has been demolished. In other cases each pair has been converted into one through house. Attempts have also been made, but without marked success, to improve the ventilation by an air-shaft or a sky-light. The conclusion arrived at by most people is that, in time, all these houses will have to be swept away; but in a country suffering from post-war depression we have to consider the problem according to our means, or as Robert Browning puts it: The common problem, yours, mine, every one's Nevertheless, in spite of all difficulties, a good deal has been accomplished in the course of the last eight years in Great Britainmore, indeed, than in any other country in the world. In the United States, and in the suburbs of Paris, insanitary wooden shacks are tolerated which would not be allowed for twelve hours under the existing health laws in this country. It is a tribute to the work of local Medical Officers of Health that, by friendly agreement with property owners, over half a million houses have been made fit in England and Wales up to the standard they enforce. But it is fantastic to press for the sweeping away of slum dwellings, unless there is alternative accommodation available for the displaced tenants. Every small house built, out of the million and more houses completed since the Armistice, brings the time nearer when all back-to-back houses can be demolished, but the process is bound to take time and needs patience. There has indeed been steady work on the slum problem during the past three years. It has been officially stated that since January 1, 1925, forty-one slum clearance schemes, involving 4,439 properties, have been confirmed by the Ministry of Health. The number of persons who require to be re-housed under these schemes is 24,590, and up to the end of September last arrangements had been made for the erection of some 2,000 new dwellings to accommodate the displaced tenants. The following are the districts where slum clearance schemes have been confirmed in the last three years: Banbury, Barking, Bath, Bermondsey, Bristol, Cheltenham, Chester, Darwen, Finsbury, Halifax, Hitchin, L.C.C., Newcastle-on-Tyne, Norwich, Oldbury, Oldham, Otley, VOL. 247. NO. 503. с F Poole, Poplar, Rawtenstall, Rotherham, St. Albans, St. Pancras, Sheffield, Stepney, Stockton-on-Tees, Sunderland, Welshpool, West Bromwich, Worcester, and York. But some of these schemes are still on paper, and the very small number of places in the above list is another example of the magnitude of the problem. We are, in truth, only approaching the slum problem now that the million new houses have been completed. It is useful to classify slum property into three divisions :(1) Dwellings which are structurally sound and worthy of complete repair. In these cases the local authority usually agrees with the owner as to what will constitute a fair schedule of repairs, and allows a reasonable time for the repairs to be carried out. Property of this character can often be saved by private enterprise alone. (2) Property that is practically worn out, but which cannot be closed owing to the existing shortage of alternative accommodation. It can sometimes be internally reconditioned to last for ten years or more. Experience too of women house property management, under which the rents are collected with absolute regularity every week, and no arrears allowed, and under which prompt attention is given to minor repairs, has shown what can be done even with worn-out property. There can be no doubt at all that the personal management of small house property by educated women, who are determined opponents of the careless or thriftless tenant, can accomplish much. But on the other hand, the reconditioning of wornout property is extremely expensive, and there is no end to the repairs that are needed. (3) Dwellings that are so antiquated that the cheapest solution is to demolish them and to house the tenants elsewhere. These are usually groups of houses that form pockets of bad sanitation and may infect a whole district. Like an abscess in the body, these purulent foci of disease must be extirpated as soon as possible. A delusion to which many housing reformers fondly cling is that insanitary areas can only be improved at an immense cost to public funds. Post-war housing legislation, whether introduced by Dr. Addison, the former Liberal Minister, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, the Conservative, or Mr. Wheatley, the Socialist, has in each case been based on the assumption that either ratepayers or taxpayers, or both, must pay for slum improvement schemes. This is admittedly necessary, under existing conditions, in cases where the condemned property is hopelessly worn out, infested with vermin, congested to the extent of 80 or more houses to the acre, and where roofs and walls are in danger of collapse. But, even in such cases, expert study is beginning to discover that wise town-planning, if it be applied to built-up areas, may save much of the money expended on slum clearances by increasing the value of the land that has been cleared. This means of meeting the problem is dealt with in detail later. Furthermoreand this aspect of the slum problem has been almost entirely overlooked by the majority of writers and speakers on the subject— there are a considerable number of working-class houses, vaguely called "slum property," that have been and are being made habitable, not at the expense of public funds, but by private enterprise alone. In some cases the work is being carried out by voluntary societies; while in other instances enlightened landlords are reconstructing poor property and providing healthy and pleasant homes. They find that their enterprise in thus repairing workingclass property is remunerative, provided three fundamental conditions are observed. First, the property taken over must be structurally sound. Secondly, the management must be efficient; and thirdly, there must be a sufficient number of houses under control in order that overhead charges may be kept at a low level. In one case in South London many tenements and houses were taken over when they had almost degenerated into bad slums. The purchasers immediately proceeded to instal dressers, cupboards, pantries, sinks, and running water, to replace cracked plaster and broken banisters and stairs, to mend broken windows, to repaint, and to repaper. It sounds easy, if the capital is available; but in practice, in buildings crowded with families where every available inch of space is constantly in occupation, much patience and tact have to be exercised in order to carry out even the most urgent repairs. Tenants have to agree to fit into one room for a day or so while another room is being redecorated. The extent of this work may be imagined from the following figures on one London estate where, in the last 18 months, 3,000 rooms have been repapered with 18,000 pieces of paper, and a quarter of a million panes of glass have been attended to. In this particular case the yards of the tenements, when they were taken over by an enterprising landlord, were deep in refuse, for it was the custom of the tenants to throw all such rubbish as potato peelings and egg shells out of the nearest window. One of the first steps taken by the new management was to clean the yards, and to adjure the tenants by letters and by personal calls to do their best to keep the place clean. After a good deal of trouble they learned to dispatch their refuse down the shoots that were provided for the purpose, instead of fouling the yards. As the number of caretakers could be reduced in consequence, the tenants were informed that they would reap the benefit of the . new cleanliness by a reduction of the rent. This good news quickly spread, and there has since been a marked improvement on the other estates. This is one example out of many that could be quoted to show how skilful management can transform property that was becoming a slum. To the amateur student of the slum problem it may be a puzzle why reconditioning, when carried out by a local authority or by a voluntary society, should be so costly; whereas a private owner finds it remunerative to improve poor property. Enquiries from local Medical Officers of Health have confirmed my view, made after personal visits, that the particular blocks of property now in private hands are better managed than some of those administered by public authorities and philanthropic companies. But the fundamental cause of the success of this particular form of private enterprise is that there is a permanent and highly-trained repair staff always at work. One of the troubles in a slum is that tenants may complain for months of defects, but the landlord may take no heed and the property will go from bad to worse. The modern landlord however realizes how short-sighted is this policy, even from the skinflint point of view, and he loses no time in calling in his repair staff in order to protect his property from deterioration. It is a point of some significance that these owners do not charge the highest possible rents that they might obtain. In one area in Southwark, where it is normally difficult to obtain two rooms under 25s., only 12s. 6d. a week is charged on this particular estate for a decontrolled flat containing two rooms. In one block I spoke to an old lady, who proudly told me that she had been in her present flat for the last forty years. In 1887 she paid 6s. 3d. a week rent, and according to her rent book she now pays 8s. The rents, of course, include rates and cleaning of staircases. The landlord explained to me that his motive in keeping rents comparatively low and looking after the property so well was frankly economic and not philanthropic. For because the rents are lower than the average, the existing tenants pay regularly, and do their best to keep the place clean, for they know that if they have to go elsewhere they will fare worse, and there is always a long waiting list of prospective tenants for their apartments. When a vacancy arises the landlord can therefore select new tenants who are likely to be respectable and regular payers. In future too he believes that when the inevitable slump in small house property occurs, these particular estates, as they have a good name, will be fully occupied, when other bad property is deserted and derelict. The far-sighted wisdom of this form of private enterprise is by no means unique. As soon as an attempt is made to demolish houses that are worn out, the most difficult question of compensation arises. The Ministry of Health are at present searching for an equitable solution of the problem of allowing compensation for buildings destroyed in the course of slum clearances. It is generally agreed that we cannot possibly go back to the old state of affairs, when the compensation allowed was so excessive that it was impossible to carry out schemes except at an exorbitant cost. On the other hand, the present law which, under section 9 of the 1919 Act, now replaced by section 46 of the 1925 Act, only allows compensation to be given for site value, has in some cases so alienated public opinion that clearance schemes are held up indefinitely. An example from a small town in the south of England well illustrates the actual operation of this confiscatory clause. In this town there is a warren of slums, in which many of the individual houses are owned by poor persons. In one particular case a man bought a house for £375. He paid £150 down-all the savings of his lifetime-and borrowed the remainder from a building society. His home has now been condemned and is to be pulled down. The site value offered him is £30, and he still owes over £90 to the building society. In the front room of his house he runs a small greengrocery business, and he can find no other suitable place for this. No doubt he was foolish to have bought this particular building; but, on the other hand, £30 is |