It has been estimated that the proportion of rent that a cottager can afford to pay is one-seventh of his income, and, if this estimate, which was made by the Labour Commission in 1894, still holds good, the rent paid by a labourer receiving 31s. a week should be approximately 4s. 6d. But in 1894 it was reckoned that 6 per cent. on the cost of building the cottage would be a fair return on the money spent. The figures quoted, however, show that, to cover rates, taxes, repairs and insurance, and to give 6 per cent. on the capital, at least 9 per cent. on the cost of the building has to be charged. Now, 4s. 6d. is 9 per cent. on £130, which is a sum far below the present price of building a cottage. The majority of agricultural labourers' cottages have gardens— in some cases very good gardens-attached to them, and in taking one-seventh as the estimated amount of rent a cottager should pay, nothing is said as to whether this is the proportion to be spent on the provision of a house simply, or whether it includes the proportion to be spent as rent for a garden. It doubtless refers to what is to be paid for the cottage simply, because the economic value of the garden will depend not only on the size but on the nature. of the soil, and whether it is stocked with fruit trees or not. Possibly the proportion of rent to be paid for a cottage with a good garden of between one-fourth to an eighth of an acre could be taken as one-sixth of the income, which would raise the rent to 5s. out of a wage of 30s.; so that, even if the garden were included, the gross amount to be spent on the cottage for building (including the garden), would amount to only £144, which, at 9 per cent., is equivalent to about 5s. per week. Taking, therefore, the figures now available, no very obvious solution of the problem presents itself, but possibly some system of grading cottages and wages might be devised. That is to say that the occupier of the good cottage should pay a fair rent, receiving at the same time a sufficiently high wage to enable him to do so. Men vary considerably in skill and capacity. If an average labourer is worth 30s. per week, the best man is worth more; and, if the best men were got, and the best cottages, it would be economically sound to pay these wages at a higher rate. But the whole subject is one of considerable difficulty, which is likely to be enhanced if prices fall after the war and less money can 14-(1752) be earned by producing food, and consequently less money can be spent on the production. The difficulty of placing cottage building on a sound economic basis is obvious; if it could be successfully grappled with, the problem of housing would be in a great measure solved, and money could be invested in it with comparative security, both by private individuals and by public bodies. At present, cottage building in rural areas is an almost certain loss, and can, therefore, only be undertaken by those to whom the loss is of little moment-that is to say, by rich landowners. Though all recognize the necessity of building cottages, no one is willing to bear the loss. The landowner of ordinary means cannot. Public bodies in many cases feel that they ought not to charge to the rates the cost of housing the labourer. The disastrous effects of the Speenhamland system1 are a warning against putting on the rates, expenses which ought to be borne by the individual. There seems but little difference in principle between calling upon the rates. to make good the deficiency in the wages which the labourer ought to receive and paying for him out of the, rates the expense of a dwelling for which he ought to be able to pay. It amounts in both cases to a contribution by the community at large to relieve the wage-payer of part of his duty. On this point, a reference may be made to the Irish Labourers Acts under which local authorities have been empowered to demolish cottages, erect new dwellings, and raise loans for that purpose. Irish The rents charged for cottages built under these Acts are very low, the average being 11d. a week (£2 7s. 8d. per annum) for a cottage with one acre of ground. The average cost of cottage and plot is £170 to £180. Loans are advanced under these Acts at a very cheap rate; they are repayable by an annuity of 35s. for every £100 for a period of 68 years. On these low rentals there is a considerable deficit which is met from two sources (1) A grant from the State; (2) A contribution from the rates. The outgoings which have to be met are the annual charge for 1 Vide Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Law, 1834. loans, the cost of repairs, insurance, rent collection, and legal proceedings against tenants; whilst the receipts consist of the rents paid by tenants and the Government subsidy of 36 per cent. of the loan charge authorized by section 17 of the Act of 1906. Taking the whole of Ireland the figures may be set down approximately at. The position is made plainer by taking a single cottage These figures are quoted to show that even when money is lent at so low a price, the scheme, if economic rents are not charged, throws a substantial loss on the ratepayers, which is, in effect, a relief to wages. It would have been sounder on economic grounds to have raised the labourer's wages by 1s. 5d. a week and thus enabled him to pay a rent of £6 10s. per annum (2s. 6d. a week) which would have covered the total charges with 3s. 6d. per annum to spare. But apart from the economic side of the question there is no doubt that the Acts have done great things for Ireland. Up to 31st March, 1917, 47,685 cottages had been erected and 443 were in course of construction. As far as housing is concerned the face of the country has been entirely changed and safeguards have been devised which effectually guard against the favouritism, jobbery and corruption which were the dangers to be feared in such a scheme. A large number of rural houses will have to be built, and those who have expert knowledge should direct their energies toward designing and, as far as possible, standardizing the type of cottage to be built in the different localities, and reducing the expense of building. A large quantity of building material will be released now that the war is over, and many buildings which have been put up for war work are no longer required. The utilization of such material should go far to cheapen the building of cottages in localities where those buildings now stand. Results of Re-housing. CHAPTER XXVI RESULTS OF RE-HOUSING SLUM DWELLERS Ir is, of course, perfectly true that, taking Liverpool as an example of re-housing, the results have only been achieved by letting the houses at less than an economic rent, and that a small burden has consequently been imposed on the ratepayers of Liverpool. But, looking at it from the broadest point of view, has Liverpool always been a loser from this extra imposition on the rates? It has evolved, and is evolving, a decent and stable population out of what could only be described originally as a turbulent and impossible riff-raff, and the existence on a large scale of such degraded population does not favour the maintenance of civil order, the regularity of labour supply, or the continuance of that ordered society upon the existence of which a great port and a great manufacturing district largely depends for its steady and growing prosperity. In the second place, such a course of procedure tends to eliminate that other risk which threatens any great importing or distributing centre, namely, the liability to those kinds of plagues and infectious diseases to which seaport communities are peculiarly liable, owing to the importation of goods from abroad. The majority of these imported diseases, such, for instance, as the bubonic plague, coming from countries where sanitary conditions, according to British standards, are simply non-existent, will only maintain themselves or flourish where such lack of sanitary conditions is approximately reproduced. The plague, for instance, has several times been introduced into England of recent years, notably into Glasgow and Cardiff, but it has never spread beyond those immediate vicinities where the sanitary condition of the people simply defies description. On the other hand, the existence of any such disease in a great shipping port has a direct and immediate tendency to deflect goods and passengers to its rivals, and on that, if no other ground, the cost of any preventive measures is a profitable expenditure of public money. The saving in other departments of local government may be indicated by showing the effect of better |