for the office. Whether a competent or incompetent Commissioner is appointed seems to be a mere chance. We may at one time have a man like Sir Benjamin Hall, the most efficient First Commissioner on record, who ruled at the time of the old Foreign Offices competition, more than half a century ago, and who (to judge from the contemporary reports in an architectural periodical) thoroughly understood his business; we may at another time have such a typical Philistine as the First Commissioner who heralded his reign by the announcement that he intended to keep architects, market'gardeners, and other such persons, in their proper places.' There can be no continuity under such a system. What in the name of common sense have architectural improvements to do with party politics? The office of First Commissioner of Works ought to be a permanent one, independent of any change of government, and filled by some eminent man selected for his special knowledge and ability in dealing with architectural schemes. Then we might hope to see some good from it.

Among London improvements, besides those already referred to, which seem only waiting to be attended to, may be mentioned the formation of a boulevard and embankment on the south side of the Thames, from Westminster to Blackfriars, and the re-modelling of the National Gallery and Trafalgar Square into something worthy of their position. It is, alas ! late in the day to start on the architectural improvement of London; many great and irreparable mistakes have already been made; but, in the words of Tennyson's 'Ulysses':

'Something ere the end,

Some work of noble note, may yet be done';

mistakes in the future may at least be avoided, and perhaps something may be accomplished towards raising this great city to an architectural dignity worthy of its vast scale and its historic importance.

H. HEATHCOTE STATHAM.

THE URBAN HOUSING PROBLEM

I. Practical Housing. By J. S. NETTLEFOLD. Garden City Press. 1908; and T. Fisher Unwin. 1910.

2. A Housing Policy. By J. S. NETTLEFOLD.

Cornish Bros. 1905.

Birmingham:

3. Model Bye-laws. By W. MACKENZIE and P. HANDFORD. Butterworth and Co. 1899 and 1904.

4. Town Planning in Practice. By RAYMOND UNWIN. T. Fisher Unwin.

1909.

5. The Housing Question in London.

1900.

London County Council.

6. The Housing of the Working Classes. London County Council. 1913.

AT

T the present time the housing question is receiving from social workers and politicians more attention than perhaps any other domestic problem. Both the great political parties place some measures of housing reform in the forefront of their programmes, and proposals for an improvement in the living conditions of the masses form the stockin-trade of practically all candidates at public elections. It was said some time ago that the problem of the last genera'tion was to provide gas and water; the problem of the next 'is to provide light and air,' and this prophecy has proved itself to be true.

At first sight, this universal political enthusiasm for housing reform seems highly encouraging. Housing conditions generally are defective, and frequently disgraceful; but it is impossible to forget that when politicians are in a hurry they are apt to do more harm than good. Under a democratic system of government a legislative proposal has to be attractive; whether it is economically sound is a question that is all too frequently forgotten in the rivalry of political warfare.

The housing question falls naturally into two divisions, urban and rural. The problem in the country is distinct from the problem of the town, though, of course, to a certain extent the same principles apply to both. In this article it is proposed to deal solely with the urban side of the question.

It is only during the last sixty years that Parliament has concerned itself, to any material extent, with the housing question. Until 1888 there was, it is true, a law upon the statute book, passed so long ago as 1593, which was probably the earliest on the subject. This Act (35 Elizabeth c. 6) was prompted by alarm at the growth of London, and prescribed the drastic remedy that no new houses should be erected in either London or Westminster. But, though the Act of 1593 remained unrepealed for nearly three centuries, it was obsolete very soon after it was passed and Parliament does not seem at the time to have made any further attempt to deal with the matter. It was not until the downfall of the 'laissez 'faire' theories, propagated by the Radical Individualist or Benthamite school, that the legislature again devoted serious attention to housing conditions. The first Housing Acts were the sequel to the early Factory Acts, which had shown the strength of the Tory Socialist movement, and it was to Lord Shaftesbury, the apostle of government interference,' that the first legislative attempts to improve housing conditions were due. In 1851 Parliament passed two bills, introduced by this zealous humanitarian, but neither Parliament nor the Conservative party understood the real magnitude of the innovation. The Common Lodging Houses Act provided for the registration and inspection of all working-class lodging houses. The Labouring Classes Lodging Houses Act gave powers to local authorities to erect lodging houses out of public funds. It is important in view of subsequent developments to observe the different principles embodied in these two Acts. The first of the two aimed at the improvement of housing conditions by the State regulation of private property; the second was an early attempt to introduce the policy now known as 'municipal trading.'

Meanwhile in 1848 Parliament had passed the first Public Health Act, well described as 'the foundation stone of our 'national sanitary legislation.' This Act established local authorities with numerous powers, many of which closely concerned housing conditions-as, for instance, the construction of sewers and drains, the removal of nuisances, etc. It is a great but a common mistake to look only to Housing Acts for legislation upon the housing question. As will be shown later, what ought to be considered the principal function of

VOL. CCXVIII. NO. CCCCXLVI.

2 D

our local authorities relating to housing, the making and enforcement of by-laws, is derived from the Public Health Act of 1875, which repealed and re-enacted the Act of 1848 and twenty-nine of its amending Acts.

Amid the mass of housing legislation passed after this period, two sets of Acts must be mentioned, because they authorise two distinct methods of dealing with the urban housing problem. In 1868 and 1879 were passed what are known as the Torrens Acts. These, in the words of the Royal Commission of 1884, established the principle that the responsibility of maintaining his houses in proper condition 'falls upon the owner and that, if he fails in his duty, the 'law is justified in stepping in and compelling him to perform 'it.' In 1875-1879 came the Cross Acts, which enabled local authorities to buy up and reconstruct slum areas. The distinction between the policies of these two sets of Acts is exactly the same as the distinction between the two Lodging Houses Acts of 1851 just referred to. The Torrens Acts were based upon the principle that owners of property are responsible for its condition, and that it is the function of the State to enforce this responsibility; by the Cross Acts the public authorities were armed with compulsory powers of purchase, and encouraged to indulge in municipal trading in houses. The Cross Acts have now become Part I. and the Torrens Acts Part II. of the Housing Act of 1890. Part III. of this Act further extended the principle of municipal trading by giving to local authorities the power to provide working class' dwellings wherever they thought fit to do so. It is under this third part of the Act of 1890 that the London County Council has built workmen's dwellings in outlying suburbs of the metropolis.

That the making of reasonable regulations for building, the suppression of nuisances, and the inspection of densely populated property are proper and essential functions of Government few can deny. Wherever human beings are crowded together, some control must be exercised over the operations of individuals. But this regulative work, which is the proper task of public authorities, is almost universally neglected or badly done when Government, instead of remaining the -regulator of unwise enterprise, becomes itself an entrepreneur. In the early days of housing legislation the difference between

these two policies was never fully appreciated by Parliament. It was, however, keenly felt by the much-abused Metropolitan Board of Works, the predecessor of the London County Council. The members of this Board, not being elected by popular vote, were under no temptation to sacrifice principle to the exigencies of political warfare. Proceeding upon the maxim laid down by Mr. Gladstone that it is the duty of the Government 'to govern and not to trade,' the Board commented severely upon the dangerous policy of the Cross Acts, and recorded its opinion that to impose upon a municipal authority the obligation of buying up slum property at enormous cost was 'an injustice to the ratepayers and an 'encouragement to owners of houses occupied by poor people 'to allow them to fall into a dirty and dilapidated condition.’ This protest was unheeded, and under political and bureaucratic pressure the policy of municipal trading in houses has been widely adopted. Meanwhile the duty of making proper regulations for the control of private enterprise has been to a large extent neglected. Mr. J. S. Nettlefold, who for many years was chairman of the Birmingham Housing Committee, writes: Those who want local authorities to devote their 'attention to the provision of housing accommodation do not 'realise that this results in neglecting their primary duty of supervision.' While local authorities have been erecting model dwellings for the few, jerry-builders have been making unhealthy homes for the many.

It is impossible to visit any poor urban district in which the houses have been erected during the last twenty or thirty years without being struck by the abject failure of the local authorities to secure a decent housing standard. They have been so busy with their own building schemes that they have not had time to prepare intelligent by-laws to regulate the action of the private builder and estate developer. The present bylaws are both excessive and incomplete. They concern themselves so largely with details that they are frequently oppressive and obstructive; yet they entirely fail to deal with many important matters where a satisfactory result can only be obtained through the regulating powers of local authorities. For instance, clause 6 (1) of the Model By-laws prepared by the Local Government Board prescribes that every person 'who shall lay out a new street which shall be intended for