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