or have them under consideration. The duty of the community to put an end to these horrible slum conditions is becoming more and more recognised.

In this connexion two observations may be made. In the first place, whatever may be thought of the wisdom or unwisdom of local authorities undertaking the provision of new accommodation in competition with private enterprise, it is certain that only local authorities armed with compulsory powers can clear slums. There are endless interests involved in every insanitary area, lessees and sub-lessees, etc., innumerable, and the ground landlord has in most cases parted with all control over his property. These interests have to be extinguished by compulsion before any clearance can be effected. In one known instance a ground landlord arranged with the L.C.C. to declare an area on his property insanitary, as it undoubtedly was, and to use their compulsory powers, he bearing the entire cost of the clearance scheme. This was the Nightingale Street Scheme on the Portman Estate.

The other observation is that it has long been my opinion that, having regard to the national importance of removing slums, and the heavy cost which clearances always involve, the State ought to make a contribution towards the expense of the schemes, instead of allowing the whole of it to fall on the local ratepayers. This was proposed as long ago as 1912 in the Housing bill brought forward in that year, and in 1913 and 1914, by members of the Unionist Social Reform Committee, which, however, was rejected by the Liberal Government of the day. In 1919 Dr Addison adopted this principle, and by the Housing and Town Planning Act of that year the State undertook to pay the entire net cost of housing operations, including slum clearances, over and above the proceeds of a 1d. rate. The effect of this, however, was to impose an enormous and unlimited liability on the State, and the present plan, which will be carried out by the provisions of the new Bill now before Parliament, is that the State should make a contribution not exceeding one half of the net cost.

It may be asked why these schemes involved so much cost. The answer is that excessive compensation used to be paid to slum owners. The local authority had to

purchase the land and buildings and to pay for the site the whole market value, i.e. what it would fetch if it could be put to the most profitable use after it was cleared. Many insanitary areas are situated in the centre of towns where the commercial value of the land is great; but most of it cannot be used for commercial purposes but only for rehousing in accordance with the terms of the Act, and the difference between the market value and the housing value represented a heavy loss to the ratepayers. This is all changed now, and by the terms of the Act of 1919 the owners receive no compensation for the buildings, but only for the value of the cleared site, which is reduced to housing value in the case of that part of it used for rehousing. It is a question, indeed, whether these terms are not too hard on the owners, since there are cases where the houses themselves are in good condition, and the only fault is that owing to the original bad planning they are situated in a congested area. It is feared that some local authorities may refuse to act in order to avoid employing so hard a code. On the other hand, there is likely to be a great inducement to owners to put their property in good order so as to escape being expropriated on such terms. The result in any case will be that so far from losing money by the acquisition of slum property local authorities may even make a profit. If, however, this source of loss has disappeared, a new source has arisen in the shape of the excessive cost of building. The rehousing, after the land had been written down to housing value, used to pay its way. This is no longer possible, and will not be possible until building costs are substantially reduced. It is anticipated that this loss on rehousing will be greater than the saving effected on the cost of acquisition, the L.C.C. estimating it at not less than 75l. per person displaced. It is clear that under such conditions local authorities cannot be expected to undertake clearance schemes without State aid.

There is one further point which is of great importance. Miss Octavia Hill was undoubtedly right in insisting that the poor slum dwellers must be taught cleanliness and decency of living and to appreciate better housing conditions. There are, unhappily, people

who would make slums of any dwellings, simply in consequence of their inability to understand anything better than the horrible conditions under which they had been brought up. This of course is a matter which goes far beyond Parliamentary enactment or the activities of local authorities, which at the most can only lay down the conditions under which improvement is possible. It must be effected by education and by awakening a greater sense of physical and moral wellbeing among the people generally.

As has been stated, however, the most acute housing question at the moment is not slum clearance but the shortage of houses. This shortage is a new phenomenon, having been unknown before 1910. Indeed, up to that year many towns, especially London, were periodically overbuilt. The Census returns show that in England and Wales there were 448,932 empty houses in 1901. As late as 1911 there were 408,652. In 1909, however, the land clauses of the celebrated People's Budget' dealt a blow at the housing of the people from which it has never recovered. It must be remembered that at least 97 per cent. of the houses built up to that time had been provided by private enterprise, the small balance of about 3 per cent. being the contribution of local authorities. The smallest type of houses were usually erected by speculative builders, men who had in many cases been foremen to large contractors, and, having saved a little money, started on their own. In the first place, they probably built one or two cottages; they worked themselves with the few men they employed, or in some cases they and their sons did the whole work. They were usually financed locally, in many cases by solicitors, on easy terms, since they were producing an article readily saleable. Having completed their first house or pair of houses they sold them, turned their money over, and proceeded to build more. In this way were the great majority of workmen's houses erected, the fact that there existed a public always willing to invest in this class of property being the essence of the whole business. This investing public consisted largely of local tradesmen, who liked to put their savings into something which was both safe and visible. The People's Budget scared off this class of investor, who did not know where Vol. 240.-No. 476.

D

he stood or how he was going to be taxed. Consequently, so far as house property was concerned, he buttoned up his pockets and has not unbuttoned them yet. As a result the small speculative builder ceased to provide workmen's dwellings.

The returns of the Inland Revenue of the numbers of houses exempt from Inhabited House duty (i.e. the smaller houses) show conclusively the disastrous effects of the Budget of 1909-10. The net increase in these houses was 90,165 in the year 1900, and from that year to 1909 inclusive, it only twice fell below 70,000, the average being 76,000. In 1910, the year after the introThere duction of the Budget, it was down to 5813! was some recovery and a good deal of fluctuation after this, but the average for the years 1911, 12, 13, and 14 was only 50,000. The great incentive to house building had been destroyed.

Following this came the War, which brought house building to a standstill. The result was a real house famine after the Armistice, such as had never been experienced before. What the actual dimensions of the shortage were, nobody can say with accuracy. It has been variously put down as from 500,000 to 800,000 houses. Both estimates are probably very excessive, since it must be remembered that if house building had ceased the empties had been occupied. There are practically no empty houses now, except the country seats and the West End mansions of the new poor, which their owners, taxed almost out of existence, can no longer afford to occupy. The former appear likely to be turned rapidly into schools and other institutions; while the latter are being converted into flats.

It was chiefly to meet this house shortage that the Addison Act was passed. The building trade was disorganised and had been greatly weakened by the War, and with the demand for new factories and workshops and the vast arrears of repairs to be made good, it seemed very improbable that it would undertake the erection of working-class dwellings, which in view of the increased cost were certain to be unremunerative. It was decided, therefore, that the State should step in and do the work itself. The plan adopted was fortunate. It was not foreseen that if the Government

undertook and pressed on a great building scheme all over the country the cost of building was bound to rise, as it did to an inordinate extent-cottages which were built for between 2001. and 3007. before the War costing as much as 8887. in some cases in 1920. This figure is exclusive of cost of land and development, and it is estimated that the average all-in cost of houses built under the Addison scheme was 10907. Socialist orators are never tired of proclaiming that this was the result of building rings, and profiteering by capitalists, forgetting that among the greatest profiteers were the building operatives, whose Unions pushed up wages, limited the number of bricks which could be laid, and refused to allow their ranks to be recruited even from ex-Service men. The scheme, too, was badly conceived in the fact that the liability which fell on the local authorities through whom the State acted, was limited to the proceeds of a 1d. rate, whereas the State liability was unlimited; the result being that when the 176,000 houses, at which figure Sir Alfred Mond wisely stopped it, are all completed, the taxpayer will be burdened with nine and a half millions a year for sixty years. This is an appalling result financially, and from the housing point of view it is doubtful whether the house shortage has been reduced at all, since 176,000 probably represents just about the necessary annual increment of three years. To the 176,000 must indeed be added some 40,000 built by private builders with direct capital grants, which cost the country nine millions; but many of these, and indeed of the 176,000, cannot be strictly regarded as workmen's dwellings at all. Both in accommodation and in rents, though the latter are far from economic, they are really houses for the lower middle classes.

When the present Government came into office last October, the Addison scheme had been stopped by Sir Alfred Mond as has been stated; but the house shortage remained, and local authorities who still had long lists of applicants were clamouring for fresh subsidies. A few, indeed, had started building on their own account without subsidies, and were greatly helped by the fact that with the stoppage of the Government scheme the cost had shown a great reduction. In addition to this, it