A. Barkam, 3 July 1890; LCC, Murphy, 11 Nov. 1890. several unsuccessful attempts to get Poplar to abate the nuisances on Murphy's recommendation the Public Health and Housing Committee informed Poplar to take action or else the LCC would invoke section 100 of the Public

Health (London) Act.^4 Farnfield, Poplar's clerk, insensed at this pressure, replied that "no one can do their duty save the officers of the London County

Council." He added that just a few months ago almost every sanitary improvement necessary was carried out, when, due to an infectious disease, the board's medical officer was at the buildings daily. The villain, he concluded, was not the owner but the tenants who willfully damaged or failed to care for the water closets. Poplar, however, finally did apply and receive a closing order in May 1894 and gave the 35 tenants eight days to move. But the derelict building stood for another decade.

Interestingly enough the Arnold Buildings had been opened only in 1888; they contained about 300 rooms or

110 tenements. After the building was closed the owner

34LCC, PHHC, Minutes, III (19 March 1894), 641; LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1 8 9 3 - ^ 7 '^?9, LCC, Murphy, 19 March 1894.

35LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1893-94, E49, Poplar clerk, 24 March lo94 and 17 May 1894. considered converting the buildings for commercial use rather than remodel. But the question dropped out of sight. In 1901 the Limehouse and Poplar Workman's

Home Incorporated toyed with converting them into a lodging house on the Rowton principle, and then abandoned the project the following year. Poplar's medical officer, P. W. Alexander, now submitted a clearance scheme under part I of the Housing of the

Working Classes Act for the Bridge St. and Emmett St. area (today West Perry Rd. and Emmet St., respectively, and located just below Bowley St.) which included the

Arnold Buildings. The LCC's officers were opposed to any clearance scheme. They recommended that Poplar demolish the Arnold buildings and use its powers to deal with the other buildings. Since Poplar disagreed, and refused to accept the Home Office's offer to arbitrate, the issue dragged on until Po^j-ar had no O g choice but to ask for a demolition order.

In the last example, the LCC rejected a major clearance for two small courts— Brewery Yard and Gandy

36LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1893-94, E49, Poplar clerk, 17 May 1894; LCC, EWCC, Papers, 1901-02, 67, Poplar medical officer, 12 July 1901; LCC architect, valuer, medical officer, and housing manager, 22 Jan. 1902; Poplar clerk, 18 March 1902; LCC clerk, 11 July 1902; Poplar clerk, 22 Oct. 1902; 35, Proof of report of HWCC for year ending 1902; 1905-06, 67, Poplar clerk, 20 Bee. 1904. Court (today they no longer exist, hut were located where the Bow Bright Estate stands)— because they were

"not of sufficient general importance to the County of

London" to justify it. Instead the Council encouraged

Poplar to use the 1903 Housing of the Working Classes

Act which simplified the procedure for getting closing orders and permitted the borough to recover costs for 37 demolition from the owner. Eventually some of the dwellings were closed while others were cleaned and repaired because they could still be used. Poplar, however, asked for a scheme again, pleading difficulty in getting closing orders. Prom 1903 to 1907 these courts underwent periodic inspections. A number of dwellings in Brewery Yard were torn down while many in Gandy Court were thoroughly repaired and made inhabitable.88

In the first few years of the County Council Shirley

Murphy's direct contact with local authorities kept them • w on their toes. Murphy regularly queried them on action

‘37 ^ These clauses put some teeth into the principle of fiscal respc isiMIity of the slum owner which had been enacted in the Hou;? ig of the Working Classes Act, 1885.

38LCC, HWCC. tupers, 1903-04, 88, LCC valuer, 21 July 1904; LCC clerk, £8 July 1904; joint report of medical officer, clerk, etc., 7 Dec. 1904; LCC clerk. 11 March 1905; LCC, HWCC, Minutes, VIII (1 Peb. 1905), 615-16; Metropolitan Borough of Doplar, Annual Report . . .on the Sanitary Condition of Poplar for years 1903-07. taken. Dr. Loane once replied that no Council assistance was necessary as violations could he remedied in the police magistrates courts; Dr. Talbot of Bow, Poplar, 39 curtly said that the defects "can be remedied by us."

Murphy's experience as a medical officer in St. Pancras and his service on the Home Office's inquiry into the sanitary condition of Bethnal Green were valuable assets. In addition, in the first years the Council's staff was small enough to permit most sanitary and housing problems to come directly to Murphy. As the department grew and impersonalization increased most matters were dealt with procedurally rather than personally.

Mistakenly, W. W. Bruce praised the LCC for the

"quiet revolution" it accomplished in eight years. He reiterated Canon Barnett's feeling that the sanitary and slum question was no longer foremost; rather it 40 was overcrowding. Sanitation had come a long way since mid-century; nevertheless, the problem was far from solved. However, next to jerry-built or unadapted housing, overcrowding created slums. The inordinate

99LCC, PHHC, Papers. 1889-92, Al, no. 5, LCC medical officer, 9 Oct. 1890. 40 East London Observer, 3 Feb. 1900. pressure on rooms and sanitary facilities accelerated deterioration. Also it raised rents. Newspapers advocated enforcement of current legislation. Section

35 of the 1866 Sanitary Act, descried the Pall Mall

Gazette, was "practically a dead letter, because to enforce it throughout London would mean a tremendous fall in rents,. . .house fanners— namely, vestries— would never consent to. . . .No fresh legislation is necessary; carry out the existing law and down the 41 rents must come."

Overcrowding according to the census reports was more than two persons per room. Medical officers of health and the Local Government Board used cubic feet as a standard. A typical minimum, used by both the

LOC medical officer of health and the Local Government

Board, required at least 400 cubic feet of air space per person if the room was used for sleeping and living, and 300 cubic feet if used for sleeping only. Children ten or over were equivalent to adults, while two children under ten were equal to one adult. Measurement of air space may have been a realistic means to check on overcrowding in small rooms, but even so the standards were very low. Moreover, statisticians found it

41Pall Mall Gazette, 3 May 1889 57 easier to apply the census standard of more than two persons per room. Data for manipulation was readily available. Unfortunately, crowding, that is where there was more than one person but not more than two per room, was rarely discussed.

The difficulty in attacking overcrowding was relocating the tenants. In Bethnal Green, for example, the sanitary committee served notices for abatement of overcrowding. Some families immediately moved into similar rooms; others were out in the wet cold without 42 shelter because there were no empty rooms. Dr. Loane,

Whitechapel's medical officer, hit the nail on the head:

"You cannot prevent overcrowding by turning out of a room an unfortunate family because too many children have been born into it, for, if dislodged, such a family will occupy a room at a similar rent as close to the original spot as possible.

The combination of high rents, aliens, and reorganization of local government in 1899 focused attention on overcrowding, especially in Stepney and

Bethnal Green. Dr, Thomas, Stepney's medical officer, charged immigrant pauper aliens for overcrowding

^ Eastern Argus, 10 Dec. 1898.

^Stepney Borough Council, Annual Report, I (1900- 01), App. D, pp. 3-5. his district. A poor man with a large family, he claimed, took only two rooms instead of a whole house.

Even when he paid a shilling or two more per week «t was cheaper than taking a house. The alien, moreover, used the living room both for work and sleeping.

Thomas recommended restricting immigration of aliens.^

Dr. Bate, medical officer for Bethnal Green, approached the problem of immigrant overcrowding more reasonably.

He doubted that the Polish and Russian Jews would "ever become good citizens, but they are here to stay and we must do the best we can with them." Consequently, he got several inspectors to learn Yiddish to improve 45 communication.

As overcrowding and the house famine drove rents up, anti-alienism became virulent. While the British

Brotherhood used violence against the Jews, others from the laboring classes banded together into the East

London Tenants Protection Committee and the Workingmen's

Housing Council to plead their case. They advocated rent tribunals to get fair rents and control avaricious

44 Stepney Borough Council, Annual Report, I (1900- 01), App. A, pp. 15-16. 45 Bethnal Green Borough Council, Sanitary Condition for Bethnal Green for 1906. pp. 59-60. 59 landlords and they fought overcrowding. It was a step 46 in the right direction hut their success was minimal.

From about 1904 overcrowding was more readily controlled.

From then on the increased vigilance of inspectors coupled with ample accommodations and lower rents eased 47 the whole situation.

Joint efforts between the London County Council and freeholders was another approach in dealing with insanitary areas at no expense to the ratepayers. The

LCC cooperated with great landlords like Lord Portland and small freeholders like Sir Algernon Osborn. These were instances in which the freeholders lost substantial control oncd the estates were leased. Located in

Whitechapel, Osborn's estate was between Bell Lane and

Sandy's Row (today between Bell Lane and Middlesex St.) and bounded on the south by Wentworth St. This estate, to the north of the Metropolitan Board of Works'

Goulston St. clearance, had been considered ripe for redevelopment since 1877. The East London Advertiser described the Bell Lane area as one of the worst in

Whitechapel. It condemned the County councillors for

^East London Advertiser, 11 March 1899; Jewish Chronicle, 7 ffeb. 1^02. 47 Stepney Borough Council, Annual Report, VII (1906-07), App. B, p. 74. 60 preferring street improvements in the West End to the

East End and suggested that they should he dismissed

"like the councillors of Hamblin, who couldn't or

m Q wouldn’t rid the city of rats.”

Whitechapel’s request for a major slum clearance was rejected. The County Council felt that the estate fell within the scope of part II of the Housing of the

Working Classes Act. Whitechapel was reluctant to act.

It insisted that the Osborn estate could be dealt with under part I. Realizing that the Council would not use the housing act Whitechapel put forth an alternative.

It proposed that when Sandy's Row was widened the LCC incorporate the area in the street improvement. This was also rejected. After years of talk, in 1897 the opportunity to clear the area of courts and alleys arrived. In close communication with Sir Algernon

Osborn the LCC agreed to help him in redeveloping his estate. The Council would sell him the frontages abutting Sandy's Row at a reasonable sum and assist him in the formation of new roads and in closing several courts and alleys. After the new road had been made the remaining land would be used for shops and dwellings.

The catch lay in repurchasing the leasehold interests.

iQ East London Advertiser, 16 Nov. 1889. Most would fall-in shortly and could "be easily negotiated; however, there were some that did not expire until 1922 and 1930. If these leaseholder owners were uncooperative the Council agreed to use the Housing of the Working

Class Act, design a scheme, and acquire the leases compulsorily. Then clear title would he transferred to

Osborn who would reimburse the LCC for its expenses.

The Council calculated that this procedure saved the public costly expenses. Fortunately, when agreement wa3 reached with Osborn to redevelop his estate, 49 recourse to a scheme was unnecessary.

Octavia Hill, on the other hand, promoted a purely private system to improve housing for the poor. Her philosophy was firm management and strictness, tempered with humaneness. Her major point was proper management of property. This meant that landlord as well as tenant was obliged to maintain decent standards. Miss Kill bought or managed property and trained rent collectors in this philosophy. Each collected the rent personally, talked with the tenant about family problems, checked the property for necessary improvements, and tried to create in the tenant a respect for property and d^^.ent environment. She sought to improve his habits and his

49LCC, MP, (23 Feb. 1897), 192-93 and (28 Feb. 1899), 265-66. 62 life. When Octavia Hill took a dwelling she immediately- made the minimum improvements and even planted a garden, eliminated overcrowding, and weeded out undesirable tenants. Most of the property she managed was in west

London; in 1884 she accepted control of the housing estates in Deptford and Southwark for the Ecclesiastical 50 Commissioners. She acquired some in the East End which was managed by her assistants. In 1874 she accepted the management of a block in Whitechapel, St.

Jude’s parish. In 1877 Lady Pembroke bought 15 houses 51 which were turned over to Miss Hill.

The key to the individual approach was that the landlord ruled with a firm hand: he had to provide continual guidance for the tenant— be it through personal direction, social workers, or public health nurses— to educate him for urban living and help him take full advantage of the amenities. In other words, what was needed was continual control which required strictness and punctual rent payment; human kindness in adversity; and proper cultivation of self-help. This system worked only if landlords were responsible and had a personality

^Lavid Owen, English Philanthropy: 1660-1960 (Cambridge, Mass., 19?>4J, p. 3^9.

"^Octavia Hill, Extracts from Octavia Hill*s "Letters to Fellow-Workers,'11' 1864-1911» compiled by E. S. Ouvry (London, 1933)! P. IB. 63 like Octavia Hill’s or were willing and able to get volunteers. Private organizations such as the Mansion House

Council on the Dwellings of the Poor and the Jewish

Board of Guardians were as interested in the welfare of the laboring classes as individuals. The Mansion House

Council was an effective pressure group in London.

Formed in response to "The Bitter Cry of Outcast

London" it quickly grew into prominence as a watch dog for insanitary, substandard, and overcrowded housing.

In 1886 it got the Home Office to investigate the sanitary conditions of Mile End Old Town and in 1887 52 of Bethnal Green. In each case additions were made to the staff of sanitary inspectors and the worst dwelling houses were vacated. Local committees of the

Mansion House Council investigated complaints and inspected houses and kept local authorities, as well as the LCC, on their toes. In instances their pressure brought immediate results without any recourse to legal

52 The Mansion House Council on the Dwellings of the Poor, Beport, 1885* 1887, 1888; Report by D. Cubitt Nichols, esq. on the Sanitary Condition of the hamlet of Mile End Old Town, PP, 1886 [C 4714], LVI, 169; Report of an inquiry held by Messrs. D. Cubitt Nichols and Shirley Murphy, as to the immediate sanitary requirements of the parish of St. Matthew, Bethnal Green, PP, 1888 [C 5407], LXXXI, 533. proceedings. On the other hand, there were cases which at first failed even when taken to court; yet persistence brought success. In Whitechapel, for example, the Booth

St. Buildings were in an insanitary condition. Pressure on the owner and the local authorities failed to get an improvement, so the Mansion House took the owner to court

The judge dismissed the case and required the Mansion

House Council to pay costs. The local medical officer, the sanitary inspector, the dustman of the district board, and the inspector of the Jewish Board of

Guardians all testified on the owner’s behalf.

Dissatisfied with the results, the Mansion House

Council pursued the case. At last, two years later with the help of W. Johnson, of the LCC and Whitechapel

Board of Works, it got a new inspection, served notices, and successfully defended the case in court, requiring 53 the owner to make the major sanitary repairs. Much of the Mansion House Council's work was in sanitary improvement and in educating not only the people but also local officials. Through these means uninhabitable properties were closed, neglected dwellings were improved

53 The Mansion House Council on the Dwellings of the Poor, Report, 1896, p. 13; 1897. p . 6; 1898, pp. 6 and 8. 65 and residents as well as public officials became conscious of the potential of higher standards.

Another group deeply committed to maintaining decent housing in the East End was the Jewish Board of Guardians.

It was organized back in the 1860s to minister to poor

Jews. It also considered substandard dwellings and insanitary conditions, as legislation then scarcely existed and was largely a matter either of voluntary adoption or temporary measures induced by the panic of a cholera outbreak. The sudden increase in immigration from eastern Europe and the trade cycle in the 1880s resulted in extraordinary pressure on East End housing and in changes in public opinion. In 1884 The Lancet published the article "A Polish Colony of Jewish

Labourers" which focused on the appalling conditions and the ignorance and indifference among immigrants in the East End. These unfortunate conditions and the publicity forced the Jewish Board of Guardians to create a sanitary committee with its own inspectors. Moreover, the Jewish community viewed these new immigrants as an embarrassing nuisance to their new-found nobility. The

Sanitary Committee succeeded in dealing with this grave problem by educating the immigrants and applying pressures on the landlords and local authorities. Part of the success can be attributed to the modest standards 66

it established for itself; these enabled it to carry

weight with local officials and landlords. Its procedure

was to send its sanitary inspector to visit a reported

dwelling and then notify the owner. When the case was

serious and if after a reasonable period of time there

were no improvements it was reported to the medical

officer of health. Any house considered unfit for human

habitation by the inspector of the Jewish Board of

Guardians was always first inspected by the Committee

itself and then reported directly to the medical *54. officer.

Inspection of small workshops was another service

to the community provided by the Jewish Board of

Guardians. Many immigrants worked in sweatshops which

were in the administrative twilight zone between local authority sanitary inspectors and factory inspectors.

Factory inspectors had access to sweatshops only if women and children were involved, and immigrants had

few children working there. So in 1892 the Jewish Board

Guardians appointed a regular inspector of small work­

shops to help in sanitary work. The paradox was that

the tenants were usually responsible for the nuisance

54 Lloyd P. Gartner, The Jewish Immigrant in England, 18*70-1914 (London, I960), pp. 147, 132, 153; 1). Lipman, A Century of Social Service, 1859-1959: The Jewish BoaiTTTn?ui?’dI^"ribn^n: 1953)’. W. 6'4'V'T26".---- 67 while remedies had to he made by the landlord. In 1904 the Jewish Board of Guardians shifted its activities from sanitary to personal health work. The substantial improvement in sanitary conditions, the effective reorganization of local government, and the new water 55 authority made redundant most of its activities. Thus private organizations such as the Mansion Hei.se Council, the Jewish Board of Guardians, and the Charity

Organization Society helped control slums, and educated the public of the need for preventive action.

A few borough councils had initiative. They approached the question of slum control through renovation programs of their own. In 1901 the south

London borough of Camberwell decided to purchase the leaseholds, and freeholds if necessary, of rundown property in Hollington Street and the adjoining area between Wynham and Avenue Roads behind the London, Chatham and Lover Railway. Camberwell purchased about

571 houses in 19 streets which it put into good sanitary repair with a minimum adaption. Many of the houses were poorly constructed to begin with and if the cost of proper renovation was prohibitive they were demolished. Nevertheless, the widening of streets,

55 'Lipman, Century of Social Service, pp. 126-7, 131• regular garbage collection, planting of trees went a long way to improve the environment. The old tenants received decent accommodation at the same rents, without the strict enforcement of rules on cleanliness. The advantage of this approach was that the original tenants were not displaced; rather they were moved to empties while repairs were made. Furthermore, the improvements were reflected in the neighboring areas. Camberwell's system was an adaptation and modification of Octavia 56 Hill's ideas and it, too, operated without a loss.

Kensington, in west London, took a slightly varied course. In the Wotting Dale district (Shepards Bush,

Kenley St.) Kensington purchased property and did extensive structural changes, erected new floors and ceilings, insured lighting and ventilation, installed sculleries with kitchen ranges and stoves, and added water closets. The borough provided 31 three-roomed tenements and 21 two-roomed ones. It demolished two buildings and built a three storey house with 6 two- room tenements. However, only 84 of the original 350

56 E. G. Howarth and M. Wilson, West Ham (London, 1907), pp. 134-35; Mansion House Council on the Dwellings of the Poor, Present Situation of Housing in. . .London (London, 1908), p. 29; W. Thompson, Housing Up-to-flaie (London, 1907), pp. 32-34; Frederick Bingham, The Official Guide to the Metropolitan Borough of Camberwell (London, TMTTpp".'3'9-42. *--- £L— ------69 tenants were rehoused. Thompson recognized that the original inhabitants were limited in financial resources, yet he concluded that the slum dweller refused to come back to Notting Dale because of the raised sanitary 57 standard. Interestingly enough no borough in the

East End, let alone in London adopted or considered either of these approaches.

Finally, another means of preventing slums was to remodel middle class houses in transition areas before they were turned into rooming houses or tenements.

These were substantially constructed dwellings and therefore worth "making down.” Properly converted the owner’s investment would be protected. However, no borough took advantage of section 59 of the Housing of the Working Classes Act— they had used it only for insubstantial, flimsy property as described above. On the other hand, private property owners who did converting were able to take advantage of exemption from the inhabited house duty in the Customs and Inland

Revenue Acts, 1890 and 1891. This idea was vigorously

57 Thompson, Housing Up-to-Date, pp. 34—36; Howarth, West Ham, p. 1*5; Mansion House Council, Present Situation, p. 30. 70 advocated by Dr. John T. J. Sykes, medical officer for

St. Pancras."^ In spite of housing and public health legislation, and civic pride and public opinion becoming acutely aware of slums, London had a.long way to go before it would prevent slums from being created.

58 The exemption clauses in the Customs and Inland Revenue Acts are section 26 of 53 & 54 Viet. ch. 8 and sec. 4 of 54 & 55 Viet. ch. 25; W. Thompson, Housing Handbook (London, 1907)» pp. 215-220; Thompson, lidusing tlp-io-Date, pp. 17-18. CHAPTER III

SLUM CLEARANCE

The tearing down and rebuilding of cities is a recurring process. Buildings are worn out, increased land value dictates new land use, new industries develop, new modes of communication and transportation demand rights of way or improvements to facilitate traffic flow. Population concentration requires new ways to house more people, adequate sanitation, estab­ lishment of shops and stores, and erection of warehouses.

Slums present a special problem. People live there because they have no where else to go, their individual rent is low, their work is in the immediate vicinity or done at home. Slums, moreover, are overcrowded. As one area is cleared slum dwellers pack into another, recreating the problem.

By 1890 massive .'.nmol it ion for commercial, industrial, and railioac purposes had subsided in the

East End. Railroads had their rights of way and their terminals; and the shipping industry, instead of renovating and modernizing the existing docks, witnessed building of new ones further down the Thames. Demands of business, industry, and commerce were at a minimum. 71 The London School Board was expanding its plant and at times was encouraged to buy slum property to alleviate slum clearances. The School Board, however, preferred to build in a middle class area where the air was fresher, the land cheaper, and where it was freed from rehousing obligations. When the London County Council transport division considered erecting a car shed in

Bow in 1904, community pressure demanded that neighboring run down property be purchased and the estate retained as an open space.^ Dwelling companies were not interested in purchasing expensive slums for redevelopment; instead they negotiated with landowners to get reasonable leaseholds. More often semi-philan­ thropic groups happily purchased cleared sites from the

Metropolitan Board of Works at below market value.

Consequently, the burden for slum clearance fell upon the London County Council and the boroughs. Ratepayers expected business to clear away old houses for a factory or warehouse, or a landowner to redevelop his estate when leases fell-in. These were laissez-faire symbols of progress which benefitted the whole community.

However, public expenditure for slum clearance was anethema to ratepayers, for, on the one hand, it encroached on private property, and, on the other, it

^East London Advertiser, 18 June 1904. 73 paid unnecessarily high prices for obviously worthless buildings. Rarely did it occur to ratepayers that they should enforce landlord obligations which would prevent slums instead of complaining about exorbitant clearance costs. Ideas for new towns— like Saltaire and Port

Sunlight— gained reception more readily than urban renewal mainly because they were private efforts.

Even though Londoners had had numerous schemes for rebuilding the City since the Great Eire of 1666, they were basically unresponsive to clearing and reconstructing worn out areas. The concept of public responsibility for urban redevelopment gradually became accepted in the late 19th century. During these years men favoring slum control and sanitary enforcement fought the forces of entrenchment. They were scarcely able to clear the worst slums let alone tackle the problem broadside.

The local authorities did not prevent new slums and they hardly touched the enormous evils in alleys and courts where buildings were packed and rarely saw sunlight.

The answer to London's needs lay in comprehensive demolition and complete rearrangement of streets. Where the Torrens Act limited itself to individual buildings, the Cross Act enacted in 1875 promised schemes for clearing and rebuilding whole areas which could not be coped with otherwise. Houses were "highly injurious to the moral and physical welfare of the inhabitants" if they were uninhabitable or if there was a high rate of disease. These evils could be caused by "closeness, narrowness, bad arrangement or bad condition of the streets and houses or groups of houses within such area, or to the want of light, air, ventilation, or 2 proper conveniences, or to any other sanitary defects."

The inherent weakness was that an area was determined to be ripe for clearance only when mortality and sickness were higher than the metropolitan mean. In addition, even when an area was a major slum, the

Metropolitan Board could decide that the sanitary acts and the Torrens Act were sufficient to deal with it.

Finally, the act as amended in 1879 permitted property owners to collect high prices for worthless buildings 3 that were purchased compulsorily.

Nevertheless, armed with the powers of the Artizans and Laborers Dwellings Improvement Act, the Metropolitan

Board of Works examined the slum problem. In the East

End it cleared away 21 2/3 acres of the worst centers

2 Artizans and Laborers Dwellings Improvement Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Viet.), c. 36. 3 Artizans and Laborers Dwellings Improvement Act, 1879 (42 & 43 Viet.), c. 63. of pestilence. These sites were sold to semi- philanthropic and private investors with the stipu­ lation that working class housing should he erected.

Some sites, unfortunately, could not he sold even at a great loss. When the London County Council superceded the Metropolitan Board it exuberantly re-examined the question of slum clearance as it had slum control.

Reports were solicited and received from local officials as well as from citizens interested in improving the quality of London. The medical officers, frustrated hy local authority procrastination and intransigence, thought that the County Council would shoulder the whole responsibility. The LCC was flooded with clearance projects, and after the 1890 housing act many were re-presented. Had the Council agreed to all of them, it would have been bankrupted. There were so many that it was impossible to deal with them economically or practically. The Council picked the most obvious cases.

Of the thirty-one acres cleared in London, seventeen 4 acres were in the Tower Hamlets.

By 1900 the major emphasis of the LCC shifted from improvement schemes in inner London to alleviating

^LCC, The Housing Question in London, 1855-1900 (London, 19^ ' , ~ pp~~^9^^5;' 3o 5, 30H'. 3IgfTgCT' Housing of the Working Classes in London, 1889-1912 (London, 1912), p p . 146-156. ------overcrowding by building new estates for the working classes in outer London and beyond the county lines.

The Council emphasized transportation, both workmen's trains and omnibuses, to move the artisans to and from work. In fact, there was no new clearance scheme for the East End, With the exception of the Tabard St.,

Southwark, scheme of 1912, to which even the conserv­ atives could not close their eyes, there were no schemes in London until after World War I. Brady St.,

Bethnal Green, was sanctioned after World War I began, and only because of great pressure. It is fair to say that by 1900 the Council felt it had done enough clearance, and more should be done on the local level.

Moreover, the housing problem, it was convinced, would be solved by providing more new homes rather than aggravating the shortage in central London through demolition. The housing act of 1890 provided for slum clearance schemes with and without rehousing obligations. Under part I of the act reconstruction was mandatory and part II left it at the discretion of local authorities.

The County Council was responsible for planning large areas of general importance to the community, usually 77 more than ten houses. For the first time vestries and district boards were granted power to devise and execute small slum clearance schemes. On the other hand, if they shirked their responsibility the LCC got residual power to act. The potential use of part II was related directly to the amount the LCC was willing to contribute to such schemes. After two meetings with local authorities, the Housing Committee grasped this. It prompted the LCC to consider contributions to local schemes and recounted the Metropolitan Board of Works’ financial grants for street improvements which benefitted the whole community. It assured the Council that the financial attraction would encourage the vestries and district boards to submit schemes. And it optimistically suggested that this aid would dispose of the worst uninhabitable areas within a few years. The

County Council accepted the arguments and agreed to contribute one-quarter to one-half the cost of satis­ factory schemes which were made under part II, if there was a need for funds.^

The Artisans' Dwellings Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Viet.) c. 54, sec. 6 stipulated that if ten or more houses were included in a scheme then the Cross Act was applicable.

6LCC, MP (17 Feb. 1891), 183; (24 March 1891), 354. 78

In the beginning the London County Council was cautious and yet flexible. The Housing Committee was not too keen on being strapped with wholesale demolitions when local authorities did not carry their weight.

R. M. Beachcroft, member of the LCC, the Housing

Committee, and chairman of the committee, 1892-93» exemplified this temperament. His principle for distinguishing between the application of part I or part II was whether the slum had "general or metro­ politan importance." When the improvement scheme had general importance then part I applied, otherwise the burden fell directly on the local authority. He sharply cautioned the committee not to use part I for straightening 7 out traffic arteries. In hammering out policy guides, the committee decided that emphasis should be on part II, unless the LCC bore the costs. Not only was the Public -

Health and Housing Committee determined to make local authorities more responsive but it was attracted by the simplicity of application and cheapness of administration. A scheme required neither publication of notices nor a parliamentary sanction if there was no petition to the Local Government Board. Moreover, a freeholder or leaseholder could not appeal an

^LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1889-92, E7, Memo on future policy, Beachcrofi, 20 Oct. 1890. 79 arbitrator's award. There was no compulsory rehousing requirement on the site when proper accommodations were found elsewhere, and elsewhere did not have to he in the immediate neighborhood. Furthermore, under part II the Council could strike bargains with local authorities.

It could contribute up to half the cost and cover a substantial portion of the vestry's costs through loans. Finally, the LCC could apply the betterment principle when property enhanced in value through the clearance belonged to the same person who also owned g dwellings in the slum.

Implementation was more difficult than originally conceived. After five years of pressure on the Poplar

Board of Works to undertake an improvement scheme under part II for Ann St., the LCC had to do it itself.

Poplar's clerk, in response to the Council's appeal for information of uninhabitable areas, suggested

Ann St. as a possibility for the application of the

Cross Act. His flimsy basis was the report of Poplar's medical officer, even though Talbot had noted that

enforcement of the sanitary and nuisance acts was sufficient. Although Murphy inspected and discounted

8LCC, MP, (13 Jan. 1891), 7 F \G .. 11 ANN STREET SCHEME. PLAN No. 42.

.•iJL-d

•\

w CNTBAHCt TO T K C .C ftar IHOIA DOCK the general importance of the area, he, together with

Talbot, reinspected the area. Murphy proposed that

Poplar invoke the Torrens Act and should it refuse then the County Council should request the Home Office to hold an inquiry under section 5 of the 1885 housing act.

His judgment was based on Talbot's opinion that while the houses were unfit for humans the absence of high mortality or sickness prohibited representing the area Q under the Cross Act. In October 1890 Poplar coyly inquired whether the new housing act affected the

Ann St. area. Then in December the clerk hinted that

Poplar would act on Talbot's recommendation and seek closing and demolition orders under part II.^

In spite of promises the Poplar Board was reluctant to use the law, let alone take full advantage of it. However, it bluntly told the County Council that it did not need to step in as Poplar was "fully aware of the law and also more familiar with the surroundings." The Board's clerk assured the Council that when better weather arrived immediate action would

9LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1889-92, A13-I, Poplar clerk. 26 July 1889; LCC, Murphy, 27 Feb. 1890; LCC, Murphy, 27 March 1890.

10Ibid., 1889-92, A13-I, Poplar clerk, 15 Oct. 1890 and 31 Dec. 1890. be taken; until then it was reluctant to disturb the 11 tenants. Only in May, after constant prodding by the

LCC, did the Poplar Board begin proceedings under the

Housing of the Working Classes Act, and it was July before summonses were issued. These first summonses were dismissed by the Thames Police Court on grounds of informality. Murphy reinspected the area after

Poplar claimed it made new summonses. However, he discovered no significant change and no notice of new summonses. Poplar defended itself. It placed the burden of responsibility on the magistrates by charging that the judge after listening to evidence from the sanitary inspector, the medical officer, and the district surveyor still had the audacity to declare the houses 12 neither unfit for humans nor insanitary.

All along Poplar militantly argued against a scheme on grounds that the houses were scattered over a large area. Even after proceedings failed, irrespective of

Murphy's position, the Board refused to use its authority. In view of recurring failure, the LCC in

1ILLCC, PHHC, Papers, 1889-92, A13-I, Poplar clerk, 24 April 1891.

12Ibid., 1889-92, A13-I, Poplar clerk, 8 May 1891, 29 July“O Tl, 25 Sept. 1891; LCC, Murphy, 10 Dec. 1891; Poplar clerk, 13 Jan. 1892. in February 1892 once again suggested a clearance scheme under part II and a meeting of the medical officers.

The Council also threatened that it would use its residual power, design a scheme, and make Poplar pay the costs. At this point the Poplar Board abdicated responsibility.^"3 The Housing of the Working Classes Committee prepared the clearance scheme so as not to excite a neighboring property owner, Mr. lardell, who had an access road to his stables through the area. Once the scheme was completed the Home Office ruled that Poplar 14 would contribute one half the cost or £4,000.

Ann St. is a good example of the County Council's need to resort to its residual powers in order to clear a slum when the Board defaulted.

Not every local authority shirked its duty. Some were active in demolishing slums under part II. The

Liinehouse District Board also had submitted a number of areas for clearance consideration in response to the London County Council's initial circular. The King

13LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1889-92, A13-I, LCC, 1 Feb. 1892; Poplar clerk, 11 March 18§2.

14Ibid., 1889-92, A13-I, LCC, Murphy, 9 May 1892; 1893-947” AJ3 , LCC, 12 May 1893; Home Office, 23 June 1894. QUEEN CATHERINE COURT SCHEME PLAN No. 50.

oc

Ul

o

t h i QU«»H CATH 1«»M “•

R

SCALg. OP' FfeET CB kC-t, '»n . F I G . I V - as \ 1 KING JOHN’S COURT SCHEME. PLAN No. 51. 1 .

. IlllWuni

L I ME HOUSE CAUSEWAY

; Hp, > i !• {»!!•,• i J I !TJYcmtUm, 5»todt,I I T/mA < • • a m M-f i I

W m K I M 0

ScnkcfTut ~~~ 9 f W W 46 * *> * 9 K *

jflitrte — ||■ 11 &a&MC*Vllit»,y.'c£.ii:

'. Ill. ~~7.- " "™...... John's Court- and Queen Catherine's Court areas eventually evolved into improvement projects under part II. On the suggestion of the LCC the Limehouse District Board directed plans to he drawn and by June 1891 had them under advisement. The LCC, informed of each step, prodded the District Board to minimize delays. At one time the County Council, a bit unfairly, sent a strong note to the Limehouse District Board exhorting it to complete the necessary paperwork or else the Council would exercise its powers in default, devise a scheme under section 46 (5 and 6 ) of the 1890 housing act, and let the Home Office decide on Limehouse's contri­ bution. Immediately, the Limehouse Board of Works forwarded plans for the King John's Court and made a request for a fifty per cent contribution. The Council’s architect rejected the plans because King John's Court was retained in the redevelopment and Limehouse

Causeway varied greatly in width for the short distance.

Later the architect added that there were too many houses planned for this small area, Negotiations for the next two years were bogged down over the questions of land use, the widening of Limehouse Causeway, and the closing of King John's Court. The Council preferred that the site be turned into a playground, while

Limehouse declared that it would be a nuisance and that 87 housing was essential. Limehouse submitted new plans more suitable to the Council; however, it confused the issue by suggesting that both the Housing of the Working

Classes Act and a street improvement act be applied.

According to the LCC this was illegal. From 1894 to

1896 discussions led to an amicable solution: Limehouse

Causeway was to be widened, King John's Court closed, and cottage dwellings erected. It took one more year 15 to settle the fine points.

The planning for Queen Catherine's Court began later and was successfully completed more rapidly.

At first the Limehouse Board of Works had reservations about the Queen Catherine's Court scheme because there was a grave shortage of vacancies. It preferred to wait until housing was erected on the Brook St. site which was across the street and had been cleared by the

Metropolitan Board of Works. The Council sympathized, yet it insisted that the preliminary work be done in order to expedite matters. Within a month Limehouse

15LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1889-92, A10-I, Limehouse District Board clerk, 14 Jan. 1891, 3 June 1891; LCC draft, 13 June 1891; LCC draft, 2 Dec. 1891; LDB, clerk, 7 Dec. 1891; LCC arch., 10 Dec. 1891; A10-II, LCC arch., 21 March 1892; LDB clerk, 4 July 1892; LCC arch., 18 July 1892; LDB clerk, 12 Oct. 1892; 1893-94, A10, LCC valuer, 12 July 1893; LCC, 8 May 1894; LCC, MP (28 April 1896), 442-43. 88 submitted plans and asked for a contribution. This time difficulties centered mainly on rehousing.

Differences were ironed out and by June 1892 both 16 authorities agreed on suitable plans for the court.

Under part II of the Housing of the Working Classes

Act rehousing was not mandatory. London Terrace, St.

George in the East, was a long and very narrow alley which was cleared with the stipulation that the site be sold for commercial purposes. St. George's medical officer, B. R. Rygate, immediately represented this alley under the Cross Act to the new County Council.

The terrace had been represented to the Metropolitan

Board of Works three times (1875, 1883, and 1884), and each time the Board refused to consider it because it was too small and not of metropolitan importance.

Rygate described the area as dilapidated and damp, and noted that in 1888 alone 34 medical relief orders had been issued. Murphy, too, did not recommend action 17 under the Cross Act as the area had only 13 houses.

The Housing of the Working Classes Act put London

Terrace into new perspective. Upon Rygate's

16LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1889-92, A10-II, LDB clerk, 18 Dec. 1891; LCC draft, 19 Jan. 1892; LDB clerk, 26 April and 10 June 1892; LCC, 6 Dec. 1892.

~^Ibid., 1889-92, A15-I, St. George in the East's medical officer, copy, 20 May 1889. " <■ , ' FIG. V LONDON" TERRACE SCHEME ■ PLAN No. 49.

ll

{

V. s

Sc a l e +rttt

* Source: Ltd, fU W n j ffa jj j W l I kcni«n\ 30V2I33.L N O O N O I IA€>ld

06 re-presentation, Murphy suggested a clearance scheme under part II. The vestry instead of acting forcefully merely closed the dwellings. Since it had not applied to the courts for closing and demolition orders, it had to find a way to prevent the usual superficial patching which permitted reuse of the buildings. The vestry's delegation to the Housing of the Working Classes

Committee pleaded for application of part I on grounds that St. George's was in dire poverty. The LCC's response was to guarantee a grant under part II. The vestry countered with a suggestion that it would purchase the freehold if the County Council contributed to the cost. Thus a foundation for negotiations was established. The vestry, trying to insure that the property would be marketable and that it would not become a neighborhood rubbish dump, implored that adjoining lands be included. In this instance, the

LCC's solicitor saw no legal reason to prohibit the addition of adjoining lands and backed the vestry; but the Council refused to budge on grounds that it was impossible under part II. The Council's architect surveyed the area and recommended that the whole plot be sold for commercial purposes because it faced a factory, was surrounded by buildings, and was too small for erecting working class dwellings or for retention as an open space. Agreement for clearing 92

the site and selling it for commercial use was quickly

reached and approved. Consequently, this rotten hack

street was demolished by the local authority after hard

and serious negotiations. St. George in the East had

not evaded liability. It was poor and desperately in

need of financial contributions. Interestingly, when

Stepney Borough Council sold the land it returned £316. -| O 12s of the County Council's £1000 contribution.

Not every representation received favorable action

from the LCC or local authorities. Many were eventually

filed into baroque pigeon holes of roll-top desks and

left for another clerk to clean out, while others

became administrative footballs. Great Pearl St. (today

Calvin St.) had been represented in 1877, 1884 and 1888,

the latter carried over to the County Council. Murphy agreed with the Whitechapel Board of Works that a scheme was necessary. Although he thought that many buildings

in the back courts could be removed under the Torrens

18LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1889-92, A15-I, LCC, Murphy, 26 Feb. 1890; St. George clerk, 15 Nov. 1890; LCC, Murphy, 22 Jan. 1891; St. George clerk, 5 Feb. 1891; LCC draft, 11 March 1891; LCC, Northeast Subcommittee, Minutes (30 April 1891), 126; LCC, PHHC, Papers, l889-'9Z7“A,15-I, St. George clerk, 13 July 1891; Al^-II, St, George clerk, 5 Feb. 1892; LCC, Blaxland, 22 Feb. 1892; LCC, 27 Feb. 1892; LCC arch., 21 March 1892; LCC, 6 Dec. 1892; LCC, MP, (5 June 1894), 612 and (21 Nov. 1905), 1711. 93 Acts, he was aware that the courts were unwilling to grant demolition orders. Moreover, even if successfully- applied the Torrens Act would not result in a rearrange­ ment of the area. Therefore, he advocated a new representation under the Cross Act which enlarged the condemned area, included other courts, and permitted 19 the erection of decent working class dwellings.

The Housing of the Working Classes Committee rejected the subcommittee's recommendation to use the

Cross Act and advised appropriate application of the

Torrens Act. Simultaneously, it ordered the medical officer and architect to discern which houses were insanitary, which obstructive, how the defects could be remedied, and how much it would cost the ICC to selectively demolish and repair. With a price tag of

£4,500 to demolish obstructive and uninhabitable dwellings and £450 to repair the others, the subcommittee reiterated that the local authority be reminded of its 20 obligations and the potential of the Torrens Act.

19LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1889-92, A21-I, Murphy, 29 July 1889. 20LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1889-92, A21-I, LCC, Murphy, 29 July 1889i LCC, fcWCC, Minutes, (9 Oct. 1889), 185-86; LCC, PHHC. Papers, 1889-9^121=1, LCC, Murphy and arch., 8 Nov. 1889; LCC, Bell Lane and Great Pearl St. subcommittee, 14 Nov. 1889; LCC, HWCC, Minutes, (14 Nov. 1889), 239. Meanwhile, Whitehall launched an inquiry into the sanitary condition of Whitechapel which it seems came to nothing. A conference between the Whitechapel Board of Works, the LCC medical officer, and owners brought agreement on improvements. Whitechapel was convinced that with its strengthened authority under the new housing act the evils would be remedied. Eight months later, however, there was no action except closure of two courts and two houses. Almost a year later representatives of the landowners cleverly explored the state of local government action in order to avoid 21 making any repairs. The Northeast Subcommittee of the

Housing of the Working Classes Committee had recently viewed the area. It faced a dilemma: it favored a scheme, yet the compensation clauses of the Housing of the Working Classes Act made a scheme impractical. The subcommittee consequently counselled against a scheme unless the Home Secretary compelled it. At the same time the subcommittee asked the Council officers to prepare a scheme. Since the freeholders defaulted on the agreement to improve their properties and as

LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1889-92, A21-I, Whitehall, 31 Jan. 1890; Whitechapel clerk, 3 Oct. 1890; A21-II, Taylor, Hoare, and Box, solicitors, 17 May 1892. 95

alterations would "not adequately improve” Great Pearl 22 St., Murphy took the line that a scheme was imperative.

Great Pearl St. was ignored for a decade. The

case was revived hy the new metropolitan borough of

Stepney when a deputation went to the Housing of the

Working Classes Committee of the ICC in February 1902.

Mr. Potter, president of the borough, asked for a

clearance scheme under part I. In January Stepney's medical officer had made a representation under part II.

Thus if a part I scheme were not possible then Stepney

was willing to have it done under part II so long as

the Council contributed. Stepney, however, could not

undertake the project alone in view of already high

rates. It added that due to the transient population

the use of sanitary by-laws was impossible. The area’s male population were casual laborers or made cheap

boots and clothes. Moreover, it was difficult to get

the names of owners and ground landlords because none

of the houses were registered even though some were

practically lodging houses. The Council prescribed to

Stepney closing and demolition orders under part II.

22LCC, HWCC, NESC, Minutes, (5 April 1892), 350-51 and (12 Dec. 1892), 542-43; LCC, PHHC. Housing Subcommittee, Minutes I (11 Jan. 1893), 9; LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1893-94, A2i, LCC, Murphy, 25 Jan. 1893. 96

If this failed then it recommended that Stepney design an official representation. Interestingly enough there is no record of the medical officer's January represen­ tation; it is possible that Stepney never forwarded it to the Council. The County Council also urged Stepney to get the names of all leaseholders and freeholders.

It indicated that Poplar had done it and intimated that if Poplar successfully followed up this with closing orders Stepney might do the same. After years of wavering "between comprehensive schemes and use of closing orders, circumstances forced Stepney to rely 23 solely on closing and demolition orders.

Fortunately the Great Pearl St. area received minor surgery; however, the dispute over two blocks in

Mile End Old Town ended in total inaction. The Lewin's

Buildings and Lomas Buildings are the best examples of file cabinet politics. In October and November 1892 the vestry and the LCC exchanged letters discussing the condition of the Lewin's Buildings. The Cou..ty Council wanted closing orders and immediate action. The vestry

3LCC, HWCC, Minutes. V (26 Feb. 1902), 629-30; Stepney Borough Council, AR for 1902, App. B, p. 97; LCC, HWCC, Minutes, V (26"Teb. 1902), 631 and (5 March 1902), 64 5;^£ers, 1901-02, 15, LCC clerk, 4 March 1902; 15 March 1902; 16 May 1902; Stepney clerk, 16 July 1902. preferred sending a deputation to work out the differences it seems that although a date was set no meeting was held. Mile End could not justify clearing the Lewin's

Buildings because the rates were already very high and there had been an enormous increase of poverty in the district. It argued that the owners should be respon­ sible for removing obstructive buildings and for making houses fit for humans. The vestry refused to rspend

"large amounts of public money in order to save landlords the slight, natural, and proper loss they may now suffer as a direct consequence of thfcir former greed and overcrowding of the land." The Public Health and Housing

Committee replied that poverty did not excuse the vestry from carrying out its obligations, especially since it had been Mile End's medical officer who notified the

Council.24

The Council's valuer submitted two plans to deal with the area. One proposed removing a few buildings and altering a few others for £450. The other proposed demolition of all of Lewin's Buildings and a few on

Sidney Street, widening Sidney Street, and using the

24LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1889-92, A12-II, Mile End clerk. 27 and 31 Oct. I89fc; LCC clerk, 8 Nov. 1892; PHHC, Minutes, III (30 Jan. 1893), 217; Papers, 1893-94, A12, Mile End clerk, 22 Dec. 1892. 98 rest of the land for front gardens. This projected cost was £5,000. The Public Health and Housing Committee, however, decided to wait six months to give "the Vestry 25 an opportunity of taking action." With this documen­ tation ended, and the case disappeared into the files.

The Lomas Buildings controversy, on the other hand, revolved around finance, use of cleared space, and housing. Mile End wanted the County Council to contribute to the costs. When Mile End advanced a scheme under part II, the LCC demanded proper plans and estimates before it would consider a contribution. Once the plans were resubmitted the Council indicated that the area must be retained as an open space, and it desired a guarantee that enough vacancies existed to accommodate the residents. The vestry protested and the LCC accepted the request to use the site as a builder's yard or rope walk; the vestry needed the revenue and there already existed two or three open spaces in the 26 neighborhood. Little was done in the next year. To

25LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1893-94, A12, LCC valuer, 15 Feb. 1893; Minutes, "Iv (27 Feb. 1893), 248.

26LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1893-94, A25, LCC clerk, 10 Oct. 1894; Mile End clerk, 25 Oct. 1894; LCC clerk, 13 Nov. 1894; 1895-96, A25, LCC clerk, 22 June 1895; Mile End clerk, 6 June 1895; LCC clerk, 22 June 1895. 99 expedite the scheme, Mile End sent a delegation to the

Local Government Board. It requested that Murphy attend to reinforce its position. The Housing of the Working

Classes Committee agreed there was sufficient housing available in the vestry to free it from the rehousing obligation, noted that the vestry’s officers were capable of advancing the case, and diplomatically excused Murphy. As it turned out the Local Government

Board was not satisfied with Mile End's scheme and refused the sanction. To Dr. Thomas, Mile End's medical officer, it seemed that the Local Government

Board had "evidently laid down a hard and fast rule 27 that in such cases new dwellings should be elected."

Although the Lomas Buildings were a standing disgrace which demoralized the working classes, nothing more was said until the Mansion House Council complained to the LCC in 1903. For the Council to send a copy of the nuisance complaint to the Stepney Borough Council was insufficient. Murphy reviewed the history, pointed out that Mile End never took advantage of an offer tc use the County Council's solicitor to draw up a representation, and recommended that an inspection by

27LCC, HWCC, Papers, 1896-97, 10, LCC clerk, 27 Feb. 1897; HWCC, Minutes, I (24 Feb. 1897), 329. 100 the Public Health Committee might get results. Just as

Mile End previously had blamed the Local Government

Board so Stepney did, and it appeared that Stepney oo proposed to do nothing. Thus a slum so close to clearance a decade earlier was dropped due to the Local

Government Board's obstinancy and local authority frustration. It was not touched again until after

World War I.

Clearance schemes under part II were not feasible for every site. The first and most important slum cleared by the County Council required little deliber­ ation. The Boundary Street estate, Bethnal Green, was the largest undertaking by either the Metropolitan

Board of Works or the London County Council. It had a history of sub-standard housing reaching back over fifty years. Southwood Smith in his 1838 report to the

Poor Law Commissioners cited the insanitary and foul conditions in some streets; a decade later Hector Gavin,

Board of Health inspector, in his Sanitary Ramblings condemned the dwellings; in 1883 the medical officer for Bethnal Green, G. P. Bate, reported the houses to the vestry; and in 1887 the Local Government Board held

pQ Mile End Old Town, 42nd Annual Report, 1898, p. 57; LCC, HWCC, Papers, 1903-04, 10, Stepney clerk, 17 Dec. 1903; memo from HWCC to PHC, 20 Jan. 1904. 101 an inquiry and cited this as one of the worst areas in the vestry. Bate again advocated a major redevelor>ment project in April 1890. He recited the now familiar litany: very poor health conditions, overcrowding, and structural defects street by street. He added that the only action taken after a special vestry committee visited the area in 1883 was the application of the

Nuisance Removal Acts. Consequently, good money was wasted patching houses that should have been demolished; in fact, one owner deliberately ignored the notices, pulled down his houses, and left the land vacant. Bate ended this report by obliquely condemning the vestry for not making any order to demolish any houses within the area. Murphy fully backed Bate and recommended a clearance scheme for the Boundary Street area. The

Northeast Subcommittee prepared the scheme for clearance 29 and redevelopment.

The major problem in this scheme was rehousing the displaced families. The prerequisite for clearing 15 acres and displacing 5,700 poople was suitable accommodations in the neighborhood. Most working class families usually moved into the nearest vacancy.

29LCC, PHHC, Papers. 1889-92, A3-I, Bethnal Green, Bate, 3 April 1890; LCC, Murphy, 5 June 1890; HWCC, Minutes (29 July 1890), 574. 102

The engineer assured the Housing Committee that half of the residents could move immediately without being seriously inconvenienced. The London County Council, anxious not to displace residents without a place to go, thought of acquiring two sites and constructing working class housing. The solicitor cautiously advised that he did not think the Home Office would permit purchase of land under part III until the scheme was confirmed unless the purchase was by agreement.

Nevertheless, the Housing of the Working Classes

Committee went ahead with plans to acquire the sites.

At the same time residents and ratepayers of Bethnal

Green, mostly living within a mile radius of the slum, held a Sunday meeting and petitioned the LCC for a redevelopment plan which would not overcrowd the adjoining areas.

The County Council gradually formulated a plan to minimize housing pressure in the surrounding districts.

If everyone was forced to move as property was purchased the neighboring areas in Bethnal Green,

Whitechapel, and Shoreditch, which were already

30LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1889-92, A3-I, LCC engineer, 9 Oct. 1890; LCC, asst, solicitor, 16 Oct. 1890; HWCC, Minutes, (20 Oct. 1890), 603; PHHC, Papers, A3-I, petition signed by Henry Davison, 2 Nov. 1890. 103 overcrowded, would have been unable to take the added

strain. Thus, as each piece of property was purchased the valuer and medical officer inspected it and decided whether to repair or demolish it. The Council adjusted rents and tried to end overcrowding. In the main rents did not change much; what happened was that subletting was ended. In this way transition pains from clearance to rebuilding were eased. The project took eight years.^1 The LCC took precautions to assist any tenant who needed aid in moving and checked each complaint of official abuse. Regardless, some residents were belligerent and refused to move until they felt like it.

And from the tenants point of view the County Council was not a benevolent despot. A group of residents, some of whom could not even sign their names, sent a letter describing their circumstances. They had lived in the area for forty to fifty years and felt that the

LCC was "making criminals out of us, by putting us in the streets." They did not want to be "disrespectful", they "just wanted a roof over our heads and to earn an honest living"; however, they were "stiff Rods", all

31LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1889-92, A3-II, LCC, public health department, £l July 1892; LCC valuer, 12 Dec. 1892; 19 Dec. 1892. 104 they wanted was justice and a place found for them. 32 They felt their other letters had been ignored.

The Council helped relocate families, and tried to cooperate with the semi-philanthropic Guinness Trust, which did not feel obliged in the least. And the Council gave gratuities which covered moving costs. Some individuals thought they could get more by demanding compensation. This led. to a false charge from

J. Norris, a resident, that Rev. Loveridge promised tenants that he would get them large compensations if 33 they ignored notices to vacate premises.

Meanwhile, the Holborn Gladstone Club and the

Fulham Liberal Club wanted the names of landlords in order to inform the public who gained profit from slums.

The Plumstead Radical Club and the Woolwich District

Radical Club not only protested the enriching of slum landlords but went so far as to insist that these rack- renters should forfeit their property. It seems that these clubs were deeply influenced by Henry George's ideas. While the Strand Liberal and Radical Club was

^2LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1889-92, A3-II, residents, Sept. 1892.

•^LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1889-92, A3-II, Guinness Trust, 15 Nov. 1892 an3T°17 Nov. 1892; HWCC, Minutes, II (17 Oct. 1892), 649. 105 piqued that had landlords raked in handsome profits,

the Shoreditch Liberal and Radical Club was concerned

with the high cost to ratepayers and implored the 34 Council to use part II of the housing act.

Political clubs were not the only cautious critics.

A letter from an unknown Shoreditch vestryman, disgusted with the decayed property, chastened the LCC for paying high prices for "rotten rubbish. Owners will have money to continue playing tricks, and ratepayers pay for it." Even more enlightened and self-centered pleas came from the vestry of St. Mary Abbotts, Kensington.

It complained that parishes which received no direct benefit from the scheme had to pay for it. Consequently, if there was no other way of dealing with the slum than under part I, then the parish benefiting from the improvement should make "a special contribution towards 35 the expenditure." Thus the public was never satisfied: on the one hand, it accepted the need for clearance, on the other, it defended the helpless

34LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1889-92, A3-I, Holborn Glad­ stone Club, 15 NovT 1890; Plumstead Radical Club, 10 Nov. 1890; Woolwich District Radical Club, 9 Dec. 1890; Fulham Liberal Club, 12 Dec. 1890; Strand Liberal and Radical Association, 14 Jan. 1891; Shoreditch Liberal and Radical Club, 21 Jan. 1891.

•^LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1889-92, A3-II, A vestryman of Shoreditch, 14 May 1892; St. Mary Abbotts, 11 March 1891. 106 ratepayer who demanded that either rackrenters and greedy landlords clear the slum or the immediate local authority be responsible for the clearance.

Once the scheme had been confirmed, there was a new form of harassment. The vestry of Bethnal Green complained that owners stopped repairing their property, that better class residents were moving out and their vacated premises were being quickly filled by squatters.

The result was a general decline in sanitation which could be mitigated by closing the unfit houses. The vestry pleaded that it was anxious to maintain cooperation between the Council and itself. Presumably, it did not want to issue closing notices on property the LCC acquired. Actually, it wanted the Council immediately to assume responsibility for every house in the area, regardless of who owned it. The Council's position was that it could not do much since it had only a handful of properties, and it accepted full responsi­ bility for the sanitary condition of all property it acquired.^

Managing working class dwellings and helping residents move was only one headache for the London

County Council. Neighborhood hooligans and petty

36LCC, PHHC, Papers. 1889-92, A3-II, Bethnal Green vestry, 5 April 18^2; LCC clerk, 20 May 1892. 107 thieves found the vacant property an attractive nuisance.

An adjoining manufacturer suffered from burglary and asked the LCC to provide some protection. Houses vacated still had salvageable material. Zinc and lead were good items. One boy caught stealing zinc received a month's sentence. Another youth was put into his father's custody until trial for pinching lead. A workman and his friend were charged with stealing and receiving lead, respectively. At the jury trial they 3 7 pleaded not guilty, and were acquitted. 1 Such prosecutions curtailed vandalism and thievery.

Public relations was a key problem. The local residents, the press, and public opinion had to be placated. The Council held a meeting in the Boundary

Street area to dispose of misconceptions and inform the residents of the project's progress. Unfortunately, a tempest in a teapot developed when an article appeared in the Shoreditch Guardian calling the LCC "Brothel

Keepersli" It charged that the Boundary Street area was the center for prostitutes and thieves and that the Council was collecting this sinful money. Moreover, many houses were unfit. In another article it pointed out the hypocrisy of the Council. On the one hand its

•^LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1893-94, A3, James Keeves and Son, 26 June 1893» kcC valuer, 26 April 1893 and 4 Oct. 1893; ICC solicitor, 29 Nov. 1893. 108 virtue was outraged because a music hall had "living pictures which might excite the passions"; while on the other the County Council owned property which provided a promenade for disreputable women. The valuer quickly debunked the articles; he claimed that overcrowding was carefully watched and that no property was used for immoral purposes. One house was let to a woman who sublet and she submitted a list of tenants and their occupations. Furthermore, only sanitary and repairable property was let. When the vestry of Bethnal Green complained about insanitary property, it was answered xn a similar. vein. . 3 8

No other slum clearance scheme under part I was sanctioned for the Bast End until the end of the decade; for that matter only two others were cleared in the whole of London. In 1899 the LCC accepted two slum removal projects under part I for the East End.

Curiously, the Burford's Court, Tucker's Court, and

Favonia Street scheme was composed of three miniscule sites totaling seven-eights of an acre and they were scattered throughout Poplar. All were within a mile of Ann St. and of Preston's Road where the LCC had

38LCC, PHHC, Minutes, III (31 Oct. 1892), 16; PHHC, Papers, 1893-94, A T , ’’ cutting from Shoreditch Guardian, 20 Oct. 1894; LCC valuer, 23 Oct. 1894 and 24 Oct. 1894; LCC valuer, 14 Nov. 1894. ■J

, FIG. VII . 109

V BUR FORD’S "COURT. A c., SC H E M E . H A N No. 33 (a). .

PARIS!! OF ALL S/.li'WS, !OTLAR.

anix:ic=HT)'.jar-

A,HT0i.'"'Vr7t';V

S c a l e v,

■ hetmo KttKKiyi 1M ** \ « j . 1 .. a a a a s — 1 •...... K 8»

PARISH OF BROMLEY ST. LEONARD. Ill housing estates. Burford's Court was across the street from Ann St., Tucker's Court about one half mile west, and Favonia St. almost a mile north near St. Andrew’s

Hospital. Murphy counseled that part II provided sufficient powers for the demolition of Tucker's Court and Burford's Court; he was especially concerned with

Burford's Court as it had a high death rate. In July

Murphy added Favonia St. to the demolition list and recommended its retention as an open space. As the officers prepared a scheme under part II the valuer concluded that each site was too small for building.

Moreover, since the three slums were within a mile of

Preston's Rd. estate which had surplus land from the

Blackwall Tunnel, possibly the rehousing obligation could be transferred. The architect concurred in the view that rehousing was impossible on these sites; however, he hesitated because he thought that if land were added to Burford's Court and Tucker's Court he might design some kind of tenement block, though not a favorable one. Alternatively, decent dwellings could be built in Preston's Road without cost to the ratepayers if the three sites were sold for commercial purposes and the income transferred into its account, The

Housing of the Working Classes Committee dropped plans under part II and ordered the officers to design a scheme under part I based on their recommendations that 112

Burford's Court and Tucker's Court be cleared and sold for commercial purposes and that the Favonia St. site 39 be cleared and used for a playground.

A series of minor scandals arose before all the properties were acquired and the sites cleared. In

Burford's Court a child died and the story appeared in the newspapers. To mitigate bad publicity the Home

Office wanted to know what action was taken, and within a month Poplar pressured the ICC to arrange for

"immediate removal of the occupants" from houses in

Burford's Court. Although the LCC promised that the area would be cleared in twelve months, snags appeared, and an arbitrator was required. A year and a half later

Poplar's medical officer again decried the condition of

Burford's Court; he said it was "positively appalling and too terrible for words"; moreover, he absolved himself on grounds that legal notices for the scheme were already published. The County Council could only reply that as soon as property was acquired it would handle it. If this were not enough Poplar Borough

Council once more asked that Burford's Court be closed

39ICC, HWCC, Papers, 1898-1900, 44, Poplar medical officer, 26 Nov. l89o and 11 May 1899; ICC, Murphy, 17 May 1899 and 5 July 1899} LCC valuer, 12 July 1899; ICC arch. 12 July 1899; 26 July 1899; ICC, MP, (24 Oct. 1899), 1429. ““ 113 and included a letter from an irate neighborhood resident named Robert Gibbs. Mr. Gibbs threatened to go to the press if he got no action. He complained of the noise and the disturbances to his family. Worst of all urchins had taken to the roofs, were peering in his windows, destroying his roofing, and had pushed over a chimney into his children's nursery. Local officials were continually inspecting his property as it was a shop, n[B]ut such as the Public Health was intended to reach are skipped," he complained, "filthy dirty beasts, a very curse to God's earth. Send me the owner's name and by Heaven I prosecute him if you don't do something in the matter." Within the year the LCC had title to this property and promised that the residents would be 40 moved out. Interestingly, Poplar, not too active for the previous decade and reluctant to get closing orders for Burford's Court itself, felt it could criticize.

On the other hand, the London County Council which took pride in its efficiency did not always provide a good example.

Providence Place was another Poplar slum which the

County Council cleared rather quickly. In July 1900

40LCC, HY/CC, Papers, 1901-02, 44, LCC clerk, 17 April 1902; Poplar clerk, 30 May 1902; 1903-04, 44, Poplar medical officer, 23 Dec. 1903; LCC clerk, 31 Dec. 1903; Poplar clerk, 27 Jan. 1904; LCC clerk, 29 Jan. 1904. 114

Poplar's medical officer officially condemned Providence

Place and King Street. Murphy concurred that the very high death rate, had arrangement, houses without basements, and ground floors below ground level made clearance of Providence Place imperative. However, he refused to recommend King St. as it had only nine houses, and there were two businesses which would have to be compensated. He advised that it was better to handle the houses separately. Poplar was pleased that the LCC applied part I to the Providence Place area, yet it was disappointed over the rejection of King Street. The controversy over King St. carried over two years. Poplar was of the opinion that both areas should be dealt with under one scheme by the Council. The Housing of the

Working Classes Committee indicated that King Street was too small, a paradox considering that it accepted

Burford's Court, Tucker's Court, and Pavonia Street for clearance; and it added that, as it was already handling the larger area, Poplar should use closing orders under part II. Poplar did not give up easily.

It petitioned the County Council to clear the King St. area with a scheme under part II. The LCC, reluctant to deprive the local authority of responsibility, guaranteed Poplar vacancies in its Adalaide Building in

Ann St. if it got closing orders. Poplar did not react, 115 so the LCC let the tenements to prevent an economic loss. Eventually, Poplar replied: it warned that closing orders were meaningless because the dwellings would be merely patched making the scheme more expensive. It stressed to the Council that it had the machinery and the capacity to shoulder the costs.

Months later, after the Housing Committee viewed the area, the LCC adamantly refused to deal with King St. under part I and added that the houses were so dilapidated that only a closing and demolition order 41 would do the trick. In this situation Poplar tried to repeat the Burford's Court, Tucker's Court, and

Pavonia St. maneuver to have the County Council carry the financial burden. The Council acted wisely; it undertook to clear Providence Place and insisted that

Poplar assume responsibility for demolishing some slums.

After 1900 the London County Council was not active in slum clearance. The East End had received a lion's share of the schemes. More acreage was cleared in

Stepney by the Metropolitan Board of Works and jointly

41LCC, HWCC, Papers. 1898-1900, 63, LCC, Murphy, 3 Oct. 1900; 1901-62, 63, Poplar medical officer, 25 July 1900; 1898-1900, 63, LCC clerk, 6 Nov. 1900; 1901-02, 63, Poplar clerk, 31 Dec. 1900; Poplar clerk, 14 Aug. 1901; LCC valuer and manager, 10 Oct. 1901; LCC clerk, 18 Oct. 1901; LCC clerk, 22 Nov. 1901; Poplar clerk, 4 Feb. 1902; HWCC, Minutes. VI (30 July 1902), 304; HWCC, Papers, 1901-02, 63, LCC clerk, 18 Oct. 1902. "by the London County Council and local authorities than in any other borough. Consequently, the London County

Council was not too receptive to Murphy's proposal for redeveloping the Backchurch Lane area in St. George in the East. Murphy indicated that in spite of low death rates the area was poorly arranged and worn out.42 The

Council's officers proposed five storey blocks in order to make the buildings financially feasible and if the

London County Council desired to provide accommodations in advance then it could either lease nearby vacant land or purchase a freehold under part III. The Housing

Committee was satisfied with the report and endorsed drafting a scheme just in case Stepney made an official representation. In October Stepney advocated a scheme under part II; however, the Housing Committee deferred the project and decided to omit part of the site which had recently been sold to save money. Months later, however, after viewing the area the Housing Committee notified the Home Office that no improvement scheme was necessary. Stepney tried again in 1903 to get the LCC to redevelop Backchurch Lane only to drop the idea, and

42 Although the area was overcrowded the death rate was low because it was inhabited by Jews whose habits, age level and vaccination kept it down. LCC, HWCC, Papers, 1901-02, 65, LCC, Murphy, 25 March 1901; 1903-04, 65, Stepney clerk, 9 May 1903. so informed the Home Office. It was convinced that a

Home Office inquiry in the face of LCC opposition made it extremely probable that the Home Secretary would order the scheme to be carried out under part II and that part of the expense be carried by the borough. About this time the Council notified the Home Office that most of the area would be converted into commercial property 43 shortly and a scheme was unessential. In this instance the Housing Committee at first was enthusiastic for redevelopment. But by 1903, sensing that the temper of the Council wa3 not conducive to slum clearance, aware that expenditure was rising, and faced with an expanding building program in the outlying parts of the metropolis, the Housing Committee rejected the scheme in hopes that private enterprise would redevelop it.

The reorganization of Bethnal Green in 1900 brought with it a more vigorous administration. The Brady Street area in Bethnal Green provides a most interesting study

43LCC, HWCC, Papers. 1901-02, 65, LCC, engineer, arch., valuer, medical officer, and manager, 17 July 1901 HWCC, Minutes, V (24 July 1901), 242; HWCC, Papers, 1901-02, 65", LCC valuer, 23 Oct. 1901 and 30 Oct. 1901; Poplar clerk, 23 Oct. 1901; HWCC, Minutes, V (30 Oct. 1901), 352; VI (30 July 1902), 304; V I (25 Feb. 1903), 735; HWCC, Papers, 1903-04, 65, Stepney clerk, 9 May 1903; Stepney Sorough Council, Minutes of Proceeding, III (15 April 1903), 897-98; HWCC. Papers, 1963-T5TT6 5, LCC valuer, 10 March 1903; LCC clerk, T3 March 1903. 118 of deliberate procrastination in hope for private development. In his representation, G. P. Bate, described this area as one with a high death rate, overcrowding, and built in the cheapest manner by speculators. The history of closing and patching and reopening of houses went back into the 1880s. Over a thousand notices had been served, but the repairs were only superficial as the owners had short term leases.

Only a clearance scheme could cope with such a slum.

However, Bethnal Green was quickly turned down. The

London County Council assumed that a private developer would take over the area shortly and redevelop it; therefore, there was no justification for expenditure of public funds. In the meantime, Bethnal Green was urged to use its powers under the Public Health (London) Act.

Bate was greatly disappointed that the LCC did not deal with the area under part I and noted that in 1904 the proposals to deal privately with the area fell through.

The Council again concluded that, with the hope of a private undertaking still existing, it could not design a plan under part I. Bate was greatly disappointed with the Council's refusal. Even the Local Government

Board, called by Bethnal Green to inspect the area, 119 44 decided not to take action. ^

Since the LCC was unwilling to act, closing orders were issued by the medical officer. Some houses were closed; others were thoroughly cleansed and either repaired or remodelled. Another special survey of the area re-emphasized the conclusion that nothing short of an immediate scheme was acceptable. Permanent improve­ ments short of clearance were not feasible. Thus Bethnal

Green again approached the County Council, stressing the grave health hazards. Bate had high hopes because the

March 1907 election had brought the conservatives into power "pledged to devote more attention to domestic policy to the exclusion of some of the Municipal trading schemes favoured by the late Council." Nevertheless, the Council refused to budge from its previous position.

It argued that past housing schemes had been unrerauner- ative, had absorbed large sums of money, and that 45 economy was the order of the day. Proposals for

44LCC, HWCC, Papers. 1903-04, 88, Bethnal Green medical officer, 24 Feb. 1904; Bethnal Green, Sanitary Condition for 1904. pp. 47-48; LCC, HWCC, Papers. 1905-06. 88, LCC clerk, lb March 1905; Bethnal Green, Bate, 30 March 1905; LCC, 20 April 1905; Local Government Board, 4 Nov. 1905.

4^Bethnal Green, Proceedings, VI (7 Dec. 1905), 39; VI (4 Jan. 1906), 67; ~VlI (20 beo. 1906), 47-48; VII (21 Feb. 1907), 106; LCC, HWCC, Papers, I (16 Jan. 1907), item 38; Bethnal Green, Sanitary Condition for 1906, pp. 55-58; Sanitary Condition for 17, PP« 68-69. 120 clearing the Brady Street area got nowhere until the eve of World War I when after long negotiations between the

Local Government Board, the LCC, and Bethnal Green, the

Board decided in September 1914 that part II would be sufficient. The war halted any progress. And at the end of the war t^s County Council cleared the area itself.^ During this period the East End Dwelling Company, formed in 1882 to house the poor and earn a profit, redeveloped a number of estates in the East End. This was not exactly slum clearance but the private redevelop­ ment of worn out areas where freeholders were eager to get higher ground rents. In 1892 the company acquired a leasehold in Mansford St., Bethnal Green, with an entrance in Pollard St.^ The following year it began negotiating with the Moravian Trust for a leasehold in

Mile End. The East End Dwelling Co. desired the block bounded by Hannibal Road, Cressy Place, and Stepney

Green. In 1893 it purchased the building rights in

Hannibal Rd. and Cressy Place and five years later it completed negotiations for land at the intersection of

Cressy Place and Stepney Green after it purchased the

46Public Record Office, HLG 1/14 pt. 2.

^East End Dwelling Co., Minutes, III (23 May 1892), 9; III (11 June 1892), 11. 121 48 rights from another leaseholder. The East End Dwelling

Co. also negotiated a leasehold with the Barnet Chancel

estate for Ravenscroft St. and Columbia Rd. in Bethnal

Green.49 However, the East End Dwelling Co.’s largest redevelopment was in the Victoria Park Square area of

Bethnal Green. In 1900 it pieced together parcels from

three estates. The block bounded by Old Ford Road,

Globe Road, Sugar Loaf Walk, and Victoria Park Square was owned by the Merceron estate and the Gretton estate.

Demolition and reconstruction were planned to take place gradually over a decade; and eventually the northwest

corner was sold as a freehold to the Roman Catholic

church. Directly east across Globe Road and to the south in Gawber, Welwyn and Kirkwall Streets, the East

End Dwelling Co. purchased leaseholds from the Moravian

Trust. These leases were negotiated between 1898 and 50 1902 for gradual redevelopment. The company also considered other leases, like one in the Isle of Dogs

4^East End Dwelling Co., Minutes, III (20 March 1893), 83; III (8 May 1893), 96; IV (26 Oct. 1896), 86; IV (24 Jan. 1898), 157.

49Ibid., IV (18 May 1896), 62-63.

50Ibid., IV (5 June 1899), 239; V (8 Oct. 1900), 61; V (19 Nov. 1900), 70; IV (31 Oct. 1898). 200; V (19 March 1900), 30-31; V (3 June 1901), 105; V (8 July 1901), 113; V (6 June 1902), 136-37; V (8 May 1905), 306; V (15 June 1908), 465; V(6 July 1908), 471. 122 offered "by the Dock Co., hut rejected them because the 51 owners wanted too much rent.

Public responsibility for slum clearance was established with the Cross Act and restated in the

Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890. This did not mean that slums were doomed. Even vigorous adminis­ tration did not end this urban blight quickly. But without the essentials— money and will— little could be expected. The London County Council had will in the first years and also brought the local authorities into line. What it lacked was money. While not bad in itself, since it made local officials think carefully, the cry for fiscal responsibility was very often linked with resistance to social change and used as a guise for what was essentially a reactionary position.

The chief villain was parliament. It actually believed that government loans rather than direct treasury grants for slum clearance would wipe away London's cesspools.

The East End received the largest share of clearances. Of the 95 acres demolished between 1875 and

1907 by the Metropolitan Board of Works, the London

County Council, and the local authorities, about 41 acres were in the Tower Hamlets. The table makes obvious

^East End Dwelling Co., Minutes, IV (17 July 1899), 248. SLUM CLEARANCE IN THE TOWER HAMLETS

ICC ■UF TO 1 ACRE •1 TO 7 ACRES ■7 TO 15 ACRES

ro 124 that the Metropolitan Board of Works demolished more slum acreage in London and in the East End than the London

County Council. Why then does the LCC get so much credit?

TABLE I

SLUM CLEARANCES IN GREATER LONDON, 1875-190752

Bethnal London East End Stepney Poplar Green Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres

MBW 51 21 18 3 —

LCC 31 17 — 2 15

Loc. Auth. 13 2 1 1 —

Partly "because it forced the local authorities to act responsibly and partly because it made itself look more dynamic and accountable than the Metropolitan Board.

Finally, it must be remembered that many private estates

52 LCC, The Housing Question in London, pp. 294-95, 300, 308, 318; LCC, Housing of the Working Classes, pp. 146-150. In the LCC statistics one usually finds six clearance schemes or about six acres listed under '•Council Schemes" with a footnote stating they were initiated by the MBW or a category "MBW and Council Completed Schemes." The majority were cleared by the MBW but no buyers could be found. In Cable St. the LCC was responsible for completing financial settlements before clearance began. In all these instances the MBW deserves the credit for slum clearance. were ripe for redevelopment and private enterprise or semi-philanthropic groups stepped in long before public authorities felt obliged to do so. CHAPTER IV

MUNICIPAL HOUSING: ATTITUDES AND ACTION THROUGH 1892

By the last decade of the 19th century the principle of local government responsibility for slum clearance and slum control was accepted. There were here and there murmurs of disapproval. Individuals were found who did the job better, and there was dissatisfaction with the high cost of slum clearance which benefitted avaricious landlords. But in the main, the climate of opinion favored slum clearance while still being very hostile to municipal housing. Conservatives and laissez faire liberals adamantly opposed government rehousing programs as a threat to private enterprise. Yet how were the poor laborers to get improved dwellings?

To Sir John Simon, City of London medical officer of health and public health pioneer, municipal housing was nothing more than an indirect subsidy to capital, permitting employers to lower wages.^ The civic minded

Mansion House Council was also openly antagonistic to

■^John Simon, English Sanitary Institutions (London, 1890), pp. 434 and 441. 126 127 municipal housing— an attitude which it dropped after 2 World War I. The Liberty and Property Defence League, a pressure group which believed in self-help and non­ interference, charged that "Municipal bodies had enough to do, and as some think far too much, without launching into the land speculating and building trades." In

1885 it attacked the Housing of the Working Classes Bill which proposed to sell prison lands expressly for working class housing, arguing that the sale of public property at less than market value established "a very dangerous precedent for future measures of pauperization and socialism in other directions." It even believed that this could mean the end of philanthropic groups which 3 erected housing for laborers.

Octavia Hill, and many who held a comparable view, insisted that private enterprise was capable of supplying all the housing required, and that voluntary effort and industrial dwelling companies existed to help the poor. In her article "Common Sense and the

Dwellings of the Poors I. Improvements Now Practicable,"

2 The Mansion House Council on Dwellings of the Poor, The Present Position of the Housing Problem in and Around Bondon (London, 19o8), p. o ; ^he Mansion House Council on Health and Housing, The Present Situation in London (London, 1934), pp. 3-4. 3 ^Liberty and Property Defence League, Land (London, 1885), p. 48; The Times, 3 August I885. 128 she stubbornly opposed any scheme which used public funds for rehousing. These schemes merely restored the old poor law system and further undermined "the dignified position of the working men of England, who have hitherto assumed that the support of their families was to depend on their labour, their self-control, their wisdom and their thrift." Moreover, erection of public housing would entice more migrants from 4 agricultural districts.

As if substantiating Miss Hill’s philosophy a group of prominent London leaders met at St. Jude's,

Whitechapel, in November 1882 to discuss housing

London's unskilled labor. This meeting resulted in the formation of the East End Dwelling Co. Its purpose was to help the "poorest class of self-supporting labourers" get dwelling accommodations at the lowest rent and also pay a dividend. It cited Richard Cross's idea, expressed in The Nineteenth Century, that better dwellings could be provided for the working class at rents no higher than those usually paid by this class for distinctly inferior accommodations. And it called upon Octavia Hill for advice. The East End Dwelling Co.

4 Octavia Hill, "Common Sense and the Dwellings of the Poor: I. Improvements Now Practicable," The Nineteenth Century. XIV (1883), 925-26. 129 differed radically from existing companies and associations which erected dwellings for the more prosperous industrial workers. Its definition of a member of the poorest class was a laborer earning £1 or less per week. To achieve its goal it limited its investment to land cleared by the Metropolitan Board of Works. When this source dried up and the company was forced on the market, it modified its policy.

The success of Peabody Trust and the East End

Dwelling Co. posed models for others to follow.

Created shortly thereafter were the Guinness Trust,

Sutton Dwelling Trust, and the Pour Per Cent Industrial

Dwelling Co. Each accomplished much in its own way, but, even taken altogether, they were too small to make a really significant difference. Sydney Waterlow's

Improved Industrial Dwellings Co. also served as a model. One suggestion to solve overcrowding and redevelop jerry-built areas in the East End was based on Waterlow's success. It was proposed that twenty great landlords buying property and rebuilding could solve the problem in London with a few thousand pounds

5 East End Dwelling Co., Minutes of Forming Committee, 1 November 1882, 13 I'tovember 1882, 5 February 1883; Bast End Dwelling Co., "Circular for Raising Capital, February 1884." 130 g at four per cent. But nothing came of the proposal.

At a conference on "Housing of the Industrial

Classes," which met early in 1889 at St. James* Hall,

Piccadilly, Sir Charles Piussell, MP, "insisted that it was a public duty to provide fit dwellings for the industrial population." Commenting on the conference

The Times suggested that Radicals used housing reform as a cat's paw for taxation of ground rents and another 7 step toward municipal socialism. Nearly two years later in regard to rehousing in Bethnal Green The Times was advocating that landlords be made to rebuild. It deplored the idea of a "London rebuilt by the benevolent Q despots of the County Council."

Some national newspapers favored public housing.

For a while, in 1892, the Pall Mall Gazette seemed to accept municipal housing. When the London County Council decided to erect housing itself for the Blackwall

Tunnel, the Pall Mall Gazette praised the Council's experiment to build with direct labor and dispense with the contractor. It defended this action because the

^Arnold White, "The Nomad Poor of London," The Contemporary Review. XLVII (May 1885), 724.

^The Times, 15 February 1889.

®Ibid., 9 December 1890. 131 Council had not committed itself to future action.

"Progress," proclaimed the Gazette, "is the result of tentatives; and if you shy at an experiment you may 9 as well lie down in your tracks and die."

While The Times and the Pall Mall Gazette were quick to state their position, the local newspapers in the

East End seldom broached the topic. Once in a while

East End papers carried a small news item about housing needs and it was exceptional to find a comment. The

East London Advertiser accepted the need for working class tenements which were erected by private interests, and lamented the difficulty the LCC had in attracting private enterprise to purchase sites such as Brook St.

It added that the Council's sale of slum cleared sites below cost was nothing less than "indirect State

Socialism."^ In an earlier article discussing the housing question the East London Advertiser noted the

"agitation in favour of municipal action" to provide laborers' dwellings, drew attention to the accomplishments of private enterprise, and went on specifically to praise Peabody for its cheap and profitable dwellings

^Pall Mall Gazette, 19 October 1892 and 23 November 3.892.

^ E a s t London Advertiser, 5 December 1891. 132

even though they were "barrack and prison like."^ It

can safely be said that the East London Advertiser, the most articulate newspaper, did not support public

housing. Lord Shaftesbury, who at the Royal Commission on

Housing of the Working Classes in 1883 had testified

that the housing problem had become worse due to

clearances, had faith in voluntary work so long as it was protected by the umbrella of the state. He reasoned

that if the state supplied dwellings for laborers "at nominal rents, it will, while doing something on behalf

of their physical condition, utterly destroy their moral

energies." He exhorted the public not to encourage the state to intervene "until every effort has been made,

every expedient exhausted, and indisputable proof given that, if the State does not do the work, it will 12 never be done."

Lord Salisbury, on the other hand, did not think such proof was necessary before the state extended aid. He was acutely aware of society's failure to reach the poorest classes and of their inability to

^ East London Advertiser, 26 March 1891. 12 Lord Shaftesbury, "Common Sense and the Dwellings of the Poor: II. Mischief of State Aid," The Nine­ teenth Century, XIV (l883)t 935 and 938. 133 pay for decent housing erected by private enterprise unless their wages rose. Salisbury's solution was government loans at low interest rates to finance decent accommodations« He admired the Liberty and

Property Defence League’s "wholesome doctrine" of no government intervention; however, he deplored their rejection of government loans for public purposes 13 since this was acceptable practice.

Just as conservative and realistic as Salisbury was Lewis T. Dibdin, a barrister involved in church and charity matters. He cited public opinion as the restraining force. So long as it refused to favor public housing no local authority would accept the responsibility. Despite public opinion and vested interests, however, Dibdin acknowledged that public money was necessary. His solution was simple: greater enforcement of sanitary laws, selective clearance done gradually to minimize displacement, and government loans to private interests to reconstruct. Preferring private interests to purchase cleared sites and construct tenements, Dibdin nevertheless accepted local government erection of tenements as long as they were sold to private enterprise immediately

13 Lord Salisbury, "Labourers' and Artizans' Dwellings," The National Review, II (1883)» 305 and 312. 134

upon completion.^ The Fabians advocated municipal housing and helped

shape opinion in favor of it. However, they did not

condone subsidies, Fabians consistently argued that

public enterprise was profitable and benefitted the

public directly. They refused to sanction deficit

operation and artificially lowered rents. According

to a Fabian tract of 1900, they wanted public housing

erected "only in places where [it could] be built at 15 a fair profit." Similarly, twenty years earlier, a

speaker at a workmen's meeting at Mission Hall in

St. Luke's had challenged the popular conclusion that

if local government erected artizans' dwellings this

"would be tantamount to subsidizing the people." He was convinced that municipalities were just as capable of making a profit as the industrial dwelling companies.^ Even the Artizans', Labourers' and

General Dwelling Co. accepted competition from the

County Council so long as it let tenements at market

■^[Lewis T. Dibdin], "Dwellings of the Poor," The Quarterly Review, CLVII (Jan. 1884;, 167. 15 Fabian Tract 101, The House Famine and How to Relieve It (London, 1900), p. 18.

^ T h e Times, 21 October 1880. 135 value

Some argued for housing from a negative point of view; they demanded housing for laborers to protect the social fabric. In outlining a Radical program in the Fortnightly Review in 1883 one writer had argued,

"Self-interest enforces the dictates of humanity." He added that workers, even if they were instruments of production, were more valuable if they lived in better conditions. And then this Radical turned the argument from economics to social stability. Rehousing was an insurance against disease and revolution. Finally, he quoted Danton; "If you suffer the poor to grow up as animals they may chance to become wild beasts and rend you."..18

Lastly, transportation and relocating workers in the suburbs was offered as a solution for solving overcrowding and poor housing in central London.

This typical middle class view gained strength in the 1890s. Fortunately, not every envisioned trans­ portation as the new solvent of social evils. In

1884 M. G. Mulhall, a statistician, condemned it as an unworkable solution for the majority of laborers so

~^The Times, 7 March 1890. 18 "Radical Programme: III. The Housing of the Poor in Towns," The Fortnightly Review. XXXIV (1883), 595-596. 136 long as business stayed in the center. The only practical remedy was to rebuild and remodel the homes of the poor.

To accomplish this he advised that land be made available rate free for 90 years to national and municipal authorities, trust committees, and joint stock companies.19

William Thompson, in his book in 1907, questioned the efficacy of cheap transport as the solution. He condemned private enterprise for its failure to erect sufficient housing. He recommended that the public actively engage itself in fighting for the enforcement of the nuisance removal and housing acts. His organization, The National Housing Reform Council, continually mobilized public opinion. He also demanded that private and public enterprise cooperate and that 20 the Council increase its building activity.

It was in this melieu that the London County Council struggled to arrive at a viable housing policy. Paced with strong and organized opinion against municipal housing the Council moved cautiously in order to allay such fears. No matter how progressive politicians might

M. G. Mulhall, ''The Housing of the London Poor: II. Ways and Means," The Contemporary Review, XLV (February 1884), 233 and 235-36• 20 William Thompson, The Housing Handbook (London, 1907), pp. 7-39. 137 be, they could get only a few steps ahead of their constituents. Consequently, the County Council moved gingerly. It first clarified its powers under the

Cross, Torrens, and Shaftesbury Acts. By November 1889 the Housing of the Working Classes Committee convinced the Council that it should ask parliament for an act consolidating all legislation pertinent to housing.

At a conference with the Home Secretary, members of the Housing of the Working Classes Committee were 21 assured of this legislation in 1890.

Meanwhile, in July 1889, the Council proposed municipal housing for Hughes Fields, Deptford.

Whitehall objected to the floor plans and ventilation and light in the staircases. It suggested that the

Council provide a model for others to follow. In addition, the Home Office informed the LCC of objections to the proposal from the vestry of St. Luke, Holborn

District Board of Works, Wandsworth District Board of

Works, the vestry of St. Nicholas, Deptford, the

Parochial Justice Association of Battersea and Clapham, and the vestry of Hammersmith. Although St. Nicholas,

Deptford originally approved of the scheme it now

LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1889-92, E7, White. 20 May 1889; HWCC, Minutes, I (27 May 1889), 96; LCC, MP, (5 Nov. 1889), 863 and (28 Jan. 1890), 388. “ 138

joined in with the others who "hotly resisted it." The

Home Secretary hinted that the Council should revaluate

its position and take advantage of the vacant accommo­ dations nearby to withdraw its proposal. Consequently,

in December 1889 the County Council said it would sell

Hughes Fields on the open market for rehousing and asked the Home Office to reduce the number to be 22 rehoused. After this rebuff the Council returned to the

Metropolitan Board of Works' policy. In principle, it limited itself to clearing slums and leaving reconstruction

to private interests, a policy which failed almost

immediately.

On the other hand, the ICC uid not ignore the question of housing for the working classes. The housing committee, conscious that clearance schemes under part I and II of the 1890 housing act and enforce­ ment of nuisance removal legislation depended on a reasonable housing program, focused on three aspects:

immediate rehousing of uprooted families, rebuilding

old areas, and erecting housing irrespective of housing

obligations. Accommodations had to be found for persons

22Public Record Office. HO 45/10198/B31375, pp. 45-47; LCC, Housing Question in London, pp. 177-78. 139 displaced under part I or II to prevent overcrowding in surrounding districts and to make their move as convenient as possible. Lord Compton's solution was to rehouse as many as possible within a half mile of the clearance site. This meant finding out the number of facancies available, offering them to those first displaced and to those whose circumstances required they remain in the locality. Compton also wanted to ascertain which families were willing to go to the suburbs and to help them relocate near railway stations on lines which catered to workmen. Alfred Hoare, in an addendum to Compton's memo, insisted on distin­ guishing between those who had to live near their work and those who could move and then press those who could commute to leave. Two other aspects of Lord

Compton's rehousing proposal were to discover vacant sites in the area and offer them to private enterprise or to use part III and have the Council undertake construction itself. He also wanted schemes divided into sections when possible. In this way one part would be cleared and rebuilt, and then tenants from the second section could move into it. Compton's proposals 23 were adopted as guide posts.

23LCC, PHHC, Papers. 1889-92, E7, Private and Confi­ dential Memo on rehousing policy, Dec. 1890; LCC, HWCC, Minutes, I (15 Dec. 1890), 687-89. 140

Lord Compton "based his proposals on the assumption that private enterprise would carry the brunt of redeveloping a cleared site. Nevertheless, the committee discussed the question of municipal housing on cleared sites. In February 1891 it concluded that the time was not ripe for a pro or con decision. Instead it decided to consider "each particular case on its merits," and 24 the Council accepted this recommendation. However, the County Council earlier had tightened its control over rebuilding slum areas. It stiffened minimum specifications and demanded that plans for artisans 25 dwellings be submitted and approved by the Council.

The third aspect of the Council’s policy revolved about using part III: this permitted buying land and erecting municipal housing. At first its implementation was conceived in a narrow framework of helping rehouse displaced families. No positive decision was taken until 1898 when overcrowding reached a crisis stage and it was obvious that municipal housing had failed to rehouse those for whom it was intended.

24LCC, HWCC, Minutes, II (16 Feb. 1891), 40; LCC, MP, (14 April 1891)7 405.

25LCC, MP, (3 Dec. 1889), 953. 141

Thus the Council on taking power retained the policy of the Metropolitan Board of Works. It continued to sell cleared sites to private enterprise with a stipulation that working class housing be erected.

However, it left itself in a flexible position in order to change when circumstance demanded. Since the

Metropolitan Board's policy was outmoded by the 1890s, just how did the County Council arrive at the conclusion that it must provide publicly owned housing? And how did the Council persuade the Home Office to permit it to activate its powers? The London County Council had inherited from the

Metropolitan Board of Works a number of sites either cleared or about to be cleared. In the East End the three important ones were in Tench St., Brook St., and

Cable St. They were all in the Limehouse District

Board's area. Together the architect and the medical officer investigated the sites and the surrounding vicinity, and formed a policy of action. Since there were 1640 unoccupied rooms which were capable of accommodating 3,280 persons and the required rehousing for the three sites was 2,816 both felt that the

Council could apply to the Home Secretary to reduce the rehousing to one half. They developed their argument quite well. The Metropolitan Board of Works had tried to sell the Tench St. site in January 1888 142 and the Brook St. site in July 1887 for artisans' dwellings, hut had failed. The Metropolitan Board reviewed the areas and concluded that no further housing was necessary in the Tench St. vicinity.

Instead it went to parliament for permission to retain the site as an open space. Brook St., on the other hand, was auctioned once more hut there was no market for erecting working class housing. The ICC's architect and medical officer reasoned that the relocation of docks further down the Thames caused the population decline. They believed that with so many vacancies it was undesirable and uneconomical to build.

If new dwellings were constructed and rented at market value they would remain half empty, or if they were let at below market rents, they would attract people from other districts. Moreover, the LCC could not erect the buildings in time to accommodate families being displaced from the Cable St. area. Under these circumstances, Blashill and Murphy concluded that no dwellings should be constructed at the Brook St. or at the Cable St. sites because "no adequate return can be obtained on this outlay by building suitable dwellings for the poor." However, if the Council wanted to erect housing on the Brook St. site, it should be low density cottages— for one or two families— and be (f/C-v V t f W i F

HAMLET OF RATCLIFF.

SCAL E XV Source; LCC ■ QuejtiM /ft Loftoieft. P S W f - A I’tp.-r^C racioM

/ 144 26 independent of the number displaced.

This report was digested gradually. The site in

Tench St. was turned into a playground and garden.

Brook St. moved ahead slowly. J. Ambrose, a member of the Limehouse District Board of Works, writing in the capacity of a private citizen, did not believe there was sufficient housing. He deplored the four years of inaction on the Brook St. site when there was desperate need for accommodation for the poor. Ambrose condemned the Peabody Trust for its dear rents which inevitably contributed to the poor crowding into rooms. He optimistically believed that the Council's buildings could pay five or six per cent and that the ensuing benefits would make the poor "happier and more 27 comfortable." On the other hand, a group of residents petitioned that the Brook St. site be converted into an open space as there were plenty of rooms available already. The closest open spaces, about half a mile away, were already used to capacity, and Mr. Vatcher's public gardens, which were behind London Hospital, were 28 well used in spite of the half penny entrance fee.

pc ICC, PHHC, Papers. 1889-92, A8-I, LCC architect and medical officer, 15 July 1889.

2^Ibid., Ambrose, 6 Nov. 1889.

28Ibid., Price, 24 Nov. 1889. The conflict was clear: open space or housing.

There were vacancies; yet they were too expensive for the poor working class, or landlords were unwilling to accept them. So there was a housing need. Yet parks were essential. In addition, there was the architect's and medical officer's report which noted that housing was uneconomical. The upshot of all this was a very political solution. The London County Council decided to ask the Home Secretary to reduce the rehousing obligation by one-half to 281 and sell one plot in Brook St. for rehousing; to keep another plot, 60 x 150 feet, as an open space; and to sell the third for commercial purposes. Interestingly enough, R. Ward, the LCC solic­ itor, submitted a very legalistic interpretation counselling that the Home Secretary could not reduce the number to be rehoused even though there were sufficient vacancies; moreover, even if he did so this would not make it a valid order. Whitehall proceeded cautiously.

The Home Office recommended that the LCC put up for sale the segment it desired with the 281 requirement and that it not go ahead with the open space as yet. Finally, the

Home Office agreed to modify the order and permit the sale of one segment for commercial purposes.29

29LCC, MP, (4 Feb. 1890), 87; LCC, PHHC, Papers, A8-I, LCC solicitor, 17 Feb. 1890; Whitehall, 1 April 1890. 146

Ambrose wrote another letter to the Housing of the

Working Classes Committee begging the County Council to provide cottages for the poor. He cited the scheduled closure of 40 to 50 houses and the refusal of most landlords to accept the displaced tenants. He opposed the idea of an open space as the churchyard in Butcher's

Row was being converted into one. The valuer, after considering Ambrose's cottage plans, recommended that if two and three storey cottages accommodating 300 people were permitted than the site would be attractive to private enterprise. The LCC accepted this and the 30 Home Office approved.

Just as the LCC thought it had resolved the Brook

St. problem, the Limehouse District Board of Works exhorted the Council to apply to the Home Secretary for power to erect cottage dwellings itself. The

District Board argued that closing insanitary property was unjustifiable when rehousing was uncontrollable.

But the crux of the problem was the loss in rates from closing unhealthy property and in effect increasing the burden upon the remaining houses. Soon thereafter

LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1889-92, A8-I, Ambrose, 2 March 1891; LCC valuer, 16 April 1891; LCC, MP, (5 May 1891), 506-07; LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1889-92, A8-T7 Home Office, 1891. 147 31 the Hamlet of Ratcliffe reiterated Limehouse’s stand.

So long as there was hope for private redevelopment of the site the County Council easily resisted all pressures to erect municipal housing. The East End

Dwelling Co. had originally rejected the Brook St. site.

However, it reconsidered its position when it was offered a £4,000 investment on the condition it purchase the land. By mutual agreement, based on the analysis of the company's architect, the investment in the East End

Dwelling Company was reduced to £2,000 and the company required to buy only one plot. The East End Dwelling

Co. offered the County Council £550 for Brook St. And although the company agreed with the LCC's architect to accept the Council's model plans except for details, the Corporate Property Committee rejected the offer as too low. The committee wanted £720 and the company refused a shilling above £550. So both sides dropped 32 negotiations until after the auction.

In the meantime the Council and the Home Office

31LCC, PHHC, Papers. 1889-92, A8-I. Limehouse District Board of Works clerk, 1 June 1891; A10-I, Hamlet of Ratcliffe, 6 Nov. 1891. ■^East End Dwelling Co., Minutes, II (1 June 1891), 179; II (29 June 1891), 187; il (2o July 1891), 193; II (4 Aug. 1891), 195; LCC, PHHC, Papers. 1889-92, A8-I, LCC arch., 16 July 1891; LCC Corporate Property Committee, 20 July 1891. 148 bickered over the design of the two storey cottages.

Recognizing yard space to be at a premium Whitehall demanded a flat roof for the use of occupants on the top floor and insisted on a high railing. Blashill strongly protested the railing since he had designed a three-foot wall. The Home Office accepted the architect's proposal of a one-foot six-inch rail on 33 top of the wall. ^ Ironically, the roofs on the cottages are pitched.

The auction was a failure and the County Council reopened negotiations with the East End Dwelling Co.

The company now wanted to construct ten cottages instead of eight. The LCC's architect refused comment until he had studied the floor plans and the arrangement of rooms.3^ At this point negotiations collapsed and on

5 April the LCC decided to ask the Home Office for permission to build. It based this plea on the failure 35 to attract buyers. The Council, however, judiciously omitted the private negotiations with the East End

33LCC, PHHC, Papers. 1889-92, A8-I, Whitehall, 1 Aug. 1891» Whitehall, 17 Oct. 1891; LCC clerk, 26 Oct. 1891; Whitehall, 12 Nov. 1891.

3^East End Dwelling Co., Minutes, II (22 Peb. 1892), 233; LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1889-9'S7" a 8'-II, LCC arch., 31 March 1892.

35LCC, MP, (5 April 1892), 315; LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1889-92, Ao -TT, Whitehall, 2 May 1892. 149 Dwelling Co. The Council, nevertheless, did find it

impossible to get buyers who were willing to construct

reasonable quality tenements and pay an economic price

for the land.

The Cable St. site reveals a different complication

in trying to dispose of land which led to the LCC's

decision to build working class housing. The County

Council inherited this incomplete scheme from the

Metropolitan Board of Works. The Board had begun

purchasing properties but the responsibility for tying up ends, clearing the area, and offering it to private

enterprise was left to the Council. The Guinness Trust,

established in 1889 to house London's laboring poor, approached the Council through C. T. Ritchie and this

site became the center of negotiations for more than two years. C. T. Ritchie, president of the Local

Government Board and a trustee, asked the County

Council for help in getting land at a price which permitted constructing low cost buildings. The Housing of the Working Classes Committee, willing to cooperate, made clear to the Trust that the committee must abide by the price set by the valuer and that the Trust must accept the Council's rehousing requirements. At a

O C The valuer's duties are comparable to those of an American county auditor. ' '--rt* ma , .~«A '«**. ,

FI&. */ CABLE STREET SCHEME. PLAN No. 22.

TAfpmt , **»««:$-

tp |S rVc |

VICTOItlA PLACC

M l I S ;

iiiffltS ij i"ite

rr?fe7^; i p s m _ _ « * * 3 S S imiltop-o/jwwa^W^iwiSi . » r » p XfaauT- »t«ooi

£ ‘ L" V P lA C r f l

fte^cw.ittnf ^

7***>ii WWl. am

Source: LC.C, H out inn Q m.< tt7a~p~~r h & a A . f J • Scale 151 joint meeting the representatives of the Guinness Trust

stated its objectives in hope of getting the best

possible deal. The Trust desired to house the poorest married couples in single rooms of twelve by ten, and it

clearly disapproved of the Council’s building standards.

Since the Trust expected to make a three and a half per

cent profit it wanted no conditions on the land;

furthermore, should the Council refuse the Trust’s

conditions it knew where land was available at Is l/2d

per square foot or £7,000 per acre. The Housing of the

Working Classes Committee, on the basis of this meeting

and a report from the valuer and architect, decided to

offer the whole site for Is 8d per square foot with the

stipulation that the Guinness Trust rehouse 970 people

and limit the height to four storeys. If the Trust wanted only a portion of the site then the price per

square foot was higher. In either case the Trust had 3 7 to submit plans for the Council’s approval.

The Guinness Trust's reply led to a grand misunder­

standing. The Guinness Trust offered to purchase only

one plot at not more than Is 8d per square foot— the

37LCC, HWCC, Minutes, I (20 Jan. 1890), 343; LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1889-32, A9-I, Memo of Conference of Guinness trust and Housing of the Working Classes Committee, 5 Feb. 1890; LCC, HWCC, Minutes, I (17 Feb. 1890), 415; LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1889-32, A3-I, LCC clerk, 22 Feb. 1890. price if the whole site was purchased. It agreed to limit the height of the buildings to four storeys if the price was right and if its architect concluded that the cost per room would permit low rents. The Trust explicitly stated its unwillingness to meet building and design standards of the Housing committee; however, it guaranteed suitable and sanitary quarters. It hoped that both the Committee and Council would square the need for a free hand in this "practical experiment" with their principles. Assiduously it avoided mentioning anything about submitting plans. When reminded of the plans, the Guinness Trust recognized the awkward situation. It immediately replied that it was willing to submit them, yet concluded that no "useful purpose could be served" because the Trust could not comply with the general building regulations. To have accepted the Trust's condition the Council would have established an unwarranted precedent; moreover, no builder was deprived of initiative so long as he proved the merits of deviation from model plans to the Council. Two months later the Guinness Trust got around to thanking the Housing Committee for its willingness to evaluate the plans on their merit, were sorry for the misunder­ standing, and informed the Council that since it had not 153 38 seen any hope it went and purchased property nearby

A year later the Guinness Trust once again offered to purchase the Cable St. site at not more than Is 6d per square foot with the stipulation that it be allowed to erect five storey blocks. The valuer considered this offer to be below cost but noted that the Trust through

C. T. Ritchie was assured of the Home Secretary's approval of five storey blocks. The Guinness Trust's plans were severely criticized by the architect: the rooms were very small, two-thirds of the living rooms had insufficient lighting, the windows were small and poorly located, the ceilings only eight-feet six-inches, and the tenement was five storeys. Taking into consideration that this was housing for the poorest working classes, the architect was willing to abide by the committee's decision on the defects, except for the bad natural lighting. Later the architect reported that the Trust was willing to accept the four storey limit and include nine-foot ceilings if the

Council dropped the price to Is 3d and he mentioned the

LCC. PHHC, Papers. 1889-92. A9-I Guinnes s Trus t, 26 Fe . _ , ...... _il9; LCC, HWCC, Minutes, II (3 MarcK—l890), 435; LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1669-92, A9-I, Guinness Trust, 26 March 1890; Lflfl, HWCC, Minutes, II (31 March 1890), 470; LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1669-9^i A9-I, Guinness Trust, 22 May 1890. Trust's intention to build below pavement level as this

did not contravene the law. The valuer reported that

his talk with the Trust's architect revealed a fixed

scale of rents; and he calculated that at this rent

rate the development would pay only three and a quarter

per cent if the Council accepted the new offer of

£2,000 which was just a little more than Is 3d per

square foot or £1,925 for the plot. He suggested that

if the trustees bound themselves to these rents the

committee should consider the price. Thus the Council

informed the Trust of its willingness to accept the

offer on the condition that the Trust abide by the

regulations of 3 December 1889, limit the blocks to

four storeys with nine-foot ceilings, and that the

proposed scale of rents "be strictly adhered to."

Finally it asked that the defects in lighting be

removed. The Trust accepted the four storey and nine- foot ceiling recommendations; however, it refused to

accede to the building regulations, some of which the

trustees regarded as unnecessary and impractical.

Moreover, it refused to be bound by a rent scale

because it had to have a reasonable return which only 155 39 experience would tell. So after this series of prolonged and unfruitful negotiations with the Guinness Trust the LCC changed

tactics. In January 1892 the Home Secretary reduced

the rehousing requirement from 970 to 720 and then in

May, after no sale, the LCC petitioned to have it

reduced to 485. Whitehall, however, suggested the

County Council consider the redevelopment in terms of more lots so as to bring the land within reach of the

ordinary builders who could build single tenements.

Furthermore, the Home Office suggested that there would be no difficulty in rehousing 720 if the buildings were three storeys with three rooms per floor. The valuer studied this proposal and reported that the

experience of the Metropolitan Board of Works and the

London County Council showed that ordinary or small builders could not afford to take the land on any terms.

Only philanthropic and semi-philanthropic groups could do so because they specialized in housing the poor.

Furthermore, he did not think anyone could contemplate

two, three, or four storey buildings unless the

39LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1889-92, A9-I, Guinness Trust, 30 April 1891; LCC valuer, 11 May 1891; LCC arch., 28 May 1891; LCC arch., 11 June 1891; LCC valuer, 22 June 1891; LCC draft letter, 25 June 1891; Guinness Trust, 24 July 1891; Guinness Trust, 30 Oct. 1891. 156 conditions of sale and building regulations were more flexible. The architect argued against three storey blocks on the ground that good ventilation and lighting could not be provided; and he reminded the committee of its opinions when it compared the three and four storey clay models for Brook St. The housing committee forwarded the valuer's report to the Home Office with the comment that the Home Secretary's idea served 40 "no good purpose."

During these years the local community pressured for action. As early as May 1890 thirty-five ratepayers complained that the site had become a rubbish dump and a public urinal. A year later a petition, signed by

127 residents and tradesmen, askea the County Council to sell the land or itself erect housing for the poor since the site was a nuisance and increased the rates.

In October 1892 the vestry of St. George in the East insisted that healthy working class housing which could be let at reasonable rents be constructed; and added that the cleared area and removal of inhabitants

40LCC, MP, (24 May 1892), 464; LCC, PHHC, Papers. 1889-92, A9-TT, Whitehall, 22 June 1892; LCC valuer, 4 July 1892; LCC arch., 2 July 1892; LCC draft letter, 12 July 1892. 157

was "a great loss to the trading community."^''1'

After a few discussions with the East End Dwelling

Co. which came to naught, the LCC petitioned the Home

Office for power to build. First the Home Office

granted a further reduction in the number to be 42 rehoused and then it granted the right to build. In the Cable St. instance negotiations with the

Guinness Trust dragged on for three years with no

success, rehousing requirements were relaxed with no

positive result, and negotiations with the East End

Dwelling Co. fell through before the Council accepted

responsibility to erect working class housing.

In both cases the actual decision to build came

after the LCC had tried other alternatives. Each of

these cases emphasized the futility of searching for

private developers, who were not to be found, while

the national government and local authorities were

breathing down the LCC's back. The pass which permitted

the London County Council to cross the divide to municipal housing, however, was found in an area

LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1889-92, A9-I, petition Hunt, 12 May 1890; petition Hunt and Benn, 16 June 1891; A9-II, St. George in the East, 11 Oct. 1892. 42 East End Dwelling Co., Minutes, III (24 Oct. 1892), 44; LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1889-92';" I'5-II, LCC clerk, 7 Nov. 1892; Whitehall, 2 Dec. 1892. 158 outside slum clearance and the housing acts. The break came in a Thames tunnel improvement scheme which had parliamentary stipulations requiring rehousing.

The construction of the Blackwall Tunnel, connecting Poplar with Greenwich, necessitated acqui­ sition and demolition of working class housing for approachways. Parliament included a clause in the scheme which made erection of new housing prerequisite to complete demolition. The Council had no difficulty in rehousing the inhabitants. The complication arose over the construction of new housing. Sites which were set aside in Cotton St. and Yabsley St. had no buyers. Thus on 2 February 1892 the LCC, under pressure from its Bridges Committee, committed itself to erecting the housing itself if there was no sale at the next auction. A few weeks later the Public Health and Housing Committee was informed that there was no sale of land in Cotton St. and Yabsley St. which was reserved for the Blackwall Tunnel nor in Brook St. and

Cable St. Detailed architectural plans were drawn.

But construction was delayed until the Council decided which site to use first and established a Works Department to do the construction. The Council resolved these problems quickly when the Home Secretary forbade further displacement until housing was provided 159 for 150 persons. It contracted the foundations and retained the erection of the structure for the Works

Department, hut then contracted that to private 43 enterprise, too. Once the Council committed itself to erect municipal housing for the Blackwall Tunnel decisions for the other sites were easy to make. Nevertheless, the ICC moved cautiously and considered each case on its merits.

In the two official histories of housing by the London

County Council a very defensive position was presented.

It was argued that the Council inherited "derelict sites" from the Metropolitan Board of Works which no one wanted even when concessions, as modifying the height of buildings for the Guinness Trust, were made.

Moreover, the histories stated that the Council was influenced by the Metropolitan Board of Works' interpre­ tation and implementation of the artisans' dwellings acts; only when the Council failed "to dispose of [the sites] on any terms whatever" and pressure for

"fulfillment of the rehousing obligations" developed

43LCC. HWCC, Minutes, I (29 July 1889), 162; LCC, MP. (2 Feb. 1892), 69; tCC. HWCC, Minutes, II (29 Feb. TF92), 368; LCC, MP, (29 March 1892), 273; LCC, PHHC, Minutes, III (12 Eec. 1892), 172; LCC, MP, (22 Nov. 1892), 1102"; (-24 Jan. 1893), 43. 160

did the Council a c t . ^ This was only part of the truth.

On the other hand, the LCC tried to erect working class

dwellings in 1889 and later erected a lodging house for

single men. The reason for not constructing municipal

housing in 1889 was pressure from the Home Office and

the local authorities. Thus its argument that its

adoption of the housing policy was not "originally 45 deliberate and considered" is not true. The argument

that the Council was forced into public housing was in

part a ruse for what many members were committed to.

The Council had to act cautiously and only by gradual

steps could it lead the public up the path of

responsibility.

44 LCC, The Housing Question in London, p. 47; LCC, Housing of tlie Working Classes, pp. 26-27. 45 'LCC, Housing of the Working Classes, p. 26. CHAPTER V

PUBLIC HOUSING POLICY IN FLUX: 1893-1907

Despite decisions to build housing in Poplar,

Limehouse, and Deptford, the County Council moved very carefully. Instead of going wholeheartedly into municipal housing, the Council raised questions with each new clearance. By the end of 1893 about twenty acres of London’s slums were slated for demolition, and the LCC had accepted responsibility for redeveloping the Millbank prison site. In 1895 the second series of clearance schemes were initiated, most of which felt the wrecker's sledge hammer in 1898-1899. After each site had been scrutinized, conscientious overtures were made to get artisans' dwellings companies or housing trusts to purchase the sites. It became obvious that commercial builders and trusts would not deal with the

LCC so long as they could get the sites more cheaply from private interests who imposed no onerous model standards. Consequently, the LCC eventually accepted obligations for rebuilding in the slum areas it cleared.

Unfortunately, it hesitated in positively asserting its

161 162 responsibility for redevelopment of slum areas. It preferred to be forced through circumstances to accept responsibility, because this absolved it of political liability. This indecisiveness seems to reflect the attitudes

of the County Council and the housing committee.

During its first three years, the ICC operated on a

non-partisan basis* Both parties felt their way.

Gradually, each organized a party structure in the

Council. In the main, Progressives, i.e., Liberals and Labor, advocated public housing. The Moderates,

less euphemistically known as Conservatives, argued

for working class housing erected by private enterprise,

though some Moderates voted for municipal housing.

Both parties promoted the housing question and insisted

that it should not become a political question. Beyond

this, the most they agreed upon was the need for slum

clearance.

By 1892 the Council was organized on a party basis

and the Progressives with an increased majority were

able to push their program. Prom 1895 to I898 the LCC

was equally divided between the Moderates and Progressives

which made for caution. This changed abruptly in the

1898 election and the Progressives held a handsome

majority until 1907. The 1898 election was the turning 163 point. With a landslide victory the Progressives opted for providing working class dwellings in excess of parliamentary rehousing obligations. This reorientation of policy led to gradual phasing out of its slum clearance program and to emphasis on building new housing estates in the metropolis.

The Council's indecisive attitude toward housing is best illustrated by its handling of the Goldsmith

Row site. The land was purchased in order to build accommodations for families displaced from the Boundary

Street area. The County Council originally expected to house 440 persons in four storey blocks and to provide a playground. A tussle with the vestry of Shoreditch led to an agreement whereby the Council would build on one-third of the site and accommodate 220 persons and leave two-thirds as an open space towards which the vestry contributed.1

In June 1892 the site was offered for sale. Bids failed to reach the estimated minimum and the site was withdrawn. J. Hartnoll, a private developer and owner of the Grosvenor Buildings which were erected on a site cleared by the MBW, privately offered to take the plot

1LCC, PHHC, Papers. 1889-92, A4-I, LCC architect, 16 Oct. 1890; LCC valuer, 10 July 1891. for £1,250 if he could build five storey blocks and design it his way. Although the committee rejected this conditional offer it was prepared to negotiate.

At the same time it decided to ask the Council to apply to the Home Secretary for permission to build. The committee, however, did not approach the Council or the

Home Office until after recess when it ascertained that 2 Hartnoll was not prepared to change his offer. In

October the LCC decided to erect the housing. But then hesitated to implement the resolution, because the

East End Dwelling Co. offered to take the site. The

Public Health and Housing Committee accepted the East

End Dwelling Company's offer with the provision that the dwellings be erected considerably sooner than the

Council intended to build and that both parties agree in advance to a satisfactory rent schedule. To make the deal more attractive the East End Dwelling Co. offered to rehouse families in its Mansford St. block on the condition that applicants would be judged on merit and have decent character. Because of the East

End Dwelling Company's offer to rehouse residents in

Mansford St. and because of the urgency to construct

2LCCf PHHC, Minutes. II (27 June 1892). 529: II (11 July 1892), 541-42?" II (3 Oct. 1892), 613, 615. accommodations in Goldsmith Row the committee accepted the deal in spite of the Home Office's approval for municipal housing. This resolution was defeated in the

Council in December 1892 in a fight led by John Burns.

He demanded that the LCC implement its 11 October 3 resolution.

In January 1893 the Hast End Dwelling Co. expressed surprise that the committee had negotiated with the company after having in early October decided to build itself. The committee regretted the misunderstanding and noted it was "fully prepared to entertain the company's offer"; nevertheless, at the same time it 4 instructed the architect to prepare plans for the site.

On the one hand, the East End Dwelling Co. was rightly incensed that the Council failed to inform it of the

December decision. In these circumstances it was the company's option to decide whether to continue

3LCC, PHHC, Minutes, III (31 Oct. 1892), 14; LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1889-92, A4-I, East End Dwelling Co., 22 Nov. 1892; LCC, PHHC, Minutes, III (28 Nov. 1892), 113-15 LCC, Iff, (11 Oct. 1892')’,"1571"; (20 Dec. 1892), 1243.

John Burns founded the Battersea Labor League; represented Battersea on the LCC, 1889-1907, and in parliament, 1892-1918; was president of the Local Government Board, 1905-14.

4LCC, PHHC, Minutes, III (30 Jan. 1893), 216. 166 negotiations. On the other hand, it was remarkable that the East End Dwelling Co. did not know what happened as the minutes of the Council were printed and members of its board sat on both the LCC and the

Public Health and Housing Committee.

Two interesting sidelights reflect the Home Office's position and the attitude of the East End Dwelling Co.

The Home Office was dubious about permitting the LCC to go ahead and erect the dwellings. D. Cubitt Nichols, an arbitrator for the Home Office, emphasized that the

Goldsmith Row question was "a somewhat important matter and may lead to further consequences." Yet he advised that the Council be permitted to build if the Home

Office did not want to delay indefinitely the

Boundary St. scheme. He reasoned that the site was too small to interest the philanthropic groups and that speculative builders did not like to work under 5 the LCC. In any case, the East End Dwelling Co. in

June 1892 decided not to bid for the site. Pour months later it changed its mind and began to negotiate for the site, offering £1,500 on the condition that it be permitted to build right to the edge of the open space.

When the Council rejected the condition, the East End

'’Public Record Office, HLG 1/17 file . 167

Dwelling Co. reduced its offer to £1,400, agreed to set the "block hack from the open space and to abide by the

Council’s other terms, except that it wanted no g restrictions on rents or letting.

In July 1893 the Council decided to build housing

on the first section of the Boundary Street Estate and

quickly followed suit with the second section on grounds

that it was difficult to find anyone willing to construct

up to LCC standards. Despite these decisions the

committee resisted recommending that the whole area be

redeveloped by the Council. Nevertheless, in October

1894 the County Council accepted sole responsibility

for the Boundary Street area on the excuse that this

would ensure the fulfillment of the ”general scheme of planning and design.” Implementation was another matter. Not until the Council decided to construct a

central laundry did it move to ask the Home Office for authority to retain all the land and build housing

itself. The cost of the proposed central laundry

precluded artisans' dwellings companies since it was

calculated into the rents. Moreover, the Council

concluded that private builders were reluctant to take

^East End Dwelling Co., Minutes, III (11 June 1892), 11; III (24 Oct. 1892), 44; IliT (TT ^ov. 1892), 50-51. 168 7 leases as they would have to compete with the LCC.

There never were negotiations with private companies nor were any sections of the area put up for auction. The

Boundary Street area, the largest clearance and redevelop­ ment scheme, became the full responsibility of the

Council because of practical and economic considerations.

Ann St., Poplar, is an example of attempts by the

County Council to attract private interests in redeveloping slum sites. Thoughts of leasing the land were quickly scuttled when the Guinness Trust expressed interest in the area. Within a month negotiations collapsed, mainly because the site was so very restricted. In December 1895 long drawn out negotiations with the East End Dwelling Company began. Tentatively, the valuer and the company agreed that the sale price should be £2,250 for the freehold if the company’s architect thought that cottages would bring a gross rental of eight per cent on outlay for land and buildings.

A minor complication developed when the London School

Board decided it wanted the site for a school. The

East End Dwelling Co. dropped further discussions until the ICC and the London School Board resolved

7LCC, MP, (25 July 1893), 830-31; (1 Aug. 1893), 808; LCC, P M C , Minutes, III (1 Oct. 1894), 768; LCC, MP, (9 Oct. 1894), 991-92; (9 July 1895), 670. 169 ■their differences. Because a parliamentary stipulation demanded housing for 180 persons and the land could not be released from this obligation the Council reopened g discussions with the East End Dwelling Co.

The company proposed to have a central four storey block with cottages at either end. The County Council drove a hard bargain. It demanded that tenants in the uncleared half be given priority to live in the new buildings or be given gratuities. Release from these terms was out of the question. In addition, the East

End Dwelling Co. had to modify its construction plans.

When the LCC's architect studied the company's plans he rejected them because they were designed on the back to back principle, had too few toilets and sinks, lacked baths, and were plagued with structural deficiencies.

The medical officer leveled his criticism at the back to back design and poor staircases. In rejecting the plans the Council directly cited only the back to back defect and hinted at others. Understandably the company

8ICC, PHHC, Minutes. IV (1 July 1895), 205, IV (28 Oct. 1895), 288; LflC. Housing Subcommittee, Minutes, II (27 Nov. 1895), 383; LCC, PHHC, Minutes, IV (18 bee. 1895), 329; East End Dwelling Co., Minutes, IV (20 Jan. 1896), 45; LCC, PHHC, Minutes, IV (J Feb. 1896), 391-92; East End Dwelling Co., Minutes, IV (10 Feb. 1896), 48; LCC, Housing Subcommittee, Minutes, II (26 Feb. lo96), 474; LCC, PHHC, Minutes, IV (17 i*eb. 1896), 399; East End Dwelling Co., Minnies, IV (2 March 1896), 51. was disappointed with the Council's rejection of plans which "stood the test of experience." The East End

Dwelling Co. argued that if it followed the Council's suggestions it would end up providing flats for affluent artisans. The company plagued the LCC until it agreed to submit the plans to the Local Government Board. The

Council refused to accept the Board's decision as binding. Rather it was willing to seek only an opinion.

A meeting resolved the difficulty and the Council assented to accept the Local Government Board's decision as final. The Board rejected the plans because the ventilation was poor; however, it noted that the plans did not contravene the law. Quickly new plans were designed and the East End Dwelling Co. requested that the LCC forward them directly to the

Local Government Board without the housing committee's approval. This request was refused. The new plans remedied the back to back housing evil, but the architect raised other points. The East End Dwelling

Co. replied that it had met the medical officer's objections and the Local Government Board's requirements.

Refusing to retrace the architect's criticisms which had been answered in 1896, it requested that the plans be 171 submitted to the Local Government Board. The Council Q at this point complied.

The Local Government Board rejected the plans on two points. It miscalculated and thought that 180 instead of 100 persons should be rehoused. The Bast

End Dwelling Co. pointed out that its plans were for the smaller half and that the other 80 could be provided for easily. More fundamental was the Local

Government Board’s refusal to approve single room tenements unless they were ’’occupied by one man only."

The Local Government Board interpreted "one man" as being equal to one person, which the East End Dwelling

Co. rejected. It could not understand why the Board all of a sudden began to insist on only one person per room. Such a restriction was comprehensible if affluent workers were to replace the old inhabitants.

But there was nothing wrong with two factory girls, an

^East End Dwelling Co., Minutes, IV (4 May 1896), 60; IV (18 May 1896), 63; LCC, fcWCc," Minutes, I (3 June 1896), 78; I (8 July 1896), 114; LCC, HWCC, Papers, 1896-97, 11; LCC architect, 22 July 1896; East End Dwelling Co., 14 Aug. 1896; LCC medical officer, 30 Sept. 1896; LCC, 5 Oct. 1896; East End Dwelling Co., 21 Oct. 1896; LCC, HWCC, Minutes. I (28 Oct. 1096), 196-97; LCC, TWCC, Papers, 1896-37, ll; LCC, 19 Feb. 1897; Local Government Board, 22 April 1897; East End Dwelling Co., 2 June 1897; LCC, 5 July 1897; LCC architect, 21 July 1897; East End Dwelling Co., 1 Nov. 1897; LCC, 8 Nov. 1897. 172 old woman and her daughter, an aged couple, or a young couple occupying one room. The company added that sensible landlords deplored overcrowding, while sanitary authorities were responsible for enforcing the law.

Furthermore, the Local Government Board only made the job of finding accommodations for the poor more difficult by imposing conditions which were more stringent than those required by the law. In conclusion, it pointed out that negotiations with the Council had been initiated about the same time as with the Ravenscroft’s

Charity, which meant that the Charity Commissioners had to confirm the lease, and the Ravenscroft buildings were completed.1^

The Housing of the Working Classes Committee agreed with the East End Dwelling Co. and presented this argument to the Local Government Board. Moreover, it was aware of the potential complications for itself should the new ruling be enforced. Recognizing the predicament, the Local Government Board inquired what procedure was used for terminating occupancy when a child came and was informed that the tenant was asked

10LCC, HWCC, Papers, 1898-1900, 11, Local Government Board, 8 March 1898; IifcC, HWCC, Minutes, I (27 April 1898), 730; LCC, HWCC, Papers. 1898-1900, 11, East End Dwelling Co., 13 May 1898. 173 to take an extra room and if he refused then it gave him a notice to quit. However, the directors made it clear that they refused to have any restrictions imposed other than their own, derived frcm experience, and those in the sanitary by-laws. The Local Government Board permitted strictly limited occupancy to childless married couples, two girls, or two elderly persons of the same sex. In effect, the Local Government Board granted a concession, but the East End Dwelling Co. wanted no restrictions other than those enforced in law. But the Local Government Board refused to budge even when there were further representations by the LCC on the company's behalf. To get further concessions the East End Dwelling Co. gave notice to the Council that it was dropping negotiations and when no concessions were forthcoming, it allowed the matter to lapse.

Edward Bond, chairman of the company and LCC member, wrote to The Times reviewing the history of Ann Street and placed the blame at the feet of the Council. He concluded that had common sense and common justice prevailed the Council would have accepted the offer which was £400 more than the estimated value of the site, and that the buildings would already have been

erected; now, however, the Council had to construct 174 them.^" Originally there were genuine design complaints which required modification. But Ann St. devolved into a case of nit-picking whereby the Local Government

Board frustrated private initiative and the LOG stepped in. Interestingly the basic negotiations took place between 1895 and 1898 when the Council was equally balanced between Progressives and Moderates.

A different situation arose with the Cotton St. site in Poplar. J. Hartnoll offered to purchase the site in May 1896. This site backed up to his Grosvenor

Buildings which had been erected on a Metropolitan

Board of Works1 clearance site. However, the chairman of the housing committee refused to permit a vote on the issue as the Council's plans were in an advanced stage. Thereafter Hartnoll persistently petitioned to get the site. When the Council's architect ran into problems "of complying with Treasury requirements," the

LCC turned to Hartnoll. By May 1897 the Council was almost ready to close the deal at £1,400 when two complications arose. The architect and medical officer

LCC, HWCC, Papers. 1898-1900, 11, LCC clerk, 24 May 1898; Local Government Board, 8 July 1898; East End Dwelling Co., 22 July 1898; Local Government Board, 15 Aug. 1898 and 12 Nov. 1898; LCC, MP, (8 Nov. 1898), 1288; LCC, HWCC, Papers, 1898-1900, TT, East End Dwelling Co., 21 Nov. 1898; East End Dwelling Co., Annual Report, 1899. noted that the working drawings infringed on nearly everyone of the LCC's building regulations, and the

Council refused to part with a freehold. Hartnoll agreed to modify the plans, yet, as previously, he wanted a freehold not a lease. After redesigning the plans the housing committee agreed to permit the half basements in these special circumstances and not to insist on direct access from tenements to the yard.

In July 1898 the committee recommended that the land be sold to Hartnoll. The decision was postponed even though an attempt to get the Council to build the dwellings with a charge on the rates had been lost.

By October the architect, valuer, and Home Office agreed that Hartnoll's offer was the only practical way of redeveloping the site as he was his own builder and manager. In the Council there were protests demanding that the Council do the construction.

Beachcroft fought to have the Council do it if there were no charge on the rates. The Home Office now inquired twice as to what had transpired and was told that the Council had decided to build itself. Finally, in October 1899 the housing committee informed Hartnoll that it had been prepared to sell but that the Council 176 12 overruled it. It would appear that control of the

Council after 1898 by the Progressives with their more

positive policy had dictated this decision.

It seems that wherever the London County Council cleared slums, be it in the East End or in London, the

County in the end provided the new housing. Always the

cry was the same— it was forced to take the responsi­

bility. Nevertheless, there were many critical

councillors who from time to time put forth resolutions

that the LCC should not undertake construction of

dwellings except under statutory obligation.

T. L. Corbett, a Moderate, unsuccessfully moved a

resolution to this effect in October 1895. He reasoned

that these operations were a loss to the ratepayers,

checked private enterprise and diminished rather than 13 increased accommodations for the working classes.

12LCC, HWCC, Minutes, I (6 May 1896), 58-59; I (3 June 1896), 80-8TfTT3 Feb. 1897), 299; LCC, HWCC, Papers, 1896-97, 16, Hartnoll, 19 May 1896; LCC clerk, memo, 31 May 1897; LCC architect, 30 June 1897; LCC clerk, memo, 12 July 1897; LCC, HWCC, Minutes, I (27 April 1898), 729; II (6 July 1898), 73'i"Tl (5 Oct. 1898), 140-41; LCC, HWCC, Papers, 1898-1900, 16 Home Office, 27 Aug. 18§8; Metropolitan Radical Federation, 17 Oct. 1898; LCC architect, 2 Nov. 1898; LCC, MP, (8 Nov. 1898), 1289-90; (13 Dec. 1898), 1487; LS?J, HWCC, Papers, 1898-1900, 16, Home Office, 6 Jan. 1899 and 4 Feb.”1899; LCC clerk, 18 Feb. 1899; LCC, HWCC, Minutes. Ill (4 Oct. 1899), 212.

15The Times, 30 Oct. 1895; LCC, MP, (29 Oct. 1895). 991. In 1892 the London County Council decided to investigate the causes of the failure to sell cleared slum land. It wanted to know why speculative developers, artisans' dwellings companies, and semi-philanthropic companies refused to "buy cheap sites or even give substantial bids. The LCC officers' analysis concluded that only a few builders specialized in erecting working class housing. The basic problem was lack of profits, not risk. The speculative builder wanted a substantial return.^ The officers should also have cited profit as the ma^or deterrent to receiving bids from semi- philanthropic companies like the Guinness Trust and the East End Dwelling Co. Moreover, the officers failed to examine the question of necessary capital.

Only artisans' dwellings companies and semi- philanthropic groups had the wherewithal or borrowing capacity. Speculative builders were in the main too small to command such funds. The valuer in a later report on the Cable St. site did note that the small contractor was in no position to buy the land and that

14LCC, PHHC, Papers. 1889-92, E22, LCC architect, valuer, and solicitor, 4 May 1892. 178 all attempts to attract him had failed. And one such 15 builder was J. Hartnoll. There was no discussion in the report of leasing sites nor did the Council seriously consider doing so; however, during this period the East End Dwelling Co. was acquiring leaseholds.

Tied directly to price was the London County

Council's conditions of sale. The LCC officers contended that the speculator disliked minimum specifi­ cations for rooms and staircases, a limit on the number of floors, and open space requirements. The

Council's minimum size for one room tenements was 144 square feet; if the tenement had two rooms then one had to be 144 square feet and the other could not be less than 96 square feet. It demanded nine-foot ceilings and four-foot wide staircases in blocks. The specu­ lative builder did not hesitate to cut room dimensions when profit was at stake and he usually cut six inches off staircase widths and lowered ceilings six inches.

Moreover, he was apt to build half basement flats which were permissible by building by-laws but not acceptable to the Council for model dwellings. The

County Council, supported by the Home Office, refused

15LCC, PHCC, Papers, 1889-92, A9-II, LCC valuer, 4 July 1892. 179 to permit tenement blocks more than four storeys and speculative builders erected them five or six storeys.

When it came to coverage of the building site, in addition to depth requirements and set-backs from the street, the minimum distance between two buildings could not be less than the height of the buildings and if possible it was desirable that the width be one and a half times the height. The Council's standard was backed by its medical officer who demanded maximum light and ventilation. In this instance the builder saw a great loss of profit. The officers concluded that if the Council changed any of these specifications it would 16 alter completely its policy. The East End Dwelling Co. and the Guinness Trust had the same reluctance to conform to these standards as did the speculators.

They too saw it as a restraint on keeping rents low and getting a reasonable profit.

The Public Health and Housing Committee continued the study of causes of the decline in land sales. It admitted that the Council regulations were a major hindrance. Nevertheless, it defended these higher building standards as a means of educating the public

16LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1889-92, E22, LCC architect, valuer, and solicitor, 4 May 1892. and members of the Council as well as a way of raising prevailing minimum standards. To insure that the new regulations were properly considered the LCC scrapped the old policy of having the builder submit plans for approval to the Council's architect. Instead the architect sketched plans for a particular site, submitted them to the Home Office for approval, and had them available for the auction. Never were these sketches intended to intimidate developers; they merely proposed model ways to rehouse the stipulated number of people while abiding by the Council's standards. The contractor had at all times an option to modify the plans or design his own dwellings, subject to the LCC's approval and within the framework of the regulations of 3 December I8 8 9 .

In evaluating these standards the committee held firm to the four storey limit. Although it hedged on the efficacy of lowering ceilings to eight feet six inches, it was willing to be consistent with the proposals of the Building Acts Committee. The housing committee stressed that the heights of rooms were more important in limiting overcrowding than establishing minimum air spaces per person. The committee was also 181 willing to accept the narrowing of staircases from four 17 feet to three feet six inches.

Private builders not only objected to standards which were higher than those in the London Building Act, but they also disliked being submitted to inspection.

The Metropolitan Board of Works had been stringent but the LCC was even more so. Some speculators had used very inferior material in order to maximize returns, as was borne out so clearly by the Royal Commission on

Housing of the Working Classes. Not every builder was unscrupulous, for many inspected closely their own work, but it was hard to maintain high standards on low cost working class dwellings. The officers advocated that the only way to insure high quality was to compensate the builder for the cost of better material. The simplest means of providing this subsidy was lowering the price of land to a nominal value. The officers also proposed three alternative systems of inspection. The Council could continue its current rigorous checking system; it could devolve the

LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1889-92, E22, Draft report as to the conditions which land belonging to the Council is sold or leased for the erection of artisans’ dwellings, and as to the desirability of modifying such conditions with a view to inducing bodies and persons to come forward more readily as purchasers of such land, [printed] June 1892. 182 responsibilities to the District Surveyors who usually did a good job; or it could establish strict regulations but let the architect and his staff use their discretion and deal with individual cases as the .'se.

The weakness in the last alternative was its openness to charges of laxity and corruption. The Public Health and Housing Committee refused to alter the policy of strict supervision or to modify the building regulations; however, it agreed to confer with the Building Act

Committee on the height of buildings. When the issue of strict supervision was brought up again, it refused to budge because very few builders of tenements existed and most of the artisan companies were moving into the suburbs, which helped alleviate overcrowding, in order 18 to be free of the LCC regulations.

The Public Health and Housing Committee reaffirmed the officer' conclusion that good working class housing could be provided only if land were sold at nominal prices or if the Council built housing itself. It did not go as far as the officers and maintain that some of the worst pieces of land could not even be given away

18LCC, PHHC, Papers. 1889-92, E22, LCC architect, valuer, and soliciior, 4 May 1892; LCC, PHHC, Minutes, II (16 May 1892), 468; LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1889-92, E22, Draft report as to the condition which land belonging to the Council is sold or leased. . . . June 1892. 183 free. The committee was convinced that finding decent accommodation for displaced people was more important than finding buyers. Furthermore, most sites ripe for redevelopment should rehouse only one half the original number of inhabitants, and in some cases it was better to retain the land as an open space or sell it for 19 commercial purposes.

Consequently, the London County Council retained its official policy of selling land to private developers. Even getting the Home Office to reduce the number required to be rehoused and reoffering the sites for sale failed to attract builders. Thus, in practice, the Council usually opted for municipal housing because it refused to lower its standards or to reduce the price of land below a fair market value for housing and parliamentary stipulated rehousing. Had the Council been as reluctant to erect housing as it claimed, it would have accepted reasonable offers tendered by the

East End Dwelling Co., the Guinness Trust, and Mr. J.

Hartnoll. Instead the LCC usually proclaimed that negotiations had collapsed and had left the County

LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1889-92, E22, Draft report as to the condition which land belonging to the Council is sold or leased. . . .June 1892; LCC architect, valuer, and solicitor, 4 May 1892. 184

Council with no other alternative. This plea fails to reflect the general statements of the Progressive party which advocated municipal housing. The most that can said for the ICC in its first decade is that it vacillated on the problem of rebuilding slums because of public opinion. When the Council decisively launched a housing program at the end of the nineteenth century, the LCC neither emphasized the reconstruction of slums nor helped the poor; rather it developed new estates. The crucial change in the London County Council's policy came between 1898 and 1901. By 1898, because of the shortage of accommodation, the Council could no longer avoid the general problem of housing the working classes. During these years the emphasis gradually shifted from redeveloping slums to erecting new estates.

And with rare exception this was the policy until the war.

In the nineties the County Council had ordered studies on workmen's trains, had initiated public transport, and had established a Works Department to do construction by direct labor. By 1898 some of its new tenements were occupied. Already it was evident that the poor were not being rehoused in any impressive numbers. And as the years went by newspapers and workmen's associations poignantly reminded the Council of this. Just as the model tenements of the trusts failed appreciably to help the poor, so did those owned by the Council. Moreover, overcrowding in central

London had become serious, and in the next few years grew worse, before it ebbed. Paced with great problems of overcrowding in the central parts of London and an ever increasing cost of slum clearance and rebuilding, the Council redirected its main efforts to new housing under part III of the Housing of the Working Classes

Act, 1890. The question whether the County Council should anticipate housing needs had been raised early in its existence. Lord Compton in October 1892 proposed that future housing obligations be transferred from the central city to the suburbs. The Council, he maintained, could easily purchase up to £50,000 worth of vacant land each year. Two weeks later Rev. C.

Fleming Williams asked the committee to recommend to the Council adoption of part III for purchasing land and building accommodations for at least 2,000 persons a year. These maneuvers had brought into existence 186 a special subcommittee to study housing and rehousing the working classes.2^

Beyond relegating the Question to a subcommittee, not much serious work was done until 1898. When the question reappeared in committee in January 1898, just before elections, it was whisked off to the LGC's administrative officers for study. Then in May, soon after an overwhelming victory for the Progressives, the Housing of the Working Classes Committee created a new subcommittee to consider the question of erecting dwellings for the poorer segments of the working classes and to consider what powers the LCC and the local authorities, subject to the Council’s supervision, needed.^

In November 1898 the committee reported to the

Council on the housing question. The valuer was against the use of part III in the outskirts to combat overcrowding. The medical officer concluded that if the LCC proceeded to construct dwellings it would deter private enterprise; furthermore, he was absolutely

20LCC, PHHC, Minutes, III (31 Oct. 1892), 13; III (14 Nov. l892)7Tt:

21LCC, HWCC, Minutes, I (19 Jan. 1898). 638; I (4 May 1898), 74S1 certain that the Council could not provide enough housing to alleviate overcrowding. The housing committee accepted these warnings, realizing that if speculators were driven out of this market the Council would be left with a task with which it could never cope. However,

the committee was determined to deal with the housing

shortage in central London and, after properly docu­ menting the differing opinions, it recommended that part III be applied. A month passed before the Council accepted the resolution, and it first had to be referred back to committee. In the final version the Council merely approved using part III so long as there was no

charge on the rates. But this was the wedge which

eventually changed the whole policy. At the same time

the County Council decided that it would be responsible

for all clearances which involved rehousing and would

rehouse an equal number displaced. Rarely did the

LCC clear slums after 1900; consequently, the clearance 22 clause became meaningless.

For the policy review the officers considered the

willingness and ability of the working classes to move

into the new subdevelopments. The architect was

22LCC, MP, (1 Nov. 1898), 1258-59; (29 Nov. 1898), 1434-40; (6 Uec. 1898), 1457-59. 188 pessimistic about inducing the working class to move to the suburbs. "Their experience, their habits and even their means of existence," Blashill claimed, "are identified with the place where they now live, and although they may earn a very poor livelihood where they are, they would be incapable of earning anything if they were removed to an entirely different locality."

He did not think they could afford the superior accommodations nor would properly furnish or know how to use the larger rooms. Blashill did think that the

Council could successfully provide dwellings if it went into the class that speculative builders erected.

However, the builders had competitive advantages in terms of price, cheaper materials, and management.

Even if the LCC developed improved management techniques, the speculator would quickly learn and adopt them.

The LCC’s only advantage was cheaper interest rates. 23 The most he recommended was an experiment.

More than a decade earlier the Royal Commission had expressed economic views similar to Blashill1s.

In the central areas the working classes earned a precarious income but in the suburbs the laborer might

2^LCC, HWCC. Papers, 1898-1900, 35, LCC architect, 25 May 1898. have no chance to earn anything. The Royal Commission in 1885 had discovered this to be true. Most of the poor were casual laborers and the sources of employment were at the docks (which meant being on the spot when a ship came in) or costermongering. Others earning subsistence incomes found employment in the tailoring sweatshops, or in cabinetmaking or at the markets and rarely could afford transportation. In addition, most of the wives either worked as charwomen in the city or took tailoring home to supplement the family pay. If these families moved they would lose their credit which they built with the shopkeepers and their access to cheap markets with reduced closing prices. Added to this was a natural reluctance to move and form new associations. The Royal Commission pinpointed the struggle for work as the cause of overcrowding. "If regular work was to be had by all who want it without any uncertainty, the poor might pick and choose the 24 locality for their dwelling."

James Parsons, an Bast End Dwelling Co. director, charged that people lived in central London because of emotional attachments not employment. He caustically

24RCHWC, PP, 1884-85 [C 4402], XXX, 18 190 added that public housing kept them there. Parsons preferred to subject the working classes "to chance and 25 changes of life" without intervention of the state.

In spite of Parsons' charge, it can be strongly argued that economics tied the working classes to the central 26 areas of London; emotional ties were secondary.

Clearly, as long as housing was not subsidized the poor would not be taken care of. And the speculative developer, who provided for the affluent working classes, could compete effectively with the London County Council in this market. However, since Blashill was discussing those who lived in poverty he ignored or he did not account for rising incomes and population mobility.

True the poor were chained to their neighborhood and

2 5 James Parsons, Housing by Voluntary Enterprise (London, 1903), p. 53* 26 Young and Willmott in Family and Kinship in East London (Baltimore, Md., 1962) stress social and psychological reluctance to moving rather than economic factors. A similar view is expressed by Herbert Gans about Boston's Urban Villagers (New York, 1962). Peter Hall, equally concerned with ihe present rather than the historic, challenges the Willmott and Young thesis in London? 2,000 (London, 1963). He admits that the social ties might be strong bonds for a small segment of the working class, but it was not valid for the majority. Many families were transient and had not developed traditional ties. Moreover, he noted that the chief complaint of those who moved was economic: too limited a choice in jobs, too few neighborhood shops, and not enough variety of shops or entertainment. Hall's view is essentially that of Blashill and of the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes. 191 others, especially older people, were reluctant to move.

Nevertheless, younger men had money and were able to move. Prom 1880 to 1900 real incomes in general rose

80$. Por those who stayed in the same occupation, the money wage rose 15 to 20$. The men who shifted into new industries and better paying occupations had a more substantial increase. And during this period retail 27 prices dropped 15$. Mobility viewed from population studies also supports the thesis that the majority of residents in the East End did not have the heritage or deep roots of those who stayed in a traditional town. The Tower

Hamlets saw rapid increases in the 1840s, 50s, and 60s.

The rise averaged 67,500 or 16 to 22$ per decade. While the population increase in the 1870s was still high, over 50,000, in the 1880s and 90s the population increased only by 15,500, and the 1900s saw a decline by 26,000. First the enormous increases in mid-century resulted from the potato famine, the agricultural depression, and unemployment. In these years men flowed from rural England, Scotland, and Ireland into

London to dwell the population and to change the urban

27 William Ashworth, An Economic History of England, 1870-1939 (London, 1960),"pi 192 fabric. Then in the 80s and 90s thousands of Jews from

Eastern Europe came. In the 80s about 17,500 came and in the 90s more than 25,000 poured in. Also in these two decades the population in the Tower Hamlets increased by 14,958 and 15,997 respectively. Surely many residents must have left to make room for the 28 newcomers, even allowing for overcrowding.

^Population. Decennial Census, 1851-1911, PP, 1852-53 [1631], LXXXV, 6-8; 1862 [3056], L, 196; IF63 [7865], LIII, Pt. i, 420-22; 1872 [C 676-IJ, IXVI, pt. ii, 15; 1873 [C 872], LXXI, pt. i, 25-26; 1883 ;c 3563], LXXIX, 3; 1883 [C 3722], LXXX, 73-75; 1893-94 'C 6948-1], CV, 3; 1893-94 [C 7058], CVI, 82-83; 1902 Cd 785], CXX, 31, 174; 1912-13 [Cd 6258], CXI, 241. 193 TABLE. II

DECENNIAL POPULATION CHANGES IN METROPOLITAN LONDON AND THE TOWER HAMLETS, 1801-1911

Tower Increase or Decrease Year Metr. London Hamlets in Tower Hamlets

1801 958,863 143,869

1811 1,138,815 178,774 34,905

1821 1,378,947 218,357 39,583

1831 1,654,994 262,172 43,815

1841 1,948,415 309,012 46,840

1851 2,362,236 376,265 67,253

1861 2,803,989 441,794 65,529

1871 3,254,260 511,947 70,153 1881 3,816,483 566,147 54,200

1891 4,211,743 581,105 14,958

1901 4,509,618 597,102 15,997

1911 4,521,685 570,429 -26,663 194

TABLE III

DECENNIAL COUNT OF FOREIGN BORN IN METROPOLITAN LONDON AND THE TOWER HAMLETS, 1861-1901

Change in Year Metr. London Tower Hamlets Tower Hamlets

1861 40,909 13,196

1871 55,035 15,974 2,778

1881 60,252 18,501 2,527

1891 95,053 35,998 17,497

1901 135,377 61,048 25,050

Thus when the Council in December 1898 resolved to construct housing irrespective of legal requirements it did not tackle the priority question of housing the poor.

The Council was aware that poverty closed the door to better housing; but the LCC study of the operation of the London Building Act of 1894 made it evident that the Council was unprepared to face the question of subsidized dwellings. The critics maintained that the

LCC competition with private enterprise created the shortage of working class dwellings. The Council, in answering them, had its officers study the new building acts as a possible restraining influence. It specu­ lated that contractors withdrew from building in order 195 to see how the courts and the Council would interpret the act. The officers discovered that experience under the new law was not much different than under the old, and quickly dispelled any misconception that the more stringent regulations of the new act affected artisans’ dwellings companies, for tenement blocks had to be constructed up to similar standards under the old law.

The officers, however, isolated the rise in cost of building materials and labor as the cause for a decline.

The architect estimated that bricklayers' wages and materials alone had risen fifty per cent. The valuer and architect reasoned that while wages and material rose in spurts, rents followed a more steady movement.

From this they concluded that "if rents did not increase, building, as an ordinary matter of business, would cease, and could not again commence until a rise in 29 rent should warrant it."

J . Parry Lewis in his study of building cycles substantiates the architect's estimate of a fifty per cent rise in costs from 1894 to 1897, and adds that 30 they then taper off. Moreover, the statistics he

29LCC, HWCC, Papers. 1898-1900, 35, LCC valuer and architect, 6 July 1898". 30 J. Parry Lewis, Building Cycles and Britain's Growth (London, 1965), p. 2o5. 196

uses challenge the interpretations of the LCC's officers

that there was a decline in "building. His statistics

"based on data collected "by the Metropolitan Police Dis­

trict and by the district surveyors' reports reveal that

there was no slackening in construction in London, but

rather just the opposite in this period. In 1893-94

some 12,830 new houses were erected and this number grew

steadily until 1897-98 when 18,529 were constructed.-^1

Instead of using Lewis' district surveyor figures for the

whole of London, I have the district surveyors’ district

figures for the East End. My own calculations for the

Tower Hamlets, based on the district surveyors' reports,

show that the number of new buildings completed between

1892-95 averaged about 540 per year, and in 1896 jumped 32 to over 600 while in 1897 they dropped to about 450.

31 J. C, Spensley, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, LXXXI (1918), £l0, pt. il.

32LCC, London Statistics, vols. III-VIII. This Table is my summary of the district surveyors statistics. In the Greater London Council archives the monthly district surveyors' reports are recorded in two sections. Part I deals with permits applied for. Part II records are sub­ divided into part II and part III. In part III the data reveals construction completed and this data is broken down into type of construction: houses, working class tenements, shops, warehouses, outhouses, temporary buildings, etc. At the end of this series there are also summary volumes. These volumes are useful as a guide to the monthly data as the sequence in which districts are recorded varies from year to year. The totals from these summaries can be found in the yearly abstract of London Statistics. 197

TABLE IV

NEW CONSTRUCTION IN THE TOWER HAMLETS, 1892-1897

Year Bethnal Green Stepney Poplar

1892 138 360 78

1893 94 393 56

1894 119 331 98

1895 106 397 105

1896 144 284 106

1897 70 257 122

A word of caution about these statistics: in all cases they were aggregates ; they were not broken down into classifications of construction. Not until 1902 did the

LCC isolate figures dealing with working class tenements.

The Metropolitan Police District includes the whole of greater London; the district surveyors' figures include all new construction. Nevertheless these figures give an indication of the direction the construction industry was moving, and it is clear that there was no decline in building. More significantly, in the Tower Hamlets the

East End Dwelling Co. continued its program of erecting tenements and cottages for the working classes. By the end of the decade it provided for an additional 1900 HOUSING IN THE TOWER HAMLETS

ICCv. _ -EEDC r-UP TO I ACRE TO T ACMES TO IS ACRES

VJD OO 199 people in the East End; for almost 1700 at its Cromer St.

Estate in Gray's Inn Road and for 425 in St. Pancras.

Thus it accommodated over 6000 of whom a third were in 33 west central London. Moreover, the company had already acquired leaseholds to three estates in Victoria

Park Square, Bethnal Green, and had begun building. It estimated that this estate would eventually accommodate

1900. The LCC was aware of this unusual activity by the East End Dwelling Co. while others had ceased to build.^ Thus, there was neither a real decline nor did the Council's slum program interfere with private housing, except ideologically.

The Peabody Trust was not active during this period. Its most influential years had been 1875-1885.

From 1885 until the end of the century no major development was considered. Peabody withdrew because it had overreached itself financially and it desired to pay the debts before proceeding. In 1898, when its major debts were paid it returned to construction. The climate of opinion, however, had changed and Peabody was

33 ^East End Dwelling Co., Annual Report. 1902.

•^LCC, The Housing Question in London. 1855-1900« P. 63. 200 35 no longer a leader.

The County Council therefore entered the housing field in 1898 for the wrong reasons. The Council believed it could alleviate overcrowding in central areas, and when it launched its suburban building program in 1900 it believed this would put improved housing within the reach of the poor. Instead the ICC in its policy reappraisal should have considered subsidized housing, for the actual effect of this expanded building program was to curtail slum clearance and the rebuilding of slum areas.

35 ^'John Nelson Tarn, "The Peabody Donation Pund: The Role of a Housing Society in the Nineteenth Century,1' Victorian Studies, X (Sept. 1966), 34— 35. CHAPTER VI

ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS AND PLANNING REDEVELOPMENT

A half century of public health reform, which included slum abatement, had shaped the outlook of administrators and councillors and left its imprint on legislation and policy. While health and sanitary standards were priority objectives, they were always subordinated to fiscal policy. Legislation basically was permissive and lacked financial support from the national government. Administrators and councillors preferred to have private enterprise undertake rehousing of the working classes and the County Council demanded of private construction companies higher standards which could not always be economically executed. On the other hand, when the LCC began to provide municipal housing, financial stringency dictated its housing policy as it had its slum clearance policy. Conse­ quently, the Council paid lip service to rehousing the displaced and the poor while subordinating the social aspects of the problem to fiscal considerations.

201 202

The stringent financial requirements and less faithful acknowledgement of social responsibilities by the LCC was not inherently evil. The County Council kept costs at a minimum which pacified the hostile segments of public opinion including most ratepayers who disliked taxes. Furthermore, there were vocal elements, like Octavia Hill, the Charity Organization

Society, and the Mansion House Council, who attacked housing on grounds that it demoralized the masses and destroyed private enterprise.

Administratively, the County Council retained and strengthened the Metropolitan Board of Works' system to control housing design. Up to 1892 the architect sketched suggestive plans for sites the Council offered for sale, checked the detailed plans of developers and inspected buildings under construction to ensure that standards were upheld. After 1892 the architect had to translate into practice the LCC's policy and building code within its financial requirements. In addition, he had to consider the medical officer of health's standards which differed slightly from his, and had to accept the valuer's cost controls. The administrative officers were bound as much by the regulations as the industrial dwellings companies.

Furthermore, they believed that the Council's housing 203 should set an example for tenement construction.

The key to understanding the LCC's building program is that it was a quasi-commercial enterprise. The propertied public generally looked on housing as a commercial venture and demanded that government enter­ prise be as efficient as private. Governments were not yet prepared to accept the concept of subsidized housing for the poor or to use public as a yardstick to control private enterprise. Public housing, therefore, had to show a profit; it could not be subsidized out of the rates.

The Council was guided by three general principles when redeveloping any estate. Its cottages and tenements had to be of the "best description." This meant high quality in construction, more than the minimum requirements in sanitation, and an aesthetic facade. Second, the LCC aimed to rehouse the lowest class of the working population at rents which were current in the neighborhood of the estate. Finally, each scheme had to earn three per cent profit on cap itali zat ion.^

^LCC, Housing Question in London, pp. 43» 47-48. 204

In 1839 the first minimum standards for housing on publicly cleared slum land were established. The original intent was to guide private enterprise. In addition to minimum dimensions for rooms— one to be 144 square feet and the other 96 square feet— the committee added a more detailed set of regulations. Staircases were to be located at either end of a block, with one for every four tenements; if it was in the center then the building should be entered from either side. This would improve ventilation. The staircases had to be four feet wide and finished with glazed or hard bricks.

Bathrooms should be provided for each block if none were nearby; and there should be enough water closets on each floor to accommodate the residents. To guarantee proper light and ventilation to each room and to provide sufficient open ground space the committee insisted that the open space between buildings should be equal to the height of the tallest block and if possible one and a half times its height. No building was to be higher than four stories, which requirement the Home Office seconded. Basement flats were not forbidden but were not desirable and demanded 2 caution.

2 LCC, Housing Question in London, p. 48; LCC, MP. (3 Dec. 1889J, 955. Tenements erected to these standards were intended

to rehouse the lowest income group of the working

classes. By this it was meant the respectable poor,

those who were self-help motivated and self-disciplined.

To have rehoused the lowest classes without these tests

of character would have included the criminal and

destructive segments of society. The Council's attitude

on this matter was similar to that of Octavia Hill.

She felt that the destructive classes needed to be

trained by strong and watchful individuals. The cause

of their problems was not financial but moral. A

decade later, Laurence Gomme, the LCC's statistical

officer, in the official history of the Council's

housing, wrote that "The Council's investigations

confirmed this and it therefore devoted its attention

to the provision of accommodation for classes of the 3 population a little above the very lowest." In order

to successfully rehouse them the County Council

resolved that rents were not to exceed "those ruling in

the neighborhood." In practice this was interpreted

rent per room. So when the Council charged from 2/7 to

3RCHWC, PP, 1884-85 [C 4402-1], XXX, 291; LCC, Housing Question in London, pp. 43-44; LCC, Housing of the Working Classes, p. 27. 206

3/9 or 4/- per room statistically it looked low. But in the Boundary Street Estate only 15 out of 1,069 tenements were single rooms and they were let at 3/6 while the cheapest rent for two rooms was 5/9.* There not being many one room flats— and even if they did exist overcrowding regulations would apply— meant that most of the poor with children were unable to pay for accommodations in the new estates.

Other complications arose from the 3i° principle.

The Council refused to place any charge on the rates except the difference between cost of land and its value for housing. Rent had to cover not only operating cost but also interest and sinking fund or cost of new buildings. Such a policy put severe limitations on dreams to rehouse the poor, charge low rents, and provide quality. No doubt that waste was minimized.

Yet there was a basic conflict between the principle of 31° profit and of rehousing the poor which was resolved always in favor of the 3i° rule. One book­ keeping device used to retain quality construction and limit costs was to mark down the value of the land to a nominal figure— something the LCC was unwilling to do for private enterprise. In this way uneconomical

4 LCC, Housing Question in London, pp. 314-15. 207

housing sites, or better still lands purchased at

commercial use prices for residential construction,

were redeveloped. Sometimes the 3$> principle was

suspended on the pretext that rehousing was forced

on the County Council by parliament. Even in these

instances rents were no lower than in commercial or

neighboring tenements. Consequently, rents were set

too high for most East Enders, and as costs rose the

Council gradually modified the building regulations in

order to keep rents from rising higher and still comply

with the financial rule.

The first building standard that the LCC changed

was the limit on the number of storeys. It raised the whole question of land density and ratio of open space

to building space on any plot. Private developers

disliked the limitation and so did the semi-philanthropic

and artisans' dwelling companies. They argued it was

uneconomical to build cottages for the poor. The maximum height set by the LCC and the Home Office was

four storeys. This was thought to be sufficient to

provide proper density and adequate light and ventilation.

In 1889 the Home Office enforced this standard, after

considerable negotiation with the Great Eastern Railway.

Only four storey blocks were erected in Thomas St., 208

Whitechapel.^ Interestingly enough, the Home Office had permitted six storey blocks when the Metropolitan Board of Works had sold land. Shirley Murphy had inspected some of the Guinness Trust six storey blocks in Bethnal

Green in 1892. His evaluation was unfavorable. They were erected "en echelon," and some were only 30 feet apart. While the upper floors had sufficient light the

"rooms below the fourth storey were gloomy and on each successive floor this gloom increased." Murphy advised the Council to stick to its standards.^

The four storey standard was threatened almost immediately. Within a month of its decision to build in Brook Street the Council cast away model plans for three storey cottages and recommended four storey tenements. This was the highest the LCC was prepared to go in 1892. The Public Health and Housing Committee even rejected Mr. Hartnoll’s offer to purchase

Goldsmith Row because he insisted on a five storey block with a free hand to design the interior. It did this at a time when new accommodations were essential for rehousing the displaced families from Boundary St.

^Public Record Office, HO 45/10198/B31375, p. 232.

6LCCf PHHC, Papers. 1889-92, E22, Murphy, 21 March 1892. 209

Eventually Hartnoll dropped negotiations and the East

End Dwelling Company's offer was refused because of 7 design difficulties. The LCC erected two and a half storey cottages as they were the most practical and inexpensive.

By December 1892 the Public Health and Housing

Committee considered going up to five storeys in the

Boundary Street estate but postponed the decision.

Even after a conference with the semi-philanthropic housing companies in December 1892, the architect strove to maintain the conditions the Council had voluntarily imposed on itself. In accordance with the

Metropolitan Building Act, new roadways were to be at least 40 feet wide and buildings in streets narrower than 50 feet could rise no higher than the distance between their facade and the opposite side of the street. According to the architect the Council required wide areas at the rear and on the street side for its housing far beyond the requirements of any

Metropolitan Act or by-law. The Council could consent to relax the regulations; however, it rarely granted a

7ICC. PHHC, Minutes, II (11 July 1892), 541-42; II (30 Oct. 1892), 613. 210 relaxation to private enterprise and thus scarcely could justify doing so in its own case. While artisans' dwellings companies erected five, six, and even eight storey blocks, the Council planned to construct g healthful four storey dwellings.

In Yabsley St., Poplar, the Council Buildings are five storeys high, have 20 three room tenements and 30 two room ones. Each has a scullery and a water closet.

And the rooms have slightly more than the minimum floor space: a 157 square foot living room and a 98 square foot bedroom. This was the first building erected by the London County Council and it was a compromise between costs and standards. After studying the architect's report and aware of rising building costs, the Public Health and Housing Committee decided to modify the Yabsley St. plans. To reduce costs the committee recommended that ceilings be lowered to eight feet six inches and there be five storeys rather than four. The Council approved the increase to five floors, but refused to lower the ceilings six inches. The architect submitted new plans and recommended that the

8LCC, PHHC, Minutes, III (12 Dec. 1892), 166-67; LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1893-94, E3, statement of interviews, Dec. 1892; tcO arch., 10 Jan. 1893. 211 road (as well as the building) be moved five feet in order to comply with minimum open space requirements in front and back. The Bridges Committee opposed this on grounds that valuable wharf land would be taken, thus

increasing overall costs. The Public Health and Housing

Committee countered by showing that the commercial site would not lose value; rather there would be an additional

3,200 square feet resulting from a reduction in building foundations. The Public Health and Housing Committee carried the day. The building was five storeys and the g street was moved five feet.

The Cable Street site is the best example of the ordeal that the County Council faced in changing its policy on the number of floors and height. The LCC, after prolonged negotiations, refused the Guinness Trust permission to construct a five storey block. In hopes of attracting a buyer the Council was granted its petition to reduce the rehousing obligation from 970 to 720 persons. When this failed the Council decided that low density cottages were desirable and would lure builders. Thus the LCC petitioned the Home Secretary

9LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1893-94, A24, LCC arch., 11 Jan. 1893; LCC, MP, (24 Jan. 1893), 43; LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1893-94, A2T7 LCC arch., 25 Jan. 1893; LCC, PHHC, Minutes, III (30 Jan. 1893), 219; LCC, MP, (7 Peb. 1893), 109-16. to reduce the rehousing requirement to the statutory minimum— in this instance it was 485. Whitehall

prudently nudged the Council to reconsider its move.

The Home Office suggested that if the land in Cable

St. were subdivided into lots then these would be within the reach of smaller builders. In this way, three storey buildings with three rooms per floor would

easily rehouse 720 persons. The valuer agreed that the Council's object was to rehouse the largest number possible, but ordinary builders could not accept the responsibility because they lacked the capital for such projects. And the architect challenged the Home

Office's proposal on public health grounds. He pointed out that three storey buildings limited light and ventilation to some rooms while his four storey design gave every room sufficient light and ventilation.

Then he reminded the Public Health and Housing

Committee of its conclusion when it had seen the clay models of three and four storey buildings for Brook St.; it had opted unanimously for the four storey blocks.

Moreover, if the Home Office refused to modify the rehousing requirements, he would have to redesign the 213

buildings considerably.1^

The Home Office eventually reduced the rehousing

requirement to 485. In the meantime, however, the ICC

had asked for authority to erect municipal housing,

which was granted two weeks after the reduction. Once

responsibility passed to the Council it ordered the

architect to prepare plans for four as well as five

storey buildings in order to accommodate the required

number. Plans were quickly submitted to the Public

Health and Housing Committee. The architect proposed

five storey blocks with lower ceilings and narrower

staircases— eight feet six inches and three feet six

inches, respectively. He argued that the financial

saving would be considerable, and that they were a

substantial improvement over Yabsley St. The ICC

accepted the recommended changes despite its regulations,11

For the County Council to breach the four storey

LCC, MP, (24 May 1892), 464; LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1889-92, A9-TT, Whitehall, 22 June 1892; LCC valuer, 4 July 1892; LCC arch., 2 July 1892.

1:LLCC, MP, (22 Nov. 1892), 1102; LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1889-92, A9-TT, Whitehall, 2 Pec. 1892; 1893-94, AST LCC arch., 9 and 26 April 18935 LCC, MP, (16 May 1893), 531. 214 limit was more difficult than it seemed. The Home

Secretary was pleased that the Council was trying to rehouse as many as possible now that it no longer needed to attract private developers. Yet he held firmly to the four storey limit in spite of the architect's reasoning that artisans' dwellings companies erected five to eight storey blocks. The LCC pleaded in letters and sent a special delegation arguing that to get a 3$ return it needed to erect five storeys. The Home

Secretary relented "under the peculiar circumstances of the case"; however, he stipulated that mechanical means for raising and lowering dust pails must be provided and that there must be a back as well as a 12 street entrance to each block.

One more case came before the Home Office before five storey buildings became accepted as a permanent feature of municipal housing in London's urban land­ scape. Back in December 1892 the Public Health and

Housing Committee had toyed with the idea of five storeys in the Boundary Street estate and had postponed it. The question was raised once again in February

1893; then in July the decision had to be reached.

12LCC, PHHC, Papers. 1893-94, A9, LCC arch., 5 July 1893; Home Office, 31 July 1893; Public Record Office, HO 45/10198/B31375, pp. 51-52. R. M. Beachcroft favored five storeys in the Boundary

Street estate and Rev. C. Flemming Williams counter­ moved for four. The committee carried Beachcroft*s motion. In the meantime the LCC had submitted to the

Home Office a revised plan for the whole of the Boundary

Street estate, which was an initial attempt at planning urban redevelopment. For the moment it is best to omit the layout aspects and stay with the height problem.

Four storey blocks would provide accommodations for

4,124 persons and five storeys would accommodate 4,700.

The Home Office asked D. Cubitt Nichols, its arbitrator, for his opinion. His only objection to building five storey blocks was the “habits and occupations of the probable occupants.” Nichols was willing to accept the five storey dwellings if the

Secretary of State was because the rearranged layout and improved surroundings might raise "the character of the neighbouring occupants." The Home Secretary 13 sanctioned five storey buildings. From then on the

London County Council built five storey tenements or cottages as best suited for the site.

13LCC, PHHC, Minutes, III (12 Bee. 1892), 166-67*. Ill (13 Feb. 1893)7”23T? Ill (10 July 1893), 405; Public Record Office, HLG 1/14 pt. 2, T,1184A, Nichols, 28 Aug. 1893. B 56 Another standard which gave way was the width and

finishing of sta:' cways. They were an expensive part

of any tenement block. They took a lot of space,

raised construction costs and required daily maintenance.

The LCC standard required that a stairway be four feet

wide, provide access to no more than four dwellings on

each floor, and help ventilate flats. Glazed or hard

pressed bricks were to be used on the walls for finish.

The first buildings had stairways which met the four

foot requirement but they were exposed to the elements

and had walls of hard concrete. The pressure of

rising costs, the principle, and rents forced the

LCC to compare its minimums with the artisans' dwellings

companies. Their dimensions varied between three feet

three inches and three feet six inches. The Cable St.

block in 1893 was the first to have these narrower

staircases. In some blocks the Council used glazed

or hard faced bricks. As it was an expensive initial

investment it was not always included; instead many

blocks had stairways of hard concrete and distemper.

Maintenance costs over the years rose and the Council

found that tiling was cheaper. In fact, it put tiles 217 14 on many of its first buildings to cut maintenance.

Thus, ideal standards for height of ceilings, number of floors, and width of stairways gave way immediately to financial considerations. The staunch idealism of Murphy and the Home Office yielded to the reality of building costs and rising prices. The ICC practiced what it forbade private companies but used the companies’ reasons to justify the measures.

Another area of conflict between the London County

Council and the Home Office was the question of balconies. The first LCC buildings did not have them, except for those in Mount St. on the Boundary Street estate. Balconies, similar to those designed for the

Peabody Trust, which stretched the length of the block and doubled as entrances to the flats, were introduced into plans for the Lowood and Chancery

Buildings in 1895. This was the second half of the

Cable Street project. The valuer contended that balconies would reduce costs and in turn reduce losses from empties. Back in 1893 the Public Health and

Housing Committee complained that staircases could

14LCC, MP. (3 Dec. 1889), 953; LCC, HWCC, Minutes, VI (12 Nov. 15*02), 447-48. * N « n m g c t o o a ^ o t m x 219 cost as much as one-fifth of the construction cost.

Prom the architect’s point of view, one stairwell left more space for rooms, and it seemed that tenants in

the Mount St. blocks of the Boundary Street estate valued them highly. Granting that balconies did not

reduce rents, the architect noted they increased

comfort and accommodation. In hot weather mothers and

children got fresh air, in the evenings men used them

for smoking, and they were a convenient place for

keeping birds and flowers. The Home Office reluctantly approved the Gable St. plans and warned the LCC not to

think this was a precedent. In fact, they were a 15 retrograde movement in working class housing.

In 1899 the balcony question was debated again.

The Home Office disliked the style. In 1900 it

challenged the LCC’s building plans for two blocks in

Preston's Rd., Poplar. Steward, the Home Office's adviser, noted that out of London's 72,000 laboring

class families residing in blocks only 4,500 were in

the balcony type; and none had been erected recently.

15LCC, PHHC, Minutes. IV (27 May 1895), 178; LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1893-94, E3» special report, 13 Dec. 1893; 1895-96, a 9, LCC arch., 15 May 1895; LCC, HWCC, Papers, 1898-1900, 5 Home Office, 6 Oct. 1898. 220

Moreover, London medical officers of health were against them because they restricted light and ventilation.

Balconies were useful for restricted sites where economy and numbers to be rehoused were at a premium.

The Home Secretary, therefore, advised the County

Council to abandon this type of building which private enterprise considered "undesirable according to the modern view of sanitary requirements of town dwellings."

Although the Preston's Rd. site was not restricted the

Home Office relented and let the LCC erect balcony type blocks on the condition that the natural light which reached the lower floors was equal to the light reaching the lower windows of buildings without balconies and which were separated at the minimum distance. Large scale drawings were requested to judge the amount of light the lower floors got. The

Council misconstrued the request to mean that the

Home Office accepted the new standard. Only after a deputation from the LCC went to the Home Office did the

Home Secretary relent, and then on the condition that 16 no buildings be erected on the intervening space.

16LCC, HWCC, Papers, 1898-1900, 5, Home Office, 14 March 1899; Home Office, 28 June 1900; LCC, 13 July 1900; Home Office, 23 July 1900; Home Office, 5 Nov. 1900; Public Record Office, HO 45/10198/B31375, p. 316. 221

Thus the rule that a staircase should serve a maximum of four families per floor went by the board.

Balcony type buildings became a part of the LCC style and underwent a major redesign in the interwar period.

Today many Council flats have balconies, yet they are usually private; they are not substitutes for passages to connect tenements.

Room dimensions give a clue to the accepted standards of the period. Today's ideal for a family of four is about 750 square feet of floor space and 17 for three is 610 square feet, excluding storage.

The ideal minimum in the 1890s for a working class family of four was 240 square feet. In the first blocks and cottages the LCC nearly always exceeded this. It is worth keeping in mind that at the turn of the century it was assumed that each room in a working class home could accommodate two persons. In Brook St., the average living room in the Beachcroft Buildings was

152 square feet and a bedroom was 113 square feet. In

Goldsmith Row the rooms were 149 square feet and 111 square feet respectively; in Cable St. 145 and 97 square feet; and in Yabsley St. 157 and 98 square feet. The

1 7 Sir Parker Morris, Homes for Today and Tomorrow (London, 1961), p. 35. largest living and bedrooms were 196 square feet and

117 square feet which were in the Cookham Building and

184 square feet and 132 square feet in the Wargrave

Buildings of the Boundary Street estate. The architect reasoned that the LCC had to set the pace for private enterprise; nor could he accept "the proposition that buildings intended to be occupied by the poor should be reduced. . .in dimensions." By the end of the decade the Council incurred the ire of the Home Office because it had reduced room dimensions. The Collerston and Idenden cottages for Blackwall Tunnel in south

London had 141 square feet of living room space and

113 square feet of bedroom space. The Mulready and

Landseer Buildings of the Millbank estate were 141 and

101 square feet respectively; while the Lawrence and

Maclise Buildings were 142 and 102 square feet respectively. In each example the living rooms were below the minimum and the bedrooms were slightly above.

In the Clare Market development the floor space IQ coincided with the minimums. These decreases were the product of the vise of economy: housing

18 LCC. Housing Question in London, pp. 306, 316-17, 326-27, 332; ICc, Ptffl<5, Papers, 1893-94. E3. LCC arch.. 10 Jan. 1893 and 20 0ct."18'93. 223 accommodations were whittled down while clamped between the jaws of rising prices and the principle.

In general, the increase in bedroom dimensions and decrease in living room area space resulted from continuous negotiations between the Home Office and the County Council. Evaluations by the valuer and the medical officer recommended greater flexibility in bedroom dimensions, but no increase from the minimum of 96 square feet. By retaining the minimum, awkwardly shaped sites could be used. Also more bedrooms, smaller in size, permitted segregating the sexes and maybe giving the parents a bedroom. If there were three or four bedrooms then one should be large enough to hold two beds. What the valuer and medical officer believed was needed, however, was a wider range in design and accommodation not a change in minimum standards. This would facilitate renting the 19 tenements.

As the LCC increased the number of self-contained apartments, room dimensions were reduced. Criticism of this in 1896 led to building larger rooms and the architect had agreed with the Home Office that living

^LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1895-96, E59, LCC valuer and medical officer, 26 June 1895. 224 rooms should average 160 square feet and bedrooms 110 square feet. Then in 1898 smaller rooms were designed: the living rooms averaged 155 square feet and bedrooms

102 square feet. It seems that the larger flats were

difficult to let because of higher rents. Larger flats,

i.e., those with four or more rooms, were difficult to rent because many laborers could not pay for the additional rooms. The Home Secretary's office, alert to this decrease, immediately informed the Council that the rooms were smaller "than in the buildings he had approved for erection by railway companies." The LCC, based on experience from the Boundary Street estate, held that the most practical size for a living room was 160 square feet and for a bedroom 110 square feet or where there were two bedrooms one 100 square feet and the other 120 square feet. Pressure to get the average bedroom up to 120 square feet was defeated by economics. The necessity of keeping rents down compelled the LCC to negotiate with the Home Office in

1898 and 1899 to revert to the minimum standards laid

down in 1889. The Home Office agreed and assented to

permit minute deviations, when site shapes and building

designs demanded them. So from 1899 all municipal housing in central London was designed on these lines.

The LCC's building program for central London was just 225 about completed until after World War I; consequently, it had little effect. The tone of the official LCC housing history makes it sound as if higher standards originally were forced on the Council. On the other hand, the Home Office's attitude was that it never raised its minimum; rather the Council voluntarily advanced dimensions until it found them too difficult 20 to maintain. The Home Office’s interpretation appears the more reasonable one.

As the Council's building and management program gained momentum as well as experience, the proportion of self-contained tenements was increased. By 1898-1899 demand was greater than supply. Self-contained tenements were slightly more expensive to construct, yet were let easily at economic rents. On the other hand, self-contained flats were beyond the reach of poor laborers. What the poor needed were subsidized flats or inexpensive single rooms. Since subsidized housing was out of the question, the focus of the discussion turned to some form of associated dwellings with single rooms. The architect reviewed the vestry

20LCC, HWCC, Papers, 1896-97, 39, LCC arch., 29 Sept. 1897; LCC, Housing Question in London, pp. 49 and 51; LCC, HWCC, Minutes, III (£9 .tune 1899), 143; Public Record Office, H& 43/10198/B31375, p. 398. of St. Pancras and reported that single rooms were difficult to get in the district. His advice was that single room tenements could be designed and constructed.

At the same time a special subcommittee report of the

Public Health and Housing Committee recommended that common sculleries be designed for working class housing as they in no way contravened the building regulations.

Despite this flurry of activity nothing happened. The number of single room tenements in municipal housing in the East End was quite low and remained so. There were 15 in the Culham block of the Boundary Street estate and 22 in Cable St. By 1900 in London the

Council had 124 single room tenements out of a total of 4,038.21

A Local Government Board memorandum suggested standards for working class housing. It preferred separate houses or cottages with a living room, scullery, pantry, two or three bedrooms and the necessary conveniences. Por urban districts it recognized that two storey cottages were more economical.

And for densely populated areas it urged that blocks

21 LCC, Housing Question in London, pp. 49 and 51; LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1893-9'4."£3',"LCC arch., 8 Dec. 1893; special report,13 Dec. 1893, LCC, Housing Question in London, pp. 304, 306, 314-15, 324-2T. 227 be limited to three or four storeys unless great distances separated them, that the length of buildings be restricted to enable air to circulate, and that the water closets be located so that they were practically 22 outside the flat. Despite these recommendations the County Council by 1907 had provided mostly two and three room tenements, i.e., one and two bedroom ones, not the three or four room flats recommended. 3*407 tenements were two room and 3*298 were three room, while only 183 were single room, 668 were four, 247 were five, and 3 were six room. In the Tower Hamlets 1,001 were two room, 758 were three room, only 40 were one room, while 101 had four,

6 five, 3 six rooms. The total was 1,570 tenements in the East End constructed by the London County Council.

Of the flats erected by the County Council in London and in the East End, 61$ were entirely self-contained in each area. And if the more limited form of self­ containment, which had a private but detached water closet, is included, then 75$ of London's municipal

p p LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1895-96, E3, "The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, memo with respect to the provision and arrangement of dwellings", abridgement of Local Government Board memo July 1894, 16 Jan. 1894 (sic). 228 23 housing was self-contained and 74$ of the Bast End's,

The Streatly Buildings, Boundary Street, emphasize the importance attached to sanitary arrangement. The medical officer believed that it was "far in advance of anything that has yet been done." And he was pleased that the northeast corner of the estate had been "reserved for the plainer buildings to accommodate the poorer classes." The rents for two room tenements rt i were 5/6 and for three rooms 7/9.

The Public Health and Housing Committee reviewed working class housing design and studied what private companies provided, especially how they differed from

LCC standards. Some did not provide private water closets or, when they did, there were no efficient lobbies separating the toilet and the living room.

They provided sculleries only if they could charge for them as living rooms. They adopted internal staircases with long and often dark corridors for economical reasons. Also ventilation was not as thorough as in the LCC's blocks. Murphy's inspection of tenements

3LCC, London Statistics XVIII (1907-08), 151; LCC, Housing Question in London, pp. 304, 306, 315-17, 330,

24LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1895-96, E59, LCC arch., 30 Jan. 1895; A3, LCC valuer, 15 May 1895. 229 designed by Messrs. Joseph and Smithem brought the complaint that the Stepney Green block was on the back to back principle. Most windows were positioned so as to hinder through ventilation and the bedrooms, he was sure, would become close and stuffy. He also disliked water closets opening into the lobbies. Associated tenements in Page's Walk, Bermondsey, which he also inspected were similar and one block had an internal staircase which restricted air circulation even more.

Interestingly, a study of the LCC's floor plans reveals that in some although the toilet was properly separated from the living room it usually was reached through or was next to the scullery. Moreover, the Council's standards were not always as high as they claimed.

Under the Customs and Inland Revenue Acts the LCC could be relieved from the inhabited house duty if it provided "'suitable accommodation' for each of the families or persons inhabiting it." The Council was denied a certificate for relief from the income tax by the sanitary inspector of Bethnal Green. His inter­ pretation of "suitable" was a separate water closet, sink, water tap, copper, and dust recepticle for each tenement. The Culham and Sonning Buildings, Boundary

Street estate, failed to meet this demand. Eventually, 230 with support from Shirley Murphy and alterations, he 25 granted a certificate for the Culham Buildings.

Proper planning of land use and environment played a minor role in these years. Open spaces in working class districts were considered mainly from a sanitary view. Priority went for ventilation and light. So the vacant spaces required for these purposes were defined in the 3 December 1889 regulations and again in the London Building Act, 1894. On redeveloped slum sites buildings had to be separated by an area directly proportional to their height, or a maximum angle of 45°, and if possible one and a half times apart. The

Building Act dictated that the rear open space be at least ten feet deep; where frontage was fifteen feet the space had to be 150 square feet; and frontages up to twenty feet required 200 square feet in the rear.

Prom the discussion of the Preston's Road buildings it is apparent that the County Council considered erecting buildings above this figure; and the space between blocks was less. If the angle was measured to the windows rather than to the base then there was a

25LCC, PHHC. Papers. 1893-94. E3, LCC arch.. 10 Jan. 1893 and 6 Nov. 1895; 1^95-96, E3, LCC medical officer, 26 Feb. 1896; Bethnal Green, Report of the Sanitary Condition and Vital Statistics. 1897. PP. 5l-5^. 231 smaller open area between buildings. The official history talks about 45° of light and most people never stop to think whether this meant to the base of the building or the window sill on the ground floor.

The open space between buildings was usually paved.

The paved courtyards became play areas. And as the habits and needs of children differ from adults they were poor substitutes for proper playgrounds. Children like to make noise and run about; paved yards surrounded by tenement blocks magnify noise and irritability.

Moreover, families on the ground floor were not always delighted to have children under their windows.

Gardens, open spaces, and playgrounds were provided. They usually were in an area that either was unsuitable for housing (and then was granted only because local residents pressed for it) or where the

LCC failed to sell it to private interests. By the

Wapping Docks, in Tench St., St. George in the East, for example, were two and three-quarter acres of cleared slum. The Metropolitan Board of Works failed to sell it and had decided to keep it as an open space in 1888. The local community, however, was divided. Some wanted housing and others an open space. Herbert Day of Toynbee Hall led the forces which wanted only half the area devoted to an open FIG. XIV TENCH STREET SCHEME. PLAN No. 17. I A PARISH OF ST. GEORGE IN THE EAST.

(L o n d o n D u c k s )

61 JohniChurcIi

Scale Art w jo 0 too too tfjo ** jOQfbeC

Source; U OX, Housing Q u a ti* n in kondort. 233 space and the other half redeveloped for working class housing. He argued that the neighborhood was in immediate need of "good and cheap houses." On the other hand, there was no need for a large scale open space for gardens as two church yards were within walking distance, and even less need of the open space for ventilation because the river was on one side and the docks on the other. He had Messrs. Martineau and Sly, both LCC members, and clergy behind him. Lay even tried to pose as a moderate force of reason with his scheme. When he proposed it he also forwarded one plan which demanded all land retained for housing and another which wanted only an open space. Nevertheless, the LCC went ahead with the Metropolitan Board of Works' program and turned the area into a playground with gym equipment for children and an open space with trees and 26 shrubbery for adults. This was a wise move as a walk through this dock area reveals high walls surrounding the docks, imposing warehouses, and bleak tenements. True, "fresh air" from the river was available, but there was hardly an open space for the

2 6 LCC, Housing Question in London, p. 167; LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1889-^2, a I, Day, 24 May 1890 and 20 June 1890. 234 residents or a break from the monotony. Furthermore, the Tench St. gardens have been expanded a bit and are a delightful retreat from bricks, mortar, and pavement.

Again in the East End the second plot of the

Brook St. site was considered for an open space, but in the end it was covered with working class dwellings.

Only the Favonia St. slum, which was about a quarter of an acre, was retained for an open space. In the

Boundary Street estate an open space was provided so as to raise the level of the neighborhood. It was seven-tenths of an acre mound developed as a circular garden in tiers with benches and eventually a bandstand was erected on the top. It is girdled by a road.

Rumor has it that this mound was a plague pit. The most appealing and satisfying garden of the estate is the old church cemetery of St. Leonard’s, Shoreditch at the fringe.

Open spaces, therefore, served primarily public health and sanitary purposes. Planners rarely considered an open space on a redeveloped site on its merits for relaxation or relief from congestion. Instead they labored to rehouse as many as they could. This was justified by a parliamentary stipulation that redevel­ oped slum land should rehouse as many as were displaced. The Home Secretary had discretionary power to reduce this number to a half if he was convinced of the necessity and that the original inhabitants were properly housed in the adjacent neighborhoods. Since the LCC's regulations hindered sales to private enter­ prise the Council took advantage of the law and had the number to be rehoused reduced to three-quarters and then to one-half the original figure in certain instances.

Even this failed to attract purchasers. When the LCC accepted responsibility to build it quickly dropped the lower density schemes. The Home Office, pleased that the Council returned to the original number for

Cable St., said: "Having no longer to hold out attractions to the builder they were able to devote their attention to re-housing as many of the persons displaced as possible. . . .This was a step in the right direction. ..." At the same time, it frowned 27 on the decision to erect a five storey block.

Later the Home Office reproached the County Council for decreasing the number to be rehoused in its experimental redevelopment plan on the Boundary Street estate.

27Public Record Office, HO 45/10198/B31375, p. 51 The population density in municipal housing estates went as high as 674 per acre; it averaged 226 per acre.

The greatest densities in the East End were found on the Ann St., Poplar estate with 602 persons per acre OQ and '■m Preston's Road with 505 per acre. If Ann St. and Preston's Rd. had been fully occupied, based on two persons per room, then the population densities would have been 801 per acre and 766 per acre respec­ tively. Some of the semi-philanthropic trusts actually housed up to 700 persons per acre. By today's standards this was high. Contemporary projections set the desired net density for the East End of London at

136 per acre.

Finally, the purpose of slum clearance was to sweep away an old environment and create a new one.

This presupposed improving streets and resiting buildings, which the LCC did in order to get government approval for a scheme. Streets were scheduled for widening and straightening to facilitate traffic flow, land was set aside for working class dwellings, and parcels not required for housing were slated to be sold

28 LCC, Working Class Dwellings Statistics for the year 1919-1920, P. 15. 237

for commercial use. Half of "the sites the County Council

dealt with were one acre or less and the overwhelming 29 majority were two acres or less. This severely taxed

the officers' ingenuity for redesigning an area. In the

main courts, alleys, and passageways were closed

permanently and model workmen's cottages were planned.

This was not much more than the Metropolitan Board of

Works' consolidation of titles, widening of streets, and

29 Number of clearances initiated and completed by the Metropolitan Board of Works, the London County Council, and the Local Authorities under parts I and II of the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, 1890, 1900, and 1903, and preceeding acts in Greater London and in the Tower Hamlets. (By Acreage)

IN GREATER LONDON

1 2 5 10 15

MBW 7 7 5 3 0

LCC & Loc. Auth. 11 7 3 0 1

IN THE TOWER HAMLETS

1 2 5 10 15

MBW 1 1 2 2 0

LCC & Loc. Auth. 6 0 2 2 1

(Source: LCC, Housing Question in London and Housing of the Working Classes.) 238 parceling and selling of land for housing and commercial purposes. After the Council accepted total responsibility

for redevelopment as it had for clearance it retained the street; improvement aspect but switched from cottages to tenements. Planning at this time implied care to ensure proper ventilation and natural light for each room. While population density as well as building coverage were high the tenements were well sited. On

Brook St. the two blocks were at right angles with an intervening courtyard. In Cable St. the Dellow and

Bewley Buildings are short blocks and are parallel to each other with a decent court separating them. The worst layout is in Preston's Road. These six blocks are austere and have only a small yard between them.

By running parallel to each other they accentuate the planning weaknesses and create a depressing atmosphere.

Even less can be said for the Council Buildings, which are down "the street; they are isolated by warehouses and docks. Only the Lawrence Cottages break the monotony and add human dimensions to this complex. The

Brightlingsea Buildings in Ropemakers Fields are merely a long continuous block of tenements. It is difficult to evaluate its original relationship to the neighborhood 239

FIG-. XV. 8EACHCR0FT BLV&5. f BROOK ST.

Flfr. XW. CRANFORD C0TTA6E$>t BROOK ST. 240

FIG-. XVII • D E k u O W BUD6-. CABLE ST.

PIG-. XVIII. W/WNIPE6- BU>G-SV PRESTOti'S RD. 241

FI&. X1X\ ST. L M R eNCE CGTT.+C-ES, PRESTON'S R.D.

FIG. XX- ST. M W R E flC E COTTA^tS, P R E S T O N 1* RD. 242

BRl&HTiW/V&SEA BLT>GrS.t KOPE MAKE/IS FlBuDs

I30UNDARV STREET ESTATE FIS. Mill. QOUNVfiHy STREET ESTATE

Fl&. XXIV. BOONDARX STREET ESTATE 244

because demolition has cleared most of the surrounding

buildings. The Boundary Street estate, Bethnal Green, and the

Millbank estate, Westminster, are the only sites with

decent acreage which permitted imaginative and experi­ mental reconstruction. Each is differently designed.

In Boundary Street the initial idea was to retain the

original street pattern. Grasping that the fifteen

acre site offered many possibilities, the architect

seized the opportunity. He created a radial street plan

focusing on the circus. It was hoped that this plan would open up the district which desperately needed a break from the monotony of its buildings. Although the

Home Office agreed to this experiment it did not think much of the "small circular spot" which was hardly

"large enough to justify the inconvenience and cost."

D. Cubitt Nichols advised the Home Secretary that the experiment was worthwhile for it might improve the neighborhood and occupants.^ Except for unsuccessful central gardens the experiment was an achievement.

The baroque facades were unique for working class

30LCC, MP, (10 March 1893)t 268; LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1893-94, A3,”lTome Office, 27 May 1893? Public Record Office, HLG 1/17A1184A. B - 6'6.. FlG- XX v ^- .BOUNDARY STRUT SChEMt pWN /v? "Z4£

r\ttr

c 0 | 9

■ X r

,/ • r o v » H i c r * » r •“ « i " ' r -- 'J^3 : I x J t ^ f i > I t’-j ; j§p, j5? >*' ■• ^ •grzrT^^-i^ry^ ^CvTv3v5 u ii3-. w-jf.'va 1 0 iMCnnSrasiS^^iifc h ?Mk

p 5 ^ f r.O 5 - T 8 C E T » ^ - ,,.flp ' j ,^ j

5 f i« f ’ ' • ■ js j ^ ' - : W ' &! m ' ‘m LJxUiT^IC o'.'. FIG xxvf ; BOUNDARY STREET SCHEME > 7\ PUN N»27.

1 ® r y., mr ttmew NAU GREEN >* 247 districts and radically different from other LCC architecture. Boundary Street was the LCC's pet project. It was a model for Englishmen, Europeans, and

Americans. Its completion was important enough for

Prince Edward to attend the dedication ceremonies.

In Westminster the London County Council applied

its talents differently to a similar but smaller site.

The national government closed Millbank prison and sold ten acres of it for working class housing, the rest went for other public purposes among these the Tate

Gallery. A modified grid or rectangular system was

used for the street pattern. The tenements are tasteful

but oversized Georgian. Architecturally these facades

are quite pleasant, but they are too crowded on the site

and the Council failed to provide sufficient parks or play areas. One suspects that the Georgian style was

used in Westminster to blend with the city’s archi­

tecture, while the heavy baroque was passable for the

East End. Besides these two projects the County Council

did no imaginative planning of redevelopment sites in

central London.

In this period the artisans' dwellings companies and the semi-philanthropic trusts failed to make a signif­

icant contribution to planning, too. Prom archival

material available, which is not much, one can glean 248 a pattern. These companies stressed that their aim was to house the poor at the lowest rents possible and still earn a 5$ profit— with Peabody Trust the return was 3$. Housing sites were developed as intensely as permissible by the artisans’ dwellings companies; and if they purchased slum cleared land, parliament stipu­ lated high density. This meant that economics determined planning while politics and aesthetic considerations played a weak and narrow role. The Goldsmith Row site, discussed in Chapter V, is a good example of how thoroughly the East End Dwelling Co. hoped to utilize space. But one need not rely on unfulfilled plans to realize that such thinking dominated the age. A walk through the Tower Hamlets and a fortunate glance at a company’s records reveals how thoroughly the high density principle was applied. The Katharine block is built right to the pavement with its yard backing on the Royal Mint. The Cressy and Dunstan Buildings, composing the company's Stepney Green estate, lack sufficient yard space. Nor did the East End Dwelling

Co. consider play areas or open spaces on the Victoria

Park Square site. On the compact Gretton and Merceron estates, bounded by Old Ford Road, Globe Road, Sugar loaf Walk, and Victoria Park Square, blocks were erected over the first decade of the twentieth century. On the 249

Flfr. XKVU. KATHAUIWE Bi-DfrS-

FIG-. XftVUI. RAVEMSCRo f t 8kD£. , EE PC. other side of Globe Hoad, on the Moravian Trust estate, the company erected cottages. This seemed to be determined by overconstruction in the neighborhood as well as the growing supply of houses in the suburbs, and is reflected in a series of rent reductions by the company. On the Moravian Trust parcel the East End

Dwelling Co. did modify a street plan in order to use the site more efficiently. Earlier the company had to revise plans for the Mendip block in Kirkwall Place.

It could not erect a one storey cottage on land between

Park St. and North Place because of difficulties with the district surveyor of Bethnal Green. Hope of closing

Park St. existed if the London School Board cooperated.

In the end, the vestry agreed to close only part of 31 Park St. The rearrangement of streets was more a matter of economy than a desire to create a suitable environment. However, it must be mentioned that the company did plant a few foregardens and trees and did sponsor through its rent collectors window box garden contests.

According to John Nelson Tara, the Peabody Trust strived to provide an open space where children could

^East End Dwelling Co., Minutes, V (10 July 1905). 318; IV (3 July 1899), 245} V 'CB'TugT 1899), 4-5. 251 play and he presumes that these were forerunners to

today's pedestrian districts. He believes that the

Peabody Trust devised the space "from a desire to

segregate the people of the Peabody estates from the

evil influences of the surrounding slums, just as much

as from a desire to provide play spaces.” The Trust,

he concluded, was able to develop its estates so

because it alone had the capability to finance land 32 purchases on such a large scale.'

The final example of limited planning is the Bethnal

Green estate of Sydney Waterlow's Improved Industrial

Dwellings Co. These nine acres bounded by Wilmot St.,

Ainsley St., Cornfield St., and Three Colts Lane, were

redeveloped in the 1870s. Small cottages were torn

down and block tenements replaced them gradually. There 33 is no environment planning and the streets are ribbons.

The buildings are not ugly; but they are long rows

which become monotonous and heavy. There are no trees

to soften the facades and no green to lighten the view.

32 John Nelson Tam, ”The Peabody Donation Fund: The Role of a Housing Society in the Nineteenth Century,” Victorian Studies X (Sept. 1966), 37. 33 -^John Nelson Tarn, "Housing in Urban Areas, 1840-1914.” (Ph.D. Dissertation, Cambridge, 1961), pp. 254-55. 252

When seen from the railroad viaduct these weaknesses are magnified.

The policy of the County Council emphasized physical health, decent dwellings, and profitability. Public opinion determined its attitude toward subsidized housing, and it was always interpreted within a frame­ work of the poor law rather than as an aspect of social economics. The reduction of room dimensions, the increase in number of floors, the introduction of balconies, etc., were controlled by financial calcu­ lations. There was no real understanding of mental health and housing or of need. While the LCC gradually abandoned some of its standards in favor of those of the semi-commercial ventures, it tried not to sacrifice sanitary and physical health needs. Here Murphy kept a watchful eye on the architect and valuer. The LCC's significant contribution to artisans' dwellings design was the increase in the number of self-contained flats.

On the other hand, none of the groups involved in working class housing was awake to urban redevelopment problems in mid-twentieth century terms. Together they led the public to an awareness that housing was a social necessity, yet they could not crystallize the idea that government expenditure for housing was a prerequisite to providing it, and that thorough environ­ mental planning was essential if they were to come closer to realizing their social aims. CHAPTER VII

TOWARD COMPREHENSIVE URBAN REDEVELOPMENT

Despite a commitment to slum clearance and improved housing the London County Council did not conceive of urban renewal within a deliberate framework of compre- hensive redevelopment. That is, it did not coordinate transportation and roads, parks and open spaces, commercial zoning, community services (garbage collection, public baths, mortuaries), and social services (schools, churches, hospitals, settlement houses) when replanning urban core areas. This does not mean that the Council was unconscious of these needs. Rather each improvement project was designed to appeal to a narrow political spectrum. Lack of coordination turned out to be an asset in redeveloping slum sites. During the early years of the Council, had the services been integrated into a massive urban program they would have faced stiffer opposition because it would have appeared to benefit one group at the expense of the community.

A typical example of this resistence to comprehen­ sive urban renewal was found in the East End News. A

254 255 speaker at Toynbee Hall envisioned clearing away the overbuilt areas in East London and erecting in their place "tall block dwellings, with open spaces reserved for gardens, terraces, fountains, museums, swimming baths, recreation grounds, etc." The East End News agreed that they were "all desirable and necessary things in their way, but are not paying quantities."

The News' basic principle was that there should be no charge on the rates, which was possible only if economic rents were charged. It added pessimistically that laborers in existing municipal tenements were not paying economic rents.^

Not only was comprehensive redevelopment politically unfeasible, it was also virtually impossible for economic reasons. The traditional liberal attitude was that the state should act like a night watchman and at the most provide relief for social distress. Peacock and Wise say the same thing differently: "The real struggle in Parliament was not with expenditure, but with methods of raising revenue,. . .the object of minimizing the level of government expenditure being

^East End News, 6 July 1906. 256 2 taken for granted." This is a reason the national government gave no grants-in-aid for slum clearance, housing, and environmental services.

Legislation specifically designed to facilitate town planning was enacted in 1909, and was limited to new areas. In the meantime the Council had to coordinate underground rails and trams, make them operate effi­ ciently, and preserve open spaces without arousing the wrath of those who favored laissez faire principles.

Rapid transit to suburban developments seemed to untie the Gordian knot of overcrowding, slums, traffic congestion, and dearth of amenities and community services in central London. The Council attacked the transport problem on three fronts: workmen's trains, the underground, and trams. The Cheap Train Act of

1883 stipulated that railway companies provide reasonable train schedules for workmen between 6 and

8 am and not charge more than Id per mile. In return the railroads received remission from the passenger tax. The London County Council, aware that some companies reneged on their obligations, on 3 December

2 Alan T. Peacock and Jack Wiseman, The Growth of Public Expenditure in the United Kingdom (2nd ed. rev.; London, 1967^, p. 35 and chapters 3 & 257

1889 instructed the Housing of the Working Classes

Committee to investigate transportation in London.

Prom this time, the Council continuously tried to 3 shape London's transport policy.

The three fundamental objectives stressed in the

housing committee's reports of 1891 and 1893 were

improved workmen's train service, uniform fares, and

a uniform ticket system. Existing service was already

overburdened. Slum clearance programs and enforcement

of sanitary laws could be implemented only if additional

trains were scheduled and they ran at more convenient

hours. The railway companies were censured for failing

"to meet the present and growing wants of the population."

On the other hand, the committee was not blind to the

voluntary strides in improving railway service.

According to the 1883 law, companies were obliged to

provide 47 miles and in that year they actually

provided 763 miles. By 1891 the mileage more than

doubled to 1,807 with 264 trains carrying workmen.

The most public spirited companies were the Great

Eastern, Great Northern, and South Western. Under the

Council's prodding railway companies improved their

3LCC, MP, (28 July 1891), 874-77; (22 Feb. 1898), 243-46. 258 service. In 1897 there were 3,257 miles and 469 trains and in 1906 there were 6,019 miles and 801 workmen’s trains.4 Thus, from the time when the Council accepted responsibility to lobby for better workmen's train schedules, there was a threefold increase both in mileage and trains.

This was not an easy fight. Three companies— the

Great Western, the Midland, and the London and North

Western— failed to provide any service in 1891. The most notorious examples were the Great Western and

Midland lines, because by 1898 they still had refused to budge. Each received a remission of the passenger duty annually. The Great Western, for example, got

£68,400 to provide service and, despite pleas from workmen and their representatives, nothing was forth­ coming. The Soard of Trade looked into the matter only after a district board of works appealed. The

Midland Railway, on the other hand, scheduled one train at the most inconvenient hour for which it got

£53*000 annually. In addition to companies that refused to honor their commitments, the majority were

4LCC, MP, (28 July 1891), 874-77; (28 March 1893), 347-50; (I8“ffct. 1904), 2209. 259 self-satisfied. They claimed that service was sufficient to meet workmen's requirements. On the question of time schedules the railway managers reminded the Council 5 that the Board of Trade settled such matters.

The Council also wanted trains run into areas in advance of demand in order to encourage housing development. The railway managers merely promised to extend service as the dwellings were erected. The

Council was not satisfied with this reply because it had ample evidence that service in excess of demand stimulated house construction and it cited the success of the Great Eastern. The Board of Trade was approached time and again, but very little was accomplished. The housing committee was convinced that the Board of Trade needed additional powers to carry out its work. The Board hesitated, interpreting its role as passive, and consequently acted only on complaints. The committee realized the burden of responsibility fell on laborers who had neither time, means, nor facilities to make inquiries

5LCC, MP, (28 July 1891), 874-77; (22 Feb. 1898), 243-46. “

6LCC, MP, (28 July 1891), 874-77. 260 and follow them up with appeals. However, the Council lacked authority to go directly before the board for additional service, so it usually worked in conjunction 7 with petitioning workmen. While service improved gradually under LCC pressure, there was no success in getting uniform fares and uniform tickets. There was much in favor of uniform fares with a maximum of 2d per day. When a workman's rent and travel expense were added up they took a substantial portion of his wage. The Council's statistical officer reported that it was cheaper to live in the suburbs than in central London, For example, a new three room tenement in either Bethnal

Green or Stepney let at 9s 8 3/4d. A similar tenement in the suburbs cost 7s 3 3/4-d in Tottenham or 6s 9 3/4d in West Ham plus Is fare which raised the expense to

8s 3 3/4d and 7s 9 3/4d respectively. The statistical officer concluded that suburban living was cheaper by Q Is 5d and Is lid respectively. However, to be able

7LCC, MP, (22 Feb. 1898), 243-46; (28 March 1893), 347-50. T.”7T. Barker and Michael Robbins, A History of London Transport. Vol. I. The Nineteenth Century (London, 1963), PP. 616 ftnt.no. 2 and 611" 8 LCC, Housing of the Working Classes. 1908. Report of the Statistical Officer to the Housing of the Working Classes Committee on the Present Aspects of the Housing Question in London, p. 3. to afford a new three room tenement a laborer needed an income of more than 10s per week; in fact, his income had to exceed 20s per week. Thus the Council did not argue the case well; nevertheless, low fares were imperative if cheap rents for low income workers could be found in the suburbs. Another argument favoring low fares was the success of excess service provided by some companies. This service would not have been provided if it were subsidized. The East London Advertiser under­ scored low fares as an income earner and noted that the G-reat Eastern's work was not from "brotherly love" or "unselfish friendship." Barker and Robbins concluded that the Great Eastern made a profit on its suburban 9 lines but that it was not as much as assumed. Clearly then, profits were made and subsidies were accepted, so demand for additional service was not unreasonable.

In addition to improving train service for workmen, the County Council became deeply involved in the question of the operation and construction of underground railways. Parliamentary proceedings were followed closely in order to insure that private bills

9LCC, MP, (28 July 1891), 874-77; East London Advertiser,~?0 May 1893; Barker and Robbins, liondon Transport, p. 272. 262 reflected not only the interests of private enterprise hut the interests of Londoners as well. For example, in 1901 a joint parliamentary committee listened to a number of schemes put forth by syndicates. A few duplicated other schemes or were limited in scope. In the end, parliament authorized only 4 of the proposed

82 miles. This paucity of authorization struck the

Council as inexcusable. The LCC's Parliamentary,

Highways, Housing of the Working Classes, and Finance

Committees met jointly to discuss the problem. They opposed the piecemeal schemes; they thought parliament was in a disadvantageous position without a general transport plan to guide it; and they decried parlia­ ment's procedure as inadequate since it sanctioned only four miles. The ad hoc committee rejected the idea of promoting its own underground scheme because there was insufficient time to complete the planning; more likely, however, because of expense. Thus, the joint committee recommended a full parliamentary inquiry into London's transportation problem. This commission would decide whether there was a need for a general plan and how to coordinate London's transport system in the county and with the suburbs. It would also consider the housing question within the framework of cheap fares. Further­ more, it would investigate methods of construction and 263 raising capital. Although this report was printed in the Council's minutes, it was set aside.10

The Bast End News at this time also believed that transit was directly tied to the housing question. But it argued that the problem was too great for the LCC to grapple with; and that only the national government should undertake it. Reliance on cheap transport up to

1901 failed to offer a satisfactory answer because no sooner had workmen moved out "than rents [were] raised to prohibitive rates." It therefore advocated "fixed rents and cheap and rapid transit to and from dwellings in the country."11 The Bast London Advertiser also wanted cheap municipal transit and wanted the ICC candidates to make an election issue of it. The solution, according to the Advertiser, to the housing problem for the Bast End was to be found in transpor­ tation. To have access to living in the suburbs, it was imperative that transport costs be low and travel 12 time moderate.

However, it was not until 1905 that the Royal

10LCC, MP, (28 Oct. 1902), 1536-37? (4 Nov. 1902), 1579-81.

11East End News, 19 Peb. 1901; 26 Feb. 1901. 12 East London Advertiser, 25 Jan. 1902. 264

Commission on London Traffic met to consider these questions. Although the commission did not recommend a comprehensive plan, it condemned the inadequacy of terminal distributions in London because railways were excluded from central London. It also disapproved of individual interests having priority over London’s corporate needs which in turn resulted in poor design layout and connection of lines. The commission recommended that when the lines under construction in inner London were completed then precedence should be given to interchange stations where east-west lines crossed north-south ones in order to accommodate the 13 public.

Trams and omnibuses penetrated more neighborhoods and carried local and long distance passengers, unlike workmen's trains or undergrounds. The Royal Commission on Transport in 1905, however, discerned the weakness in this system, even though by then part of it was controlled by the County Council. Tram lines dropped passengers off at dead-end terminals in the city; there were no through lines. The County Council under

13 Royal Commission on London Transport, PP, 1905 [Cd. 2597J, XXX, 63 and 69. Henceforth cited as RCLT. 265 Progressive leadership began a campaign in 1891 to municipalize trams. Progressives believed that "the tramways represented an important means of social 14 reform." And with trams, the ICC made an immediate, direct, and lasting contribution to London's transport.

Local newspapers, swelled with civic pride when trams plied their streets, demanded improved means to transport workers to the suburbs. However, newspapers were divided on the question of public or private ownership.

A clause in the Tramways Act of 1870 granted local authorities an option to purchase the companies usually after 21 years and without compensation for goodwill. As the County Council began to take advantage of this in 1891 newspapers expressed their views. The

Pall Mall Gazette had a consistent opinion. Trams should be municipally owned, for this was preferable to municipal housing; however, the trams must be leased back to private enterprise to operate. It was angered 15 when the Council decided to operate one line itself.

14RCLT, PP, 1905 [Cd. 2597], XXX, 50; Barker and Robbins, London Transport, p. 269.

^^Pall Mall Gazette. 13 Jan. 1891; 18 May 1898; 13 July 1898. ‘ 266

On the other hand, the East London Observer at first could not even digest municipal ownership with private management. It admitted that transport was essential, yet it condemned the County Council for deciding to purchase the North Metropolitan Tramways Co.: "There is nothing more startling, nothing more strange, nothing more revolutionary." By 1904 the Observer accepted municipal ownership but not management. The advantage of this system, it said, was that the County

Council had absolute control, yet was "freed from great expenditure, risk, and responsibility." An additional advantage was that the Council was freed from the municipal workmen's votes, i'inally, the newspaper 16 chastised the LCC for not getting favorable contracts.

The East London Advertiser avoided polemics. It praised private enterprise but did not criticize municipal ownership. When the North Metropolitan

Tramways Company lowered its fare in 1891 from 4d to

Id on workmen's trams, the East London Advertiser praised the action because it would alleviate the pressure in overcrowded ordinary cars and make them

~^East London Observer, 22 Oct. 1892; 24 Aug. 1904. 267 more select.*^

Despite the conflict of opinion the County Council purchased routes whose options matured. The 1895 election, when the Progressives lost their absolute majority, however, forced the LCC to modify its position on the purchase of lines. Instead of ownership and management, it had to lease the lines to private enterprise to manage. The County Council purchased

48 miles of the London Street and the North Metropolitan

Tramways Co. lines. It leased the whole back to the

North Metropolitan Tramway Co. to operate until 1910, at which time the County Council could exercise its option and purchase the remaining tram lines. As of

1899 the LCC owned the majority of the lines and from then on it had to unify the system, connect the sections north and south of the river, and electrify them. The Royal Commission on Transport reiterated the Council’s policy and gave its stamp of approval.

Within a year of the royal commission's report the

LCC purchased the rest of the North Metropolitan

Tramway Co., three years before the option date.

17 East London Advertiser, 11 April 1891. It seems that the Nor'fch Metropolitan Tramway Company had an ulterior motive; it tried to dissuade the LCC from purchasing the company. 268

The Council demanded that the North Metropolitan

Tramway Co. electrify and modernize the lines it leased. The company refused to approve such capital expenditures since it knew the Council would take ownership and most likely manage the whole system in 1 Q 1910. Therefore it decided to pull out.

Conscious and articulate demand for parks and open spaces came late in the history of metropolitan London.

Gradual growth had permitted London to ignore the question and to wink at violations of Elizabethan legislation forbidding the new construction within three miles of the gates of the city. So long as the area was sparcely settled and open fields of rural

London were in walking distance there was no serious crisis. The monarchy, fortunately for Londoners, had extensive estates which have been preserved as parks.

And as estates of aristocrats were developed for middle class residences they included squares. Both were concentrated in the West End. The East End, on the other hand, was substantially working class. It was composed of street after street of terraced housing which lacked trees or lawns and the rear had either minimal space or dwellings were back to back.

18 Barker and Robbins, London Transport, p. 270; RCLT, PP, 1905 [Cd. 2597], *XX, 50. Or it was a maze of courts, alleys, and passageways.

Thus, while the West End had a good allotment of parks, in the East they were scarcely visible. There was

Victoria Park with its 244 acres, located in the north­ east and having a common boundary with Bethnal Green,

Poplar, and Hackney. There were in 1891 twenty-nine open spaces, mostly church yards, each averaging two acres. This for an area of 4,852 acres with a population of 581,105. In other words there was half an acre of open space per 1000 population in the East End while the average in London was more than double, one and a 19 quarter acres. Today's ideal is four aeres per 1000.

Parks and open spaces, however small, were needed to improve working class neighborhoods and to provide refreshing breaks in their monotony. One commentator in The Builder pessimistically noted that local parks, open spaces, and slum clearance did not provide 20 laborers with sufficient fresh air. The Pall Mall

Gazette argued that without convenient open spaces no one had peace and quiet from the activity of the

"^LCC, London Statistics, 1891-92, II, xvii, 427-34; Porshaw and Abercrombie, County of London Plan, p. 255.

20The Builder. ICI (8 Sept. 1906), 300. 270 streets or "escape from the suffocating air in the summer." For a park to get continual use it had to he within a three-quarter to a mile radius; and to be useful to old people and children, the limit was a half mile. The Pall Mall Gazette used this yardstick to determine London's situation and concluded that

Londoners were without parks and possessed only streets.

"The children play in the streets; . . .the old people take their walks about in the streets; the workingmen 21 lounge and smoke their pipes in the streets."

During the last half of the 19th century social reformers, sensitive to this shortage, strove to preserve any available open space or square. Octavia

Hill, an early leader in this movement, in conjunction with the Eyrie society, as well as the Metropolitan

Public Gardens Association, preserved many of the acres and turned them over to local government for maintenance.

The Metropolitan Open Spaces Act, 1877, declared that commonly held spaces could be turned over to a public body if every owner agreed. In 1881 consent was reduced to two-thirds of the owners and the local authority received permissive power to improve the site

^ Pall Mall Gazette, 14 March 1884 271

on the condition that no buildings were erected. The

Kyrle society worked hard to preserve any land that

had common rights before freeholders converted the

sites into commercial uses. While legislation

provided means to save open spaces, it was not until

1906 that the ICC got parliament to enact the London

Squares and Enclosures Preservation Act. This was a

triumph for the LCC after years of struggle with

conservative interests in the House of Lords. This 22 act, too, was dependent on owners' consent. Most

squares that had been saved were the product of

negotiation and private acts of parliament.

Newspapers, when they finally awakened to the issue,

supported the Council as well as local authorities and

private groups in this quest. The East End News

pointed to the small green spots dotting the city in

1904 as a positive improvement over the past. It

praised the Metropolitan Public Garden Association's work despite the "cold water and good humoured

indifference" on the part of some of the public. When

York Square and Arbour Square were acquired and Beaumont

22 I. G. Gibbon and R. W. Bell, History of the London County Council. 1889-1939 (London, 1939), p. 513. 272

Square was accepted on a long lease the East End News was elated. And it was pleased that there was a movement to preserve Grove Hall as a recreation ground; 23 it was twelve acres.

The vestry of Bethnal Green angered the Eastern

Argus with its policy of inaction and procrastination.

The Metropolitan Public Garden Association offered to lay out Ion Square and the Oval as public gardens if

Bethnal Green accepted responsibility to maintain it.

Bethnal Green rejected this. It also rejected reopening St. Peter's Churchyard. The owners had kept it as an open space for years; the vestry concluded it was an open space for all intents and there was no need to take it over and burden the ratepayers.24

Newspapers also made further favorable comments about the County Council's work. Albert Square, the only open space between Limehouse and the city, received the support of both the East London Advertiser and the East London Observer. The Advertiser condemned

2^East End News, 12 April 1904; 22 Nov. 1904; 24 July l90i. “

24Eastern Argus, 24 Feb. 1894. 273 the owner for his high price, while the Observer wanted the Limehouse District Board to make a substantial contribution toward the price. In the end the Council purchased it and the Observer followed the bill through 25 parliament and arbitration.

The Council was far from united on the question of preserving squares. The Works Committee advised that

Sidney Square and Bedford Square should be saved since neither was suitable for building purposes; so the

Council could just as well rent them at £5 per year and maintain them as parks. Some members of the LCC preferred to sacrifice the squares for housing because the roads in the area were very wide. After the County

Council voted in favor of retaining the land the

Advertiser commended it. The Advertiser*s philosophy seemed to be that no space should be parted with, and it wisely recognized that although the roads were wide the tendency was "to replace small houses in Stepney by model dwellings and thus increase the density of 26 the population, and consequently lower its vitality."

OC ?Eaat London Advertiser, 30 Sept. 1899; East London Observers 23 Sept. 1833; 2 June 1900; 4 May 1901. 26 East London Advertiser, 8 Feb. 1902; 15 Feb. 1902. 274

And finally, when the County Council redeveloped

Brickfield Cardens in Limehouse, the Bast End News thought the £3,670 was well spent: "There will thus he created another of those oasis in the dense

conglomeration of bricks and mortar and humanity of

East London for which we should all feel duly grateful."^

Thus, in this piecemeal fashion, the London County

Council and private groups began to save the last green spots in the East End— as well as metropolitan

London. By 1907 the County Council had added about

54 acres or another 22 open spaces. In accordance with present day standards this was a long way from the post-

World War II comprehensive schemes which plan for parks and open spaces. Nevertheless it was an advance.

Another aspect of uncoordinated public action was

community services like baths, garbage collection, and mortuaries. These were services which individuals

could not provide and as the population of London grew

they became essential. Living in rent the workers

had to accept whatever the landlord provided. As most

laborers' dwellings lacked bath facilities the

^ Bast End News, 21 July 1903 275 difficulty of taking a bath even once a week was enormous for many living in one or two rooms in East

London. Garbage was collected since early in the century. Usually this was done under contract and many times the contractor looked upon it as a profit making salvage operation rather than an essential community service. Finally, mortuaries were needed not only to check on the cause of death but to remove the dead from overcrowded homes and from the streets.

Many working class homes lacked convenient bathing facilities, and the poorer ones even a copper. Land­ lords were not prepared to increase their capital costs by remodeling when it was not mandatory. Consequently, parliament enacted the Bath and Washhouse Act which empowered local authorities to meet the need.

Permissive adoption by vestries or district boards was the inherent weakness. When Mile End Old Town rejected the chance to adopt the act, the East London Advertiser peevishly questioned the appointment of a committee in the first place. It staunchly advocated public baths for the working classes who lacked even a chance to keep themselves moderately clean. The Advertiser concluded that morality and cleanliness went hand-in- hand: "Dirt and general uncleanliness are, perhaps, more responsible than many imagine for vice and 276 pO immo r a l i t y . ” Earlier the East London Advertiser bitterly rebuked the vestry of Bethnal Green for refusing to adopt the act. While "the great unwashing of Bethnal Green will continue to go unwashed," the

Advertiser noted, two churches were supported from the rates without it being considered extravagant; and it charged that cleanliness, which was next to godliness, 29 was neglected. The Eastern Argus, on the other hand, was against adopting the public bath act because it would increase the rates, and because laborers viewed cleanliness as an extravagance; moreover, the Argus disparagingly envisioned any bath erected as an imposing edifice "such as would have delighted the eyes of a Cleopatra." Bethnal Green vestrymen cherished this view. They doubted that workers who needed the baths would use them and considered that the rates were too high. Even a deputation of workmen pleading for the adoption of the act brought no change.

Eventually the act was adopted. In 1898 Bethnal Green vestrymen debated two bath proposals and enacted only one due to limited funds. The Eastern Argus's comment

2ft East London Advertiser, 22 Feb. 1896.

29Ibid., 1 July 1893. was one of doubt; it questioned whether the people would appreciate the hath and whether it would become self-supporting. After borough councils replaced vestries, some enlightened Bethnal Green councillors complained that bath house hours were inconvenient for laborers and many did not even know of its existence.

This was quickly remedied: evening and weekend hours were extended to accommodate laborers. An interesting insight into vestrymen's minds is gotten from the fact that the bath house had first and second class baths.

One would not have thought that class distinction was necessary in a working class district, especially as the first class baths were underused.

Garbage collection, or dust collection as it is known in England, was more vital to the community.

Vestries and district boards were delegated responsi­ bility in this area. A few established dust collection divisions; most, however, contracted the work. Contractors hauled refuse down to sidings along the canals or river where an army of dust pickers— usually children and women— sifted it for salvageable

^Eastern Argus, 6 July 1895; 17 June 1893; 6 Jan. 1894; 8 Jan. 1898; 30 March 1901; 6 April 1901; 4 Jan. 1902; 16 July 1904. material. Bethnal Green, a vestry which contracted this work, discovered in the 1890s that dustmen failed to fulfill the terms of their contract. When dustmen skipped a number of streets, the vestry in November 1891 fined the company £10 in spite of the excuse that bad weather and illness of its foreman were the causes. In

1892 the contractor was fined £27. Some vestrymen wanted the fine to be £1 for every house missed; they concluded that such fines would quickly add up to

£1,000 per year. This irresponsibility by private enterprise became an issue in the vestry when fines failed to improve service. Some representatives wanted the vestry to collect refuse by direct labor and pointed to neighboring Shoreditch as an example. When the issue was put into abeyance the Eastern Argus, very pleased with itself, said: "If Bethnal Green were an outlying town, with heaps of room for disposal of refuse, or the erection of a dust destructor it might be policy to undertake the work, but as it is not, experience teaches us to allow the question to remain in status quo." The vestry thus bequeathed to the borough council a very poor collection service. The

Bethnal Green council, more responsive and responsible than the vestry, introduced dust collection by direct 279 labor in 1901. The refuse was hauled to a dock site, 31 loaded on barges and shipped out.

Mortuaries were needed to remove the dead from the streets. This is not as crass as it sounds. A number of Londoners were homeless; they slept in doorways or in parks or on the Embankment. When a cold spell came they easily froze to death. They had to be removed somewhere until burial. In addition, many working class families practiced the upper class custom of putting the dead body on display in the parlor. In a laborer's home this usually had many ramifications which were unhealthy. If a family lived in one or two rooms this added to the overcrowding. If a person died of illness or disease the body was dangerous to the health of the family. Moreover, the psychological effect on children was not measurable, but is self- evident. One enterprising gentleman tried to help the Public Health and Housing Committee overcome the shortage of morgues in a simple manner. His company,

Eastern Argus, 28 Nov. 1891; 18 June 1892; 30 July 1892; 3 March 1900; 15 June 1901. An incidental sidelight on how refuse was disposed of. Some author­ ities dumped and burned it, others towed it out to sea; a few, however, had incinerators which converted the refuse into steam which in turn generated electricity. LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1893-94, A3, The British Steam Generator and Refuse Utilisation Co., 16 Oct. 1894. 280

"The Preservation Syndicate, Ltd.," offered the LCC

"The Sahlstrom Caring and Pickling Apparatus," which was "specially designed for Bacon and Ham Carers and

Picklers of Meat." He suggested that this apparatus, with minor modifications, could he used as an inexpensive

"means to preserve bodies for identification. The 32 existing methods being both expensive and inadequate."^

Needless to say, his proposal was relegated to the archives and morgues were constructed.

The last category of modern planning is community services. Schools, hospitals, and community settlements are essential foundation stones for a neighborhood.

During most of this period elementary education was administered by an independent public authority.

Hospitals were provided by voluntary effort and by poor law guardians. Settlement houses, which supple­ mented churches as community centers, appeared in the last two decades of the 19th century and were dependent on voluntary effort. In the main, there was little or no coordination between the LCC and the various agencies.

The London County Council cooperated with the

32LCC, PHHC, Papers, 1889-92, E10, Capt. George Hallett, The Preservation Syndicate, Ltd., 25 July 1892. 281

London School Board to help the Board plan for elementary schools. It informed the Board of the numbers it planned to rehouse and in this way the

School Board could plan its primary school requirements.

In the Boundary Street estate the Council permitted the two schools to remain and rebuilt around them. After the London school system was taken over by the LCC in

1902 there was possibility for greater coordination, but there were no new clearances in central London.

Hospitals, although vital to the community, were not given due recognition in planning. Mildmay

Hospital, for example, was located originally in the proposed Boundary Street clearance. The site was purchased compulsorily and the hospital was not given any assistance to relocate. Eventually it rebuilt just a few blocks north of the site and is still a going concern today. There also were hospitals which were operated by poor law boards. Whitechapel located its

St. Andrew's hospital in the northeast corner of Poplar.

Mildmay had located in Bethnal Green to carry on charitable work among the poor, but the poor law guardians went out into the country where the land was cheap, the air fresh, and far removed from the local inhabitants. 282

Finally, settlement houses or community centers aimed to create mutual acquaintances and to influence the lives of local residents through a personal touch.

These organizations tried to improve working class standards through religion, education, and recreation.

They provided clubs for children, young people, and adults. They were also centers for social work. The philosophy behind the settlements was that the upper classes had an obligation to the lower orders. In order to effectively help, slummers had to live among the workers and observe local conditions. Usually, this was for but a short period. The first settlement

in England was Toynbee Hall. It was founded in 1884

in Whitechapel. Shortly afterwards Oxford House was

established. By 1914 there were ten settlement houses in East London; most were definitely religious; some worked strictly among men, women, boys, or girls; 33 others were mixed.

There was a casual attempt by a settlement and the LCC to work together. The Cheltenham Ladies

College of Oxford formed St. Hilda’s East in 1889 in

Old Nichol Street, Bethnal Green. It was religious and

33 "^Werner Picht, Toynbee Hall and the English Settlement Movement (London, 1914), pp. 1, 216-37. basically devoted to girls. When the Boundary Street area was cleared it was forced to find new quarters.

It wanted to remain in the district. The settlement committee failed to find a suitable piece of property to rent. So it petitioned the LCC to retain the corner site of Boundary St. and Old Nichol St. for a coffee house. At first, it seemed, the LCC thought the ladies desired to operate the coffee house as part of their social work. However, the ladies of St. Hilda's East did not plan to run the establishment; instead they wanted the housing above the coffee house reserved for a place to live. They lacked the funds to purchase the freehold but were willing to pay a good rent. The

LCC's housing committee was willing to cooperate if it had legal power to erect a coffee house on land reserved for commercial purposes and to be auctioned.

The committee delayed a final decision; the Corporate

Property Committee preferred to keep the site on the auction list yet it was willing to recommend private negotiation with Canon Barnett, who, according to rumor, 284 was interested. Unfortunately, nothing further 34 occurred. While the Council was willing to cooperate with settlements on a commercial basis, it did not do much itself. In the Boundary Street estate two club rooms were provided in the central laundry building. However, the club had to be organized and run by residents over fifteen years of age. Not even outside groups could 35 rent the halls. The Boundary Street activities were more than the ICC attempted in other housing estates in East London. Even the East End Dwelling Co. did more than the Council. Its lady collectors ran annual window gardening contests. The company leased rooms to

Rev. Barnett in the Lolesworth Building for a men’s club and for a mothers’ club. It was also willing to let the clergy of Christ’s Church and St. Jude's use the club rooms when vacant at 2s a meeting including

■^Picht, Toynbee Hall, p. 232; LCC, HWCC, Papers, 1897-98, no. 1,' ICC valuer, 20 Jan. 1897; LCC, HWc'fl, Minutes, I (20 Jan. 1897), 271; LCC, HWCC, Papers, 1897-98, no. 1, Cheltenham Ladies College of Oxford Settlement Committee, 24 Jan. 1897; LCC, HWCC, Minutes, I (2? Jan. 1897), 286; LCC, HWCC, Papers, 1897-Wi no. 1, LCC clerk, 1 Feb. 1897.

35LCC, HWCC, Papers. 1897-98, no. 1, LCC valuer, 27 Jan. 1897. 285 gas and cleaning. Mr. Aitken of St. Jude's rented the clubroom for Sundays, Thursdays, and Saturdays at 5s per week. In the Mansford St. block the East End

Dwelling Co. under the lady collector’s guidance provided a library. The company, however, turned down

Oxford House’s request for an auxiliary ladies settle­ ment house in the Victoria Park Square site on grounds O g that the plans had already been approved by the LCC.

True, there was no rational approach to planning settlement houses, but this was a beginning to meet local needs. The London County Council could not have provided all these services in its early years let alone have tried to coordinate them. The cry of socialism would have been louder and residents would have resented the rates. The Council was able to improve streets or rationalize tram transport by acquiring control. It was able to lobby for better train service for workmen, to help save squares and open spaces by buying them, renting them, or accepting maintenance after the

Kyrle Society or Metropolitan Carden Association

•^East End Dwelling Co., Minutes, II (21 March 1892), 241; I (7 March 1887), 14?; t (2 May 1887), 151-52; I (23 May 1887), 154; II (6 Jan. 1890), 53-54; II (20 Jan. 1890), 57; IV (25 April 1898), 175; V (28 May 1900), 42. 286 preserved them. Other services were definitely out of its scope and within that of the vestries. But most important, the concept of collective responsibility and planning was beginning to emerge as Londoners faced their urban crisis.

Environmental planning in these years referred to the narrow area of housing and slum clearance. Only as other aspects of urban life emerged as politically essential were they integrated into the concept.

Nevertheless, the LCC, in its first sixteen years under Progressive leadership, tried to meet its obligations to the working classes. And simultaneously, it nudged the local authorities to be more responsible and responsive to working class needs. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

A, Official Documents

1. Parliamentary Papers

Fourth Annual Report of the Poor Law Commissioners. PP. 1837-38 Ll47], XXVIII, App.A.

Fifth Annual Report of the Poor Law CommissionersJ PP. 18^9 (239), XX, App. O S .

Report from the Select Committee on Artizans1 and Labourers * Swellings Improvements. PP~ 188l (358), Vll.

Report from the Select Committee on Artizans and Labourers' Dwellings Improvement A c t s v 'pp'.'im 1232), v i i .----- Report of the Royal Commission on the Housing of tne Working Classes. PP. '44o2'J7"mc‘.------

Minutes of the Hoyal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes. PP. 1884-85" I'C'4402-177 tBT.------Report by D. Cubitt Nichols, esq. on the Sanitary Condition of the hamlet of Mile' End 0ia_7Pown." PP.' 1 8 8 F T C ” T7 T 4 1. TNT.------Condition of the Working Classes: Tabulation of statements made by men living in certain selected districts in London' in' larch 188T.— PP. 1887 [0 Y128] e x x t :------288

Report of an inquiry held by Messrs, D . Cubitt~Nichols and Shirley Murphy, as to the immediate sanitary requirements of the parish of St. Matthew, Bethnal Green. pp. 18B8" rc~ §457]/ 'H m . ------Report from the Joint Select Committee of the House of Lords and the House of Commons on Housing of the Working Classes. PP. 1'9'02 T32BTTTT------

Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration. PP. 1904 Led 217 5 T fid '2210, S'"G'd 2186], XXXII.

Minutes of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Physical deterioration. R P . 1964 LCd 2210J, XXXll.

Report of the Royal Commission on London transport, EP."19&5 LG'd 2597],' BBt; Evidence of the Royal Commission on London tranBPofF.’"'PP. I90~5"TTiA 2 7 5 1 7 . TL.--- Cost of Living of the Working Classes. Report' of An Enquiry by xhe Board of Trade into Working Class Rents, housing and Retail Prices together with the Standard Rates of Wa^es prevailing in certain occupations in the Principal Industrial Towns of the U.K. PP. 1908 t o t w m t , ' < m r . ------

Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws and Relief of Distress. PP. 1909 L(3d 44yyj, m m . — ------Ibid., (Appenadix) Vol. XIII, Diocesan Reports on the Methods of Administering Chari- table Assistance and the'ex-benx and intensity of Poverty in England and Wales'." P i . IffiffTCd 4850]7 Xhll. Reuort of the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws and Relief of Distress* (Appendix) Vol. %Yl. Reporis on the Relation of Industrial and Sanitary Conditions to Pauperism, "by Mr. Steel-Maitland and Miss R. 2. Squire. I1?, 1369 L'Cd 4'65'3L XLIII.

Ibid., (Appendix) Vol. XVII. Reports on the effect of Outdoor Relief on Wages, and1 the Conditions of Employment, by MrI Thomas Jones and Miss Williams. P3?. 1909 ICd 4690J, XLllI.

Census of England and Wales. Decennially 1861-1911. Parliamentary Debates

Third, Fourth, and Fifth series.

Acts of Parliament

Public Record Office

HLG 1/14 pt. 1. 1/14 pt. 2.

1/17 1/18

HO 45/10198/B31375. Housing of the Working Classes, London, 190%.

Metropolitan Board of Works

Annual Report, 1888, pp. 44-48.

London County Council

Minutes of Proceedings, 1889-1914.

Housing of the Working Classes Committee. Minutes, 1889-91.

Public Health and Housing Committee. Minutes, 1891-96. The Housing of the Working Classes Committee. Minutes of Proceedings, 1896-1909. Public Health and Housing Committee. Papers, 1889-96.

Housing of the Working Classes Committee. Papers, 1896-1908.

[The Papers are designated as "Bundles” from 1889 through 1900. Prom 1901 through 1906 they are designated as "Cases." And from 1907 on as "Volumes" and subdivided as "Items." The material in "Bundles" and "Cases" is collected topically; from 1907 the papers were bound as they appeared as an item of business.]

Housing of the Working Classes Committee. The Northeast Subcommittee. Minutes, 1890-92. “

Public Health and Housing Committee. Housing Subcommittee, Minutes, 1893-96.

Public Health Committee. Minutes of Proceedings, 1903-05.

Public Health Committee. Papers. Vol. XXV, 1904. Local Authorities: Vestries and Borough Councils

The Parish of St. Matthew, Bethnal Green

Annual Report of the Vestry for the Year — x s 9 2 '( - m .------

Chief Inspector's Report on the Work of the Sanitary Department for the Year ending' JT'Tec. I89T(-98TI------

Report of the Sanitary Condition and Vital Statistics of the Parish of St. Matthew during the Year 1891(-98J. 291

Mile End Old Town Medical Officer of Health. Annual Report, 1890-1900.

Board of Works for the Poplar District

Report, 1887-1900.

Report on the Sanitary Condition of the Bow District, 18^4(-97). Report on the Sanitary Condition of the Parishes of toplar and Bromley, I894(-19 o OT:

Account in Abstract of Receipts and Expenditure for the Year ending 25th March 1892. . .and Reports by the Medical Officers of Health. . I m > y r = S 5T. ------

Vestry of St. George in the East

Annual Report of the Vestry of the Parish of Si. George in the East, ~188'7 (-isobi:— ------

Borough of Bethnal Green - Council

Minutes of Proceedings for 1900(-1907).

Report of the Proceedings for the year ended 31st March 19021-08

Report on the Sanitary Condition and Vital Statistics of Bethnal Green, during the Year l90b(-l3).

Borough of Poplar - Council

Annual Report. . .on the Sanitary Condition of Poplar for the Year T9STT-UBT:------Annual Report for the Year 1900(-08).

Minutes, 1900(-08). 292

Borough of Stepney - Council

Annual Report. . .year ended the 31st March 1961(-Ooj.------

Minutes of Proceedings. 1900(-07).

8. Miscellaneous

The Sanitary Condition of Bethnal Green. Verbatim Report of the Government Inquiry, 1887. [In the Tower Hamlets Library.]

B. Manuscript, Correspondence, Diaries, and Corporate Records.

1. East End Dwelling Co. [Today the Charlwood Alliance Co.]

Annual Reports, 1884(-1914).

Minutes of the Forming Committee, 1882-84.

Minutes, 1884(-1914).

2. Webb, Beatrice. Diary. Passfield Papers. London School of Economics.

3. The Charles Booth Papers. London School of Economics.

C. Newspapers and Journals

The Builder

The Contemporary Review

The East End News

The Eastern Argus

The East London Advertiser

The East London Observer

The Edinburgh Review 293

The Fortnightly Review

Journal of the Royal Statistical Society

The National Review

The Nineteenth Century

The Pall Mall Gazette

The Quarterly Review

The Times

D. Contemporary Works

Booth, Charles. Condition and Occupations of the People of the tower Hamlins, lbo6-87. London: Bari Stanford, 1857.

______. Life and Labour of the People of London. 17 vols. London: Macmillan, 1902-03. Bosanquet, Helen. Social Work in London, 1869- 1912: A History of the Charity Organisation Society*! London: J . Murray, 1914-7

The Strength of the People, A Study in Social Economics. London: Macmillan, T g u n ------

Camberwell Borough Council. The Official Guide to the Metropolitan Borough of Camberwell. Written by Frederick feinghaml Londons T5. J. Burrow, 1919. Dewsnup, E. R. The Housing Problem in England. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1907. Pabian Tracts

71. The (London) Tenant’s Sanitary Catechism. (Miss Grove), 1896.

76. Houses for the People. (Arthur Hickmott) 1697. 294

101. The House Famine and How to Relieve it. Various authors. lQo'O.

103. Overcrowding in London and its Remedy. W. C. Steadman, M P ., 1900.

Fletcher, Banister. London Building Act, 1^94. 3rd ed., Revised "by B. R. Fletcher and ft. P. Fletcher. London: B. T. Batsford, 1901.

HilJL. Octavia. Extracts from Octavia Hill’s ''Letters to ffellow-Workers.11 1864-1911." Compiled by E. S. Ouvry. London: Xdelphi Book Shop, 1933* Howarth, E. G. and Wilson, M. West Ham: A Study in Social and Industrial Problems. London: J. M. lent, 196?.

Jephson, Henry. The Sanitary Evolution of London. London: T. Eisher Unwin, 1907.

Liberty and Property Defence League. Land. London: Central Offices of the League, 1885.

London County Council. History of London Street Improvements. 1885-1897. By Percy J . Edwards. Westminster: P. S. King, 1898.

______. Housing After the War. London, 1918.

Housing: Being One of a Series of ' Popular Handbooks on the LCC and What it does for London. London: Univ. of London Press, 1924• Housing of the Working Classes; Report by the Statistical Officer torhe Housing of the Working Class Committee'"on the Present Aspects ox the Housing Question in London. London, 1908.

______. Housing of the Working Classes. Tables Showing the Amount of"Accommodation, Rents Charged and Received, Number and Occupation of Tenanls, and other particulars Relating to the Council’s dwellings, for Year enaed 31st March 1916. 295

. Ho us ing o f the Working Classes in London, 1889-1912. London: P. S. King, m y : ------The Housing Question in London, 1855-1900, Prepared by C. J. Stewart. London: £. S, King, 1901.

International Congress on the Housing of the Working Classes Held at Brussels in July 189V; Held at Haris in June 190b. . London Housing. London: P. S. King,

. London Statistics, 1890-91 to 1907-08.

. New Labouring Class Accommodation, i m . ------. Working Class Dwellings and Lodging Houses Accounts, 1st April, 1903 to 31 March, 1904.

Working Class Dwelling Statistics for W y e a r 19ljpL92ff:------

The Mansion House Council on Health and Housing. The Present Situation in London. London: n.n., 1954.

The Mansion House Council on the Dwellings of the Poor. Present Situation of Housing in and Around London. London: n.n., l90o.

______. Reports, 1885-1898.

Mearns, Rev. Andrew. The Bitter Cry of Outcast London. London: dames Clark, 1883.

Parsons, James. Housing by Voluntary Enterprise. London: P. S. King7 19o!3.

Picht, Werner. Toynbee Hall and the English Settlement Movement. London": G. Bell, 1914.

Simon, John. English Sanitary Institutions. London: Cassel, 1890. 296

Thompson, William. Housing Handbook. London: National Housing Reform Council, 1907.

. Housing Up-to-Date. London: National H ousing Reform C ou n cil, 1907.

Williams, Robert. The Face of the Poor. Or the Crowding of London’s Labourers. London: W. Reeves, 1897. London Rookeries and Collier Slums. London: W. Reeves, 1893. More Light and Air for Londoners. London: W. Reeves, 1&94.

II. Secondary Sources

A. Books and Articles

Ashworth, William. An Economic History of England, 1870-19'3$T London: Methuen, I960.

. Genesis of Modem British Town Planning! London: Rouiledge and Kegan Pi'ulT"I§54. Barker, T. C. and Robbins, Michael. A History of London Transport. Vol. I. The Nineteenth Century*! London: Allen and D'nwin, 1963.

Bowley, M. Housing and the State. 1919-1944. London: G. Allen and Unwin, 1945.

Brebner, J. Bartlet. "Laissez Faire and State Intervention in Nineteenth Century Britain," Journal of Economic History, VIII (1948), supplement, 55-73.

Briggs, Asa. History of Birmingham. Vol. II. Borough and City, lb6$-193al London: Oxford llniversity Press, 1952.

Finer, S. E. The Life and Times of Sir Edwin Chadwick. London: Methuen, 1^52 „

Forshaw, J. H. and Abercrombie, L. P. County of London Plan. London: Macmillan, 1945. 297

Gans, Herbert. Urban Villagers. New Yorks Free Press of Glencoe, ±962.

Gartner, Lloyd P. The Jewish Immigrant in England, 1870-1914. London: George Allen and Unwin, I960.

Gibbon, I. G. and Bell, R. W. History of the London County Council, 1889-1939. London: Macmillan, 1935.

Gibbon, A. V. B. "Huguenot Weavers' Houses in Spitalfields," East London Papers, I (1958), 3-14. Gutchen, Robert M. "Local Improvements and Centralizations in Nineteenth-Century England," The Historical Journal, IV (1961), 8r-96.

Hall, Peter. London, 2,000. London: Faber and Faber, 1963! Lewis, J. Parry. Building Cycles and Britain's Growth. London! Macmillan, 1965.

Lipman, V. D. A Century of Social Services, 1859-1959: The Jewish Board of Guardians. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 195?.

Social History of the Jews in England, 185(5-1950". London: Watts, 19134-. Lynd, Helen. England in the Eighteen-Eighties. London: Oxford University Press, l9?5.

MacBriar, A. M. Fabian Socialism and English Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University tress, 1962.

MacDonagh, Oliver. "The Nineteenth-Century Revolution in Government: A Reappraisal," The Historical Journal, I (1958), 52-67.

Morris, Sir Parker. Homes for Today and Tomorrow. London! Her Majesty's Stationery Office',” 19 61. 298

Mowat, Charles Loch. The Charity Organisation Society: 1869-1913: Its ideas and Work. London: Methuen, 1961.

Olsen, Donald. Town Planning in London. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964.

Owen, David. English Philanthropy, 1660-1960. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Universi-fcy Press, 1964. Parris, Henry. "The Nineteenth-Century Revolution in Government: A Reappraisal Reappraised," The Historical Journal, III (I960), 17-37. Peacock, Alan T. and Wiseman, Jack. The Growth of Public Expenditure in the United Kingdom. 2nd ed. revised. London: George Allen and Unwin, Ltd., 1967.

Russell, C. and Lewis, H. S. The Jew in London. London: T. Pisher Unwin, I960.

Smailes, A. E. and Simpson, Gillian. "The Changing Pace of East London," East London Papers, I (1958), 31-46.

Smith, Sir H. Llewellyn and Marsh, L. C. "House Rents and Overcrowding," The New Survey of London Life and Labour. Vol. I.: Forty Years of Change. London: P . '6. n n g r r a o : ------Survey of London. Edited by C. R. Ashbee, et al.

Vol. 1. The Parish of Bromley-bv-Bow. London: The Harleian Society, 1360.

Vol. 27. Spitalfields and Mile End New Town. London: Oxford tfniversi-fcy Press, 1957.

Tara, John Nelson. "The Peabody Donation Fund: The Role of a Housing Society in the Nineteenth Century," Victorian Studies, X (1966), 7-38. 299

Thompson, Paul. Socialists, Liberals and Labour; The Struggle for London. 1&85-1914. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1967.

Young, Michael and Willmott, Peter. Family and Kinship in East London. Baltimore! Penguin Book's, 1 W . ------

B. Unpublished Hole, Winifred Vere. The Housing of the Working Classes in Britain, 1850-1914. Ph.D. dissertation, University of iondon, 1965.

Tarn, John Kelson. Housing in Urban Areas, 1840-1914. Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge University, 1961.

Wohl, Anthony S . The Ho us ing of the Art i s ans and Laborers in Nineteenth Oentury Iondon, 1815-1914-. Ph .!>. diss ertation, Brown University, 1966. h C STAMFORD'S MAP OP T H ? E COUNTY < !.i';a.j*

\ V\VI!V C t

$ IChtikS

3

r a t M S g S

M

ft‘Jrmp! &£ iTTff^V ■? Crownd

MHJ a/n

S ^ S S S

S M f i W r # ^ m s a

•mM m L i m .iffp-

m m m m m m s m *«w

«

^ r ^ “!7 r ^ ;ill,^ ,:r I n v • ■ ill V WJ IL, 0> HI B> 0) Ml O O C K.G

W tV a ili* \ n if ',X\ '',> . “'V COUNTY OF LONDON ^ 1 iqlli i 4 incuxs i o n ...... c V M M IN . . . '. '■ . «**■ . ‘-’'.y , mtl[W.. u i . l » l l I tA T U T K. > 1J . ( N U I .U I I u T A T U T K m i u , * tw i . uw w» T*am TT au L-uaiM i 'I