THE HOUSE FAMINE.

THE NEED FOR ACTION.

CHAPTER I.

Fifty years ago the "Housing of the Poor" was a burning question. To-day it is the Housing of the Working Classes, and it threatens to be the Housing of the People.

In the light of modern sanitary standards many of the evils of bad housing now affect not a larger proportion, but a far larger aggregate number of persons among the skilled labourers and artisans than among the poorest poor, especially in our towns and cities.

The very worst housed classes, such as the one-room occupiers, are showing a steady diminution in number; but the great mass of working people experience increasing hardships year by year, especially in connection with overcrowding, high rents, and the tendency to lower the best housing standards.

The most hopeful feature in the struggle for better housing is the steady, if slow, awakening of social, municipal, and political reformers to the fact that so far as the working classes are concerned there is a "house famine" of varying but undoubted intensity all over the country, affecting all grades of workers: and that the existence of this "famine" necessarily paralyses the mass of useful sanitary legislation which might otherwise do much to improve the dwellings of the poor. With this fact recognised the right remedies can be devised, and many fallacious proposals and theories can be put aside.

The food famine in Paris during the Franco-German War, and in the besieged towns of Ladysmith, Kimberley, and Mafeking during the South African War, forced up prices, and compelled many who were in those towns to live on a reduced and inadequate supply of food, while the poorest had to consume inferior and even dangerous articles rather than starve.

In the same way the "House Famine" in London, Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester, Edinburgh, and other districts has forced up rents abnormally high and compelled great masses of the people to put up with a reduced and inadequate supply of house room, while the poorest have to reside in inferior and dangerous houses rather than go homeless on the streets.

Putting the case in its simplest form, we find in the first place that if every room, good and bad, occupied or unoccupied, in all the workmen's dwellings in the country be reckoned as existing accommodation, there are not enough of any sort to house the working population

without unhealthy overcrowding; and if only healthy rooms are reckoned, the position is infinitely worse. In the second place, we find that so far from new rooms being built in sufficient quantities to make up the deficiency, there is a distinct lessening of the rate of increase, and (so far as healthy dwellings are concerned) no prospect of relieving the intensity of the "famine" to any appreciable extent.

It is true that if the standard of necessary accommodation for a workman and his family be put at the low level of two or three inconvenient rooms, which some public men are inclined to accept as satisfactory, the great mass of the "artisan" class cannot be said to suffer extremely from the house famine; but, fortunately for the future of sanitation and for the maintenance of a proper standard of comfort and decency, this meagre allowance of house room is below the demands of our industrial population in most cities, and they only tolerate their present cramped quarters because in this, as in other famines, half rations must be the rule where there is not enough to go round.

Rural Districts.-Even in the rural districts, where population is either stationary or diminishing, the supply has been unequal to the demand.

Mr. Richards, an Assistant Labour Commissioner, says: "I do not remember in any district to have found a good cottage vacant," and similar statements in greater detail appear in the Labour Commission Report with reference to Suffolk, Norfolk, Essex, Cornwall, Oxfordshire, Berks, Bucks, Gloucester, and Wales.

Three enquiries have recently revealed the following facts with regard to certain of our rural districts ::

One enquiry shewed that in 78 villages, containing 4,179 cottages, there were 1,000 bad or extremely bad; 2,500 with no fireplace or other efficient ventilation in any bedrooms; 700 with water supply bad or absent.

Another enquiry shewed that in 240 villages, with 10,000 dwellings, there were 5,000 bad cottages, and that in 30 villages, gross overcrowding was prevalent.

A third enquiry was made in 1897 by the Land Law Reform Association into the condition of the cottages in nearly 400 villages, chosen from all parts of the country. In half the villages the general condition of the cottages was found to be "unsatisfactory," or "very bad;" in over a quarter the water supply was bad; in over a quarter there were not enough houses for the people; three-quarters of the cottages had not more than two bedrooms; two-thirds of the cottages had no fireplaces, and therefore no ventilation in the bedrooms.

In both town and country, cases have occurred where families have had to go into the workhouse for shelter because they could not get a house to live in.

Villa Districts. In many of the new middle-class residential towns and villages, most of the working-class population are found crowded into a small area, corresponding to the "Ghetto" of the Jews in the Middle Ages, and a remarkable phase of the question at present

is the fact that an acute housing problem exists in nearly all the large villa districts near London, as well as in most fashionable watering places.

The following paragraphs from a memorandum presented to the Richmond town council, in 1892, with reference to the housing accommodation of the working classes in Richmond, apply in many particulars at the present time, and with a change of name may also indicate what the position of affairs is in many other towns of a similar character. The existing housing accommodation for the working classes in Richmond is— (1) Insufficient in quantity. (2) Inferior in quality.

Its insufficiency is evident from the fact that many men who work in Richmond are compelled to live in adjacent parishes at a distance from their work, and also because it is practically impossible to find a decent cottage unlet in any part of the borough at any time of the year. The evils arising from this cause are―

(a) Exorbitant rents, which are increasing year by year, and which are out of all proportion to the earnings of the tenants.

(b) Overcrowding, which is accentuated in consequence of the necessity in many cases for the tenant to recoup himself for some part of the rent by letting off a part of the cottage to lodgers.

(c) The occupation of dirty hovels and unhealthy slums, which would be untenanted were there a sufficient supply of decent cottages.

Unfortunately the excess of the demand for cottages over the supply, enabies landlords to increase the rents when an outlay is made for repairs or sanitary purposes, so that the tenants dare not insist upon their cottages being put in a proper state of repair. Very little is done by most landlords except upon the order of the sanitary authority, and then the unfortunate tenant frequently has to pay dearly for it by an excessively disproportionate increase in rent.

General Statistics as to Deficient Accommodation. It is very difficult to compare the quantity of accommodation now and ten years ago, as, owing to the elastic interpretation of the census definition of "house," there might be shewn in the census returns more "houses" (i.e., such as separate dwellings in flats), and yet not a satisfactory increase in the number of rooms. Broadly speaking, however, while there is an increase in rents all round, the tendency seems to be towards "averaging" workmen's homes; that is, improving the worst and dragging down the best-by no means a satisfactory process, although it is only going on slowly.

The census returns of 1901 are not yet complete, so, except where otherwise stated, the following figures relate to the census of 1891. The particulars for London and Lancashire, however, show for 1901 a steady decrease in the worst kinds of dwellings, but not sufficient to affect the general conclusions to be drawn from the returns of 1891. It is probable that the slight decrease in the average number of persons per house may be partly due to the temporary flush of prosperity during the past six years, which has manifested itself in regard to other conditions of life, such as food, drink, and holidays. That is to say, owing to exceptionally good times, the workman has been able to pay more money for rent, and thus, in many cases, get a better article than he could normally secure. It is remarkable, moreover, that in London there was a distinct decrease in relative accommodation during the years 1891-1896 (London census, 1896). The growth of suburbs, due to recent developments in cheap transit, has also probably played a part. At its best, however, the improvement is hopelessly inadequate.

Taking England and Wales as a whole, the census of 1891 shewed 3 million people living in overcrowded dwellings, while 360,000 had only one room to live in. Unfortunately, the census returns in England do not give the total number of rooms available in working class dwellings; but in Scotland we see by the census of 1901 that there were only 3,022,077 rooms for 969,318 families, including all classes, or an average of three rooms to each family, the total population thus housed being 4,472,000. In 1891 fifty per cent. of these were "overcrowded" on the basis of the census definition.

In the large towns matters are very bad, and the following figures, based upon the census returns and the official reports of the various councils, give some idea of the scarcity of the supply and of its unsatisfactory character. So enormous are the numbers, that it must be clear the whole mass of the workers are affected, and not merely “the poorest poor."

Two-thirds of the present population of London have houses containing not more than four rooms, and these in most cases without adequate sanitary conveniences, open spaces, sunlight, and air. In 1891 about 900,000 people (equal to the entire population at the beginning of the 19th century) were living in overcrowded rooms. At least, 386,000 had to sleep, wash, dress, cook, eat, live, and die in that abomination, the “ one room dwelling."

In Glasgow, the second city of the Empire, and "the modern municipality," things are worse. No less than one-fifth of the people live in one room dwellings; more than half the people have houses with not more than two rooms; 87 per cent. have three rooms and less, while 90 per cent. of the new houses built during the last three years have not more than three rooms.

In Edinburgh, "the modern Athens," more than half the "homes" consist of one and two rooms, while in some districts, such as the Canongate and S. Giles, this proportion is as high as 70 per cent.

In Hull, during two years, covered by a recent report, the population had increased by 9,000, but there were only 1,200 more dwellings, thus shewing on the basis of existing occupation a deficiency of 4,000 places. Of those in existence, over 36,000 houses (three-fourths of the houses in Hull) had either no back way or had "privies" within 6 ft. of the doors or windows.

An official report on the city of Dublin, in 1900, shewed that 10,000 persons were in want of accommodation, and that 6,000 families were improperly housed.

In Birmingham, during the last ten years, the number of dwellings at a rental of about 5/- per week has been reduced from 57,250 to 54,448, and including the worst slums, only 174 of these were vacant.

In 1891 there were armies of overcrowded working people, numbering in Birmingham, 68,000; Leeds, 60,000; Liverpool, 56,000; Manchester, 41,000; and Sheffield, 37,000. In Newcastle, Gateshead, Sunderland, and the counties of Northumberland and Durham one-third of the total population, urban and rural, live in overcrowded homes.