Present-day area-condemnation under the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890

572

Present..Day Area..Condemnation

[Public B ealt.h

PRESENT-DAY AREA-CONDEMNATION UNDER THE HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES ACT, 1890.* By J. PRIESTLEY. B.A ., M.D., D.r.H., Medical Offic er of He alth of Lambeth.

So that there may be no misunderstanding, allow me at the commencement of my paper to state that my own experience in Lambeth parish as medical officer of health would appear to show that area-condemnation under Part 1. of the Housing Act can be but rarely needed, and, further, that considering the costliness and the dilatoriness of the legal procedure, the difficulties with the central authorities, and (last, but not least) the wholesale displacement of tenants without satisfactory (or even any) attempts at proper and suitable rehousing. a medical officer ought to consider carefully, so as not to commit his authority, unless absolutely necessary, to such a course of action. A.t least, such has been my experience in Lambeth parish, and considering that Lambeth is a fairly large (300.000 and over inhabitants) and representative district, there must be other medical officers who have had a somewhat similar experience. The object of my paper, then, must be clearly before you, and there must be no two opinions as to what I mean. Taking my Lambeth experience as a guide, it would appear that area-condemnation or representation (to use the legal phraseology) under Part 1. of the Housing of the Working Classes A.ct. 1890, is more theoretically than practically advisable-at least, in the great majority of cases. Some of tho difficulties I propose dealing with, and at the same time I venture to lay before the Society of Medical Officers of Health an alternative course of action, which I have personally found useful in my own district, and which has met with the unanimous approval of my authority. I am free to admit that there are areas (e.g.• the Boundary Street area) that can only be dealt with under Part 1. of the Act, but despite such admission I am of opinion that some areas that may be proposed to be condemned can be. with advant age to everyone concerned, better dealt with by my alternative method, which I propose calling II house-condemnation," and which depends upon house-to-house inspections of individual houses and buildings.

* Read before the Incorporated Society of Medical Officers of Health, March, 1900.

Hay. 19001

Present..Day Area..Condemnation

573

with the serving and enforcing of notices under the powers given under the Public Health Act and under Part II. of the Housing Act, the latter dealing with individual houses and small collections of houses-c.g., courts and streets. I should be the last in the world to belittle in any way the work of my brother medical officers of health who have acted, or are acting, under Part 1., but I do honestly think that there is another side to this question to be looked at, and that other side I propose to lay before you to-night. First as to area-condemnation under Part I. The medical officer of health, on his own initiative, or on that of two or more justices of the peace, or of twelve or more ratepayers, makes in writing an official representation to his authority that a certain area within his district is dangerous or injurious to health, and that such unhealthy area can only (please note this small but important word) be remedied by an improvement scheme. This representation mayor may not be supported by satisfactory statistics as to increased mortality or morbidity amongst the persons inhabiting such area. This representation or condemnation made by the medical officer must then be agreed to (by resolution) by the sanitary authority (who must also be satisfied at the time as to the sufficiency of their resources for such a purpose), and an improvement scheme propounded, allowing such new dwelling accommodation for the working classes (who are to be displaced by the scheme) as is required by the Act. In London not less than half must be provided for; elsewhere, as many as the confirming authority may think fit. The scheme is then duly advertised, and the central authority (e.g., the Secretary of State for London, and the Local Government Board for other urban districts) petitioned for an order confirming the scheme. Then follows a local inquiry, on the result of which the central authority, if satisfied as to the sufficiency of the scheme, may make a provisional order, to be afterwards confirmed by Parliament by means of a confirming Act. The provisional order mayor may not modify the original scheme. Aftel' the confirming Act has been obtained, the real work begins-viz., acquisition is to be made of the land and its condemned buildings; compensations to be agreed upon and settled, or, if not agreed upon, referred to an arbitrator; plans (in detail) to be prepared and submitted for approval to the central authority; and so on, and so on. Allowing for the well-known-shall I call it caution or delay? that always takes place in connection with the central authority, the above steps are taken extremely slowly, and irritation results,

574

Present.. Day Area . . Condemnation

[Public HealtJ1

if all local enthusiasm for the scheme be not found to be at the

same time ebbing slowly but surely away. Further, any alterations that may be found absolutely necessary as the work proceeds must be also submitted to the central authority for approval, with the result that further delay takes place, with more irritation, and may be with the complete disappearance or evaporation of what little local enthusiasm remained. The financial values of all these delays and all this red-tspeism must not be forgotten. Meanwhile, the medical officer who has started this expensive scheme has time to reflect as to whether or not it is worth it from a public health point of view, more especially when it is remembered that in the delay (which may be years) the area in question is practically neglected as far as the sanitary inspectors or inspectors of nuisances are concerned. The consequences are not far to seek. Dilapidated houses become more dilapidated, unhealthy conditions become more unhealthy, nuisances increase in numbers and become intensified, careless tenants become more careless, and the value of the district is considerably lowered by the sanitary slump. There is a general levelling down, and the continued neglect of houses makes confusion worse confounded. Acknowledging, as I think we all must, the truth of the above picture, would it not be better, considering the present involved, costly, and generally unsatisfactory state of the law in connection with large area-condemnations, to spend the time and money in carefully inspecting (house to house) the different buildings comprising the area, and serving necessary notices, and having such notices rigorously carried out? Much good work can be accomplished in a period of a few years, especially with an energetic and sufficiently large inspectorial staff, which is properly supported by the sanitary authority. Such an alternative is, I admit, uphill work; but, at the same time, my own experience shows that such uphill work gives very satisfactory results. The financial saving no one will gainsay, whilst another important advantage I propose dealing with, more in detail, later on. I think I am right in saying that few areas have yet been represented without it being admitted in evidence or cross-examination that only a percentage of the houses comprising such area are really indivi
ll!a7, 1900]

Present..Day Area..Condemnation

575

that cannot possibly be dealt with except und er improvement schemes, with the rearrangement and widening of the streets, otc., so as to give better light and ventilation, but these are exceptions in my experience. Taking my own district, I can state without fear of contradiction that there is no area which can only be dealt with by means of a scheme under Part I. of the Act. It is true that there are some parts of my district near to the river (the socalled Inner Wards) that are not ideally all one could wish, but even these are yearly becoming better under the treatment of systematic honss-to-house inspections, with the serving of notices (a) under tha Public Health Act, 1891, and occasionally (b) under the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, Part II. What is true of Lambeth must be true also, I think, of other districts-at least, speaking generally as to benefit to be derived from such a systematic bouseto-house inspection. There can be no two opinions as to whicb is the better course to pursue (if possible) in the present state of the law-i.e., whether to adopt house- or are a-condemnation. Let me give an example to show what I mean. My own district in part abuts on to another, where the area-condemnation treatment is in progress, and where the subsequent inspectorial neglect (such as I have mentioned in the first part of my paper) appears also to be in progress. The difference between the two adjoining districts (or, rather, let me say portions of the districts) is sufficiently marked to be admitted by all who care to visit and viewfor themselves. The districts, abutting as they do, are comparable as to sites, ages of houses, nature of tenants, arrangements of streets and courts, ete., whilst no one would say that the medical officerof the adjoining district is wanting in energy. How is the difference between the two portions of these adjoining districts brought about? I think that there is only one answer to this question, viz., the different mode of attack (for just now we must use military phrases). In my own district, house-condemnation is the line of attack; in the adjoining district, area-condemnation is the manreuvre preferred. It may be, of course, that when the area-condemnation scheme of the neighbouring district is an accomplished fact, and the present old dilapidated houses gone (and tenants, too, for tenants disappear as well in such schemes), when their places have been taken by new, up-to-date buildings with large and wide streets, open spaces, flowering trees, playing fountains, and last, but not least, highly proper and respectable tenants, then I may be ashamed of my own adjoining parish, Such time has, however, not come as yet, nor will it, I am afraid, in my day-certainly not in South London, unless, perhaps, I am

576

Present...Day Area..Condemnation

[Public Be&1th

to be blessed with much more than the allotted threescore years and ten, a span of life, by the way, which all medical officers so richly deserve! Meanwhile, what is happening? In the adjoining district, the houses individually and collectively are yearly and monthly becoming worse, as the result of inspectorial neglect; whilst in my house-condemnations they are improving pl'O rata, as the result of careful house-to-house inspections. Who is to say that the inhabitants also are not being affected the same, in the one case becoming more and more apathetic sanitarily and morally, and in the other case being at least improved by their better sanitary surroundings? Before leaving this portion of my paper, I may be allowed to point out that a large portion of the so-called Inner Wards, or northern parts of the parish of Lambeth, belongs to the Duchy of Cornwall-an owner who is outside the pale of the Housing (or other) Acts. Consequently, I should not have been able to condemn wholesale, even had I thought such an action necessary, as any such condemnation would have been to a certainty opposed, and opposed successfully, by the Duchy. Instead of opposition, the Duchy has assisted me, and is still assisting me, in my housecondemnation method. Old, worn-out houses are one by one disappearing, and their places being taken by new, improved ones from time to time, as becomes necessary. The change is a gradual one, but none the less satisfactory, more especially as there is practically no displacement of tenants. This question of displacement of tenants is really the cnt:r of the housing question. A large scheme is entered upon, and hundreds and thousands of persons are displaced and left to look out for themselves. The Boundary Street area scheme displaced 5,719 persons, and where are they now? Certainly not in the Boundary Street area! What is the result? As tenants are displaced they move into neighbouring houses, which they consequently crowd and overcrowd, and so the sanitary authority itself creates by means of one Act of Parliament serious nuisances, which it then becomes the duty of the same or a neighbouring sanitary authority to abate by powers invested in them under another Act-viz., the Public Health Act. All experience shows that, as a rule, where an area is cleared on account of its so-called slumminess, neighbouring properties, which might be previously (considering all things) passable, are apt to become-nay, do become-rookeries, requiring in their turn to be dealt with. Further, it is common knowledge that amongst the persons displaced there are those who must live in that immediate neighbourhood, so as to be near to their work, which is of

May, 1900]

Present.. Day Area.. Condemnation

577

a casual or irregular kind, or for other equally cogent reasons. They necessarily tend to still more crowd and overcrowd, and so perpetuate all the evils (sanitary and moral) attendant thereon. As the result, houses become scarce, rents increase, and subletting of rooms follows as a natural course. In this way the difficulty is not overcome, but simply transferred from one district to another, and from one house to another, and so the continuity of the vicious circle is ensured. In other words, insanitary areas may be in this way manufactured by sanitary authorities. As proof of the overcrowding, I have only to recall to your minds the Registrar-General's important and wellknown censal returns, which relate to tenements and to the numbers of persons inhabiting the same. Can it be wondered at, then, that public bodies (even the London County Council) are beginning to pause and consider carefully the pros and cons before entering upon large area-condemnation schemes? They are suggesting (and rightly so) the necessity for the provision in the condemned area itself of sufficient and suitable accommodation for the tenants who are to be displaced before they are displaced-a most important suggestion, and one that is fortunately now being more and more insisted upon by all Government departments. Hitherto, the practice has been to condemn an area, displace the tenants, and then consider as to where such displaced tenants are to go, with the very natural result that the consequences are not satisfactory to the promoters of the scheme, and certainly not to the displaced tenants! Again, when an area is condemned, one of the reasons given is that the area and its houses are overcrowded; and yet, strange to relate, the central authority steps in and by section 11 of the Housing Act compels (or may compel) sanitary authorities to rehouse practically the whole of the tenants (to be displaced by the scheme) upon the same area. If not the same tenants, at least an equal number of tenants drawn from other and often less-crowded districts-a truly novel way of preventing area overcrowding! It is a very serious fact (and fact it is) that the new dwellings provided on a cleared area are quickly seized upon by people in other districts, and that it is a very rare exception to hear of displaced tenants going into the new sanitary dwellings provided for them. The reason of this is not far to seek. The newly-erected dwellings have to be built on land that is bought at an exorbitant price, have to be built in conformity with the present-day strict bye-laws and stricter (somewhat theoretical if not unreasonable) conditions insisted upon by the central authority, with materials at a very much increased cost, and, in addition, by

578

Present-Day Area.. Condemnation

lPubUc Health

workmen who demand (and get) nowadays higher wages and shorter working hours. Such dwellings, when completed, cannot, therefore, be let at the rents that the displaced tenants have been paying, or even can pay, and consequently the better-class artisans step in and drive the bond-fide labouring classes out. What I am saying is a hard-yea, a cruel-fact. The skilled artisan class is in a position to look after itself, and can be, and ought to be, catered for by private enterprise. They can even afford to go farther afield and take advantage of cheap railways and trams, which are being so much boomed at the present day, thereby assisting in relieving somewhat, but I think very little, the central congestion. Not so, however, the bond-fide labouring classes, especially those in casual or irregular employment, who must be on the spot near to their work, and who cannot afford to pay the increased rents asked for in connection with the new, modern, up-to-date dwellings. What is to be done with them in an area-condemnation? Surely a sanitary authority which really has the question of the working classes at heart is not honestly doing its duty if it fails to insist that any new dwellings provided must be provided before the old ones are closed and demolished. Further, such dwellings must be within the condemned area, or in its immediate neighbourhood, and let at such rentals as can be paid by the displaced tenants, who in all cases must have the first refusal; nay, I would go further, and say ought to be induced to take them. This, you will say, is a large order. So it is; but tho housing of the displaced working classes is a large question, calling, if necessary, for relief out of the rates, so as to enable the new buildings to be let at the same rents as the old ones. All are agreed that the new accommodation must be sufficient and suitable, and the question arises, How is this to be done? It will not meet the case to simply build large models, for into such the displaced tenants-at least, the majority-will not go, preferring as they do the privacy and independence either of a self-contained cottage or house (if necessary, with the addition of lodgers), or even of a flat or tenement. Liverpool is said to be able to build such dwellings in three to five storied tenements (each tenement being self-contained, and having one, two, three, or four rooms), and to let them at about Is. 5d. per room, and that, too, at a profit of 2~ to 4! per cent. net, i.e., after deducting all losses from bad tenants, repairs, rates and taxes, etc. The money is raised by loan. A caretaker is provided by the Corporation, and is what his name implies, viz., a man to take care of the tenements as well as of the people inhabiting them. The land costs 12s. per square yard. This

May. 19(0)

Present.. Day Area.. Condemnation

579

experiment of Mr. Boulnois has resulted in self-contained, cheap, sanitary, and cheerful houses at reasonable rentals being supplied in Liverpool, and taking the place of the old insanitary, dirty, dilapidated houses in courts and alleys. Liverpool is proceeding on the right lines: a comparatively few houses (400 to 500) per year, with a minimum displacement, and the displaced tenants to have tho first refusals of the new rooms, which are let at such reasonable rentals as under Is. 6d. per 1·oom. Liverpool is to be congratulated, as far as appears from the above details, which are taken from the special report on "Artisans and Labourers' Dwellings," issued by the Liverpool Corporation, and which I have before me now. Manchester, too, is providing different kinds of accommodation, as follows: (a) Five-storied tenements, with common stairs and balconies. (b) Blocks of tenements of two or three stories, with separate

entrances and separate stairs to each set of tenements. (c) Terrace cottages of five rooms each. (d) Model lodging-houses. Displaced tenants have rights of refusal, whilst the schemes carried out are comparatively small per annum. The money is borrowed at 2t to 3:t per cent., repayable in forty to fifty years. Back-toback houses are being steadily replaced by through houses both at Liverpool and Manchester. Other districts are, of course, doing good work; but I have simply mentioned Liverpool and Manchester as they carry out their schemes under local Acts, Liverpool being the pioneer in reforming and bettering the dwelling-houses of the working classes by legislative measures. Further, such schemes appear to be practicable and financially fairly satisfactory-a very important consideration. Let us now take, as an example, the work being done by the London County Council for the working classes of London. Mr. Blashill, the late Superintendent Architect of the London County Council, has worked out the cost at £45 or £50 per person displaced by such an area-condemnation as, e.q., the Boundary Street, whilst it appears to be quite the exception for displaced tenants to be rehoused in the new dwellings that have been provided. Tenants have even come from Battersea (a comparatively suburban district) to take these Bethnal Green houses! Mr. Biashill, as the result of his experiences, speaks of area-condemnation under Part 1. of the Housing Act as costly, dilatory, and unsatis-

580

Present.. Day Area..Condemnation

[Public Health

factory as to re-housing-an opinion with which I personally entirely agree; and I am glad of this opportunity of saying so, remembering Mr. Bla shill's wide and exceptional experience in connection with the Housing Question in London, both with the London County Council and with the Metropolitan Board of Works. With such an opinion before us, whether we regard this Boundary Street schemefillalldally-i.e., as to total cost, £G03,000,or as to rents charged, 3s. per room-or practically-i.e., as to the displacing of the tenants, and re-housing of the tenants who are so displaced-it would appear that the London County Council has not been as successful as could be wished, and this being so, the question arises as to how these financial and practical difficulties are to be met. Some may think that a sanitary authority is justified in using the municipal purse for the purpose of enabling it to build suitable dwellings for the working classes to be let at reasonable rents. Others say that we ought first to try and encourage private enterprise by arranging (by the intervention of the Legislature, if necessary) for money to be lent to builders and others at very low rates of interest by public bodies, and repayable after much longer periods than have been hitherto allowed, with postponement of the operation of the sinking fund until fi ve years after the houses have been built-important considerations, as shown by the facts that the difference between a thirty and fifty years' loan is Gd. per week on the rent for every £100 worth of capital outlay. The advantage of a maximum 2! per cent. as suggested over what is now charged needs no commentary, whilst the five years' delay in starting the sinking fund explains itself. A further suggestion is that a public body might purchase land, and then lease it to private owners for working-class dwellings to be erected on it, also lending the money at 2! per cent. (or less) for a period (say) of ninety-nine years-the buildings to revert to the public body at the end of the time, and also the land, which will have meanwhile much increased in value. The buildings to be erected must be centrally placed (i.e., near to the tenants' workplaces), and must be suitable; and if to enable this to be done a dip has to be made into the ratepayers' purse, it must be made. A slight financial loss is justified if by such loss the important question as to the proper sanitary housing of the working classes is solved, even in part. Lastly, there is the suggested policy of obtaining new Parliamentary powers for enabling sanitary authorities to buy land outside their own districts, and building dwellings thereon for the working classes, with cheap trams und railways. Whilst the skilled

May,l900l

581

Present . . Day Area..Condemnation

artisans (and others) may take advantage of such country (or suburban) dwellings, and may be able to meet the charges of rent plus daily travelling expenses, there are many of the bona-fide labouring classes who cannot avail themselves of such opportunities, owing to the fact that they must be near to their work, either from compulsion or from preference. Indeed, as far as the general question is concerned, the artisan class may be left to look after themselves; it is a matter with which the municipalities need not interfere. Further, slight relief to the central congestion from the spreading out excentrically of the artisans is a negligible quantity practically, as extensions of business places with consequent displacement of tenants more than balance any such relief. Indeed, the classes who chiefly in an area-condemnation demand the attention (and help) of a sanitary authority are the bond-fide labourers, and the accommodation required is, in my opinion, such as I have outlined. There are, in addition, the very poor-the so-called submerged tenth or outcasts of society-also to be catered for, and for such, model common lodging-houses (male and female) are needed -e.g., such as Glasgow and other towns are successfully providing. Decentralization and cheap locomotion do not settle, by any means, the housing question. It will be noted that I have left out such side-issues as rating unoccupied houses and site values, or even the taxation of groundvalues, such questions (though interesting) hardly affecting the main issue. These, then, are some of the difficulties and annoyances to be met with in area-condemnations, and with such an experience before our eyes are we, as medical officers, justified in embarking our authorities unnecessarily on such a stormy and treacherous sea? Is it not better to push house-condemnation, and endeavour by careful and constant house-to-house inspections of individual houses to have them kept up to as good a sanitary level as possible, and so prevent insanitary areas from growing up, and the real distress that arises from wholesale displacements of tenants? The insanitary areas of to-day have become so owing to persistent neglect in the past-neglect on the part of the owners, in not keeping their properties in a sanitary and proper condition, and neglect on the part of the sanitary authorities, in not looking after the owners better and seeing that they met their legal liabilities in regard to their properties, both when building and since. Mistakes in the past do not warrant mistakes in the future, and there is a very serious responsibility resting with those sanitary authorities (and their officers) who do not, for the future, do their duty better than they

40

582

Present-Day Area..Condemnation

[PubUc Health

have done in the past in looking after not only existing houses but also those in process of erection. I sometimes think that 80 much attention has been paid to areacondemnation under Part 1. of the Act, that perhaps it has been overlooked that Part II. gives powers to it medical officer to condemn separate houses or small collections of houses forming courts and streets, and have them (1) put into proper order and condition, or (2) closed, and afterwards (3) demolished, if necessary. The Public Health Acts, too, give powers to have houses kept in proper order and condition, or closed, and a systematic house-tohouse inspection, therefore, of the existing dwellings of the working classes can do much to improve them and to keep them in a sanitary state. Constantly improving individual houses, and keeping them well up to it good sanitary condition, may prevent the necessity of formulating a large and expensive improvement scheme, whilst the displacement of tenants is practically nil. Registration of houses let in lodgings must not be forgotten in this connection. By such action the owners themselves are made to bear the expense connected with the improving of their properties, and the common purse of the ratepayers has not to be dipped into. Surely such it procedure is more equitable, and more in accordance with presentday advancement in sanitary matters. As education advances, the standard of sanitation is raised, and tenants expect better houses; and landlords must move also with the time and provide such, or in these days of competition those who do not advance will naturally (to use an Irishism) be left behind. A useful spurt can be easily given by the officers of a sanitary authority, when necessary, to lagging owners, whether leaseholders or freeholders. A strict and constant supervision in the poorer and more congested parts of a district, ensuring the houses being kept up to it fair sanitary standard, is proving satisfactory in Lambeth as far as the houses are concerned, and also as far as the tenants are concerned: for experience shows that in sanitary matters, as in other matters, people are dependent upon their surroundings. Where houses are dilapidated and insanitary, the tenants show a tendency to become morally and physically the same, and vice versa; indeed, the apathy of tenants is remarkable, rendering frequent inspections of houses by the officers of a sanitary authority a sine qlUt, non. Large amounts of money have to be spent by owners on their properties; insanitary areas are prevented; and no premium is offered for slum property, as is apt to be the case where a sanitary authority compulsorily purchases such property with a view to clearing an area under Part r. The lower grades of the working classes require well and

MaY,l900l

Present..Day Area..Condemnation

583

constantly looking after, and the Medical Officer of Health of Birkenhead was not far out when he suggested, in one of his papers read before the Sanitary Institute Congress, that the submerged tenth should be a "scheduled class" under inspection of the sanitary authority, and bound down by strict bye-laws to keep themselves and their abodes at least semi-respectable. In this connection Part III. of the Housing Act must, in passing, bo borne in mind-powers by which a sanitary authority may, after adopting by resolution this part of the Act, compulsorily or otherwise (1) acquire land for the erection thereon of lodging-houses or cottages for the working classes, or (2) purchase and convert existing buildings into dwellings for the labouring classes, and (3) make any necessary bye-laws and regulations in connection with such dwellings. For ordinary bouse-condemnations, the Public Health Acts give all the powers necessary; but in " extreme" cases Part n. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, enables sanitary authorities to deal satisfactorily with insanitary property, the" owners," who under this particular Act are generally freeholders or leaseholders, having not less than twenty-one years' interest, preferring to have their condemned premises put into proper order and condition rather than closed; at least, such is the Lambeth experience. I need hardly remind a body of medical officers that the "extreme" cases, in which the Housing Act may be put into force, are as follow: 1. Want of proper site, light, or ventilation. 2. General dilapidation and want of repair (from age or otherwise). 3. Defective construction of houses, either as built originally or as developed since. 4. The existence of serious sanitary nuisances, arising from defective drains, dampness, etc. 5. The close proximity of obstructive buildings. 6. The fact that short-termed leaseholders 01' owners are sometimes financially unable, or unwilling, to spend sufficient money on their properties, etc. In Lambeth, whereas an annual average of abont7,000 notices under the Public Health Act has been required, only forty notices were needed as a yearly average under the Housing Act, and in few cases have the houses been closed. One more word as to displacement. In connection with railway extensions, improvement schemes, increase of business premises (factories, workshops, ete.), there is

40-2

584

Present..Day Area-Condemnation

[l'ublic Hea.l\h

a certain amount of what I will call unavoidable displacement. Areas (large and small) are from time to time voluntarily or compulsorily absorbed-slowly, but none the less surely; houses are closed and demolished, with the natural result that the tenants are displaced, and subsequently overcrowd the houses in the immediate neighbourhoods. In these cases a sanitary authority is practically helpless; the displacements must be regarded as necessary evils. All that a sanitary authority can do is to insist that a pm rata amount of accommodation be provided before any displacement of persons is allowed to take place; and, further, that such accommodation be suitable, e.q., as to rooms offered, rents asked, locality, etc.-matters with which I have already dealt. The Lambeth Vestry has had to fight hard, but has been successful, and now makes, in all cases; stringent conditions as to re-housing. Thus, at the last meeting of the Vestry, the following conditions were agreed to be asked for as a sine qua non, even in connection with a small area of two streets, which are to be acquired by a private syndicate: "1. That the whole of the families displaced shall be provided for before demolition of the present buildings, and before displacement. "2. That the rent to be charged in the tenements to be erected for the re-housing of the people displaced shall not exceed 2s. per room. "3. That the site to be chosen for the erection of these re-housing dwellings shall not be at a greater distance than half a mile from the site in question." Dealing thus strictly with a private owner, I need not say how. particular my Vestry is with a public company such as the London and South Western Railway, which will have good reason to remember the big, and as far as Lambeth was concerned, most successful fight fought before Select Committees of Parliament. In the central parts of London, and the same applies (more or less) to all prosperous towns, this unavoidable displacement, as I have called it, must take place, and will prove sufficiently serious to require all the energy of the sanitary authorities in seeing that proper provision is made for re-housing as many of the displaced tenants as possible (if not all) in the immediate neighbourhood. Why, therefore, increase the labours of sanitary authorities by advising in addition large area-condemnation schemes, which must of necessity greatly intensify tho re-housing question and lead to trouble which in my opinion is quite unwarranted, except in certain exceptional instances as already stated? House-condemnation gives satisfactory results if systematically carried out, and there is, in addition, practically no displacement.

May, 1900]

Present-Day Area-Condemnation

585

The tenants of a house may be temporarily inconvenienced, but the Lambeth experience goes to show that though a few owners may, in odd cases, raise the rents to recoup themselves for extra capital outlaid through notices served by the sanitary authority, such is the exception, and rarely (if ever) leads to the tenants having to leave on account of the rents being BO raised. This is a very different experience from that met with in connection' with areacondemnations, where the displacement may be wholesale. I may add that the question as to the expediency of removing manufactories and works into the suburbs or into the country, and so of relieving central congestion by the enforced withdrawal of the workpeople, is one that may have to play an important part in the future, and with the futnre I will willingly leave it. In conclusion, weighing all the pros and cons, I feel I am jnstified in describing area-condemnations as not working out at all satisfactorily in practice. Such area-condemnations might, therefore, with advantage for the present, pending at least improved legislation for the working classes, be laid aside, and their places taken by careful house-to-house inspections of existing premises, and keeping such up to as high a standard of sanitary excellence as possible. Exceptional cases may have to be dealt with by means of Part 1. DISCUSSION. Dr. ALLAN said the introduction into Parliament of a measure to amend tho Housing of tho Working Classes Acts and the opening by H.R.H. the Prince of Wales of the Boundary Street Estate, combined to make the present moment a very appropriate one to raise the question as to how far the Housing of the Working Classes Act had been a success, and in what respects it had been l\ failure. Dr. Priestley appeared to have decided that Part I. of this Act, with rare exception, was a failure, and any action taken under it was therefore unjustifiable. But he (Dr. Allan) was sure that if Dr. Priestley found in his district an area which could not be dealt with except under Part I., he would not flinch from making the necessary representation, even though, as Mr. Blsshill had so well put it, the procedure were" costly, dilatory, and unsatisfactory as to re-housing." In tho particular circumstances with which Dr. Priestley had to deal in Lambeth, the course of action he was pursuing was undoubtedly the right one, and he was perhaps fortunate in finding he could work on those lines; but it was a mistake on his part to imagine that the same conditions obtained everywhere. Even to carry out what might be called tho repairing process was not free from difficulties and tedious delays, and most medical officers of health, sooner or later, discovered the obstructive owner, who tried to persuade the magistrate that he had complied with all the requirements to make his house habitable when he had done a little limewashing and repaired l\ window-sill or two. Much, undoubtedly, could be done by obtaining a strict observance of statutory orders, by removing obstructive dwellings, by widening and opening up streets (under Part II. of this Act, or under Michael Angelo Taylor's Act); but there were parts of our older cities where much more than this must be done, where more

586

Present.. Day Area.. Condemnation

[Public Health

drastic measures must be undertaken. It might not be on the ground that the majority of the houses themselves were individually decayed, but because, as the Act put it, of the narrowness, closeness, and bad arrangement of the streets, or the want of light, air, and ventilation, "which cannot be effectually remedied otherwise." The principles of action which Dr. Priestley had enunciated, excellent as they wero for application in suitable cases, were totally inapplicable when areas had to be dealt with such as the Boundary Street area, the Clare Market area, the Closes of the Old Town of Edinburgh, or parts of Liverpool and Glasgow. In such cases satisfactory action could only be taken under Part I. of this Act, or a special Act must be obtained for the purpose. If there were difficulties in the way, were they to shirk their duty because, as Dr. Priestley said, it might II embark their authorities on a stormy and treacherous sea" 'I "That sea was not stormy 'I The Dead Sea was perhaps an exception, and surely Dr. Priestley was not going to take its stagnation as typical of sanitary authorities. Adopting the words recently uttered by H.n.H. the Prince of Wales, he (Dr. Allan) would say: II One thing is certain, the difficulties have to be surmounted. I am satisfied not only that the public conscience is awakened on the subject, but that the public demands, and will demand, vigorous action in cleansing the slums which disgrace our civilization." Dr. Allan thought it would be conceded that a mistake had been made at first in relying upon Part I. of the Act solely for power to re-house. In his opinion the proper way to regard it was as a means for clearing an area, while Part III. should be utilized for providing housing accommodation in advance. He was glad to see that the London County Council was now coming round to that view. Some of the persons in any given area required to be housed in the immediate vicinity, -and he quite agreed with Dr. Priestley that such dwellings should be let at such rentals as could be paid by the tenants about to be displaced, who should in all cases have the first refusal. One great difficulty in such schemes was the cost, and it was eminently desirable that some steps should be taken to reduce it. The question was one which must be dealt with some day, but it did not necessarily arise on this paper. It was evident that if only such houses were erected on or in the vicinity of the cleared area as were absolutely necessary to re-house those who must livo there, then the land, which was often in central situations, could be much more profitably dealt with. To do this, however, advantage must be taken of Part III. of the Act to acquire land for the erection of dwellings in districts where rents were reasonable, and to which easy, rapid, and cheap transit was possible. On the question of land tenure and leasehold interests, he would only quote the conclusion of the Royal Commission on the Housing of the 'Working Classes contained in their supplementary report, that" the prevailing system of building leases is conducive to bad building, to deterioration of property towards the close of the lease, and to a. want of interest on the part of the occupier in the house he inhabits," and that "the system of building on leasehold land is a great cause of the many evils connected with overcrowding, unsanitary buildings, and excessive rents." In conclusion, he would only add that they required much greater stringency in the requirements of the Building Acts. It was ridiculous that they had such littlo power of control in regard to buildings which were in course of erection. It also seemed a matter of moment that a house suitable for occupation by ono family should be aJlowed to be converted into a tenement house without alterations being carried out to make it fit for such use. Dr. CHAL:lIERS expressed his pleasure at being present at that meeting, and considered himself as specially fortunate in hearing the very able paper which

Ita.Y. 1900J

Present..Day Area-Condemnation

587

Dr. Priestley had just read. There were several aspects of the subject which had been presented in quite a new light, but most notably the value which Dr. Priestley appeared to attach to Part II. of the Act 1\8 a method of improving house accommodation on a. large scale. In Glasgow they did not take action regarding individual houses, or small collections of houses, under this part of the Act, because they had somewhat similar power under a Iocsl Act, which was simpler in its working. Moreover, under Part 1. they had taken no action in Glasgow, because they possessed two Improvement Acts, ono of which was obt..ined in 1866, and the other in 1897. These Acts dealt with certain insanitary areas, and one reason which prompted them in Glasgow to adopt this course was thnt it shortened legislative procedure. Dr. Priestley, in describing the operations under Part I., had characterized them as "frontal attacks," and he (Dr. Chalmers) thought that Dr. Priestley might have suitably applied to the operations under Part II. another term also borrowed from current newspaper phraseology. The powers of Part II. were only in a limited sense applicable to the purposes of improving houses. They supplied a means, however, of selective condemnation -of " sniping," as it were, tho individual house which was structurally uninhabitable, and shutting it up; but this did not in the first place render other houses more habitable, or in any way increase the amenity of the neighbourhood. It might so happen that in a given" land," or court, the displacement of even one-halt of the tenants could be accomplished without in any sense improving the houses of the remaining half. Dr. Priestloy, if ho (Dr. Ohalmcrs) understood him nright, was somewhat apprehensive that the repopulation of reconstructed slum-nrsas would be accompanied by reappearance of some of the features which were characteristic of the displaced population. As proof that this apprehension wa.s unfounded, 'Dr. Chalmers cited tho example of a district which formerly had been ono of the most notable slums in Glasgow, but which had to a very large extent been completely razed, and thereafter rebuilt and repeopled by inhabitants of an entirely different class, with the result that tho death-rate had fallen from an average of 42 per 1,000 in the decade 1881·91, to 32 per 1,000 in the recent years of the present decade. According to experience of Glasgow, in none of the areas to which the dispersed population migrated were the conditions prevalent in the depopulated area quite reproduced, or even imitated to an extent suggeetlvo of a. rapid approach to those conditions, while the death-rates of these invaded areas had only shown a moderate Increase. Ho was glad to sce that under the Bill for tho Amendment of the Housing of the Working Classes Act now before Parliament it was proposed to give authorities power to acquire land beyond their boundaries. Mr. BLASHILL said this was of course largely a. medical question, and he knew nothing about that aspect of it. Tho paper which he read at tho Sanitary Congress at Southampton was written entirely from the architect's point of view. He had come to the conclusion, after many years' experience, that areacondemnation as carried out necessarily under this Act was a great mistake. Whether area-condemnation should be continued at all he was not prepared at present to say; but he could not agreo altogether with Dr. Priestley. Some areas could probably be dealt with in no other way. If lHOW of houses had no ventilation, proper ventilatlon could not be obtained by dealing with a house here and there. Area-condemnation was so costly under the process prescribed by the Act of 1890 that only a very few special cases should bo taken. The cost worked out at about £50 per individual displaced, which was an initial loss. If the owner wero responsible for the cost of remedying the unsanitary condition of the area,

588

Present . . Day Area.. Condemnation

[Public Health

more atten tion could then be paid to the people who were turned out . The notion th at a man must n ecessarily live n car his work was some thing new, and on o he did not accept. It mi ght be true in a fow cases, but the County Council found that only 20 per cent. of the re sidents in the Clare Market ar ea required to live ne ar their old hom es. It might be a convenience, but personally ho did not believe even in the 20 per cent.i--as a matter of necessity. By abandoning r ehou sing an economy of £50 per h ead could be effected. If the displac ed inhabitants h ad to remove to such a dist ance that their expen ses would be increased, compensation should be given, not in money, but in the form of a guarantee of the rent or some part of it for three, five, or seven years. That would deal with tho housing question, and would not cost 11 quarter of £50 per head. JIe questioned whether displac ed inhabitants should be re-housed in the highest standard of sccommodatlon at the public exp ense. He thought that a Society such as that of Medical Officers of Health should come to some clear conclusion as to what conditions would render a hou se unfit for habitation. Mr; MURPHY said it appeared to be necessary to refer to the circumstances which made improvement schemes necessary. They were necessary where the sites of the houses were faulty and r earrangement was required. If the land was in one ownership, they might look to such owner to carry out the necessary improvements when the leases fell in, but when the land was in 11 number of own erships that could not be hop ed for. If only repairs had been effected, they would now have had many acres of land crowded with streets of 0. most insanitary kind, aud containing houses which no human being ought to live in. For instance, in St. Giles's District area after area had been cleared of courts and alleys, and narrow streets crowded with hou ses with insufficient air-space, for which no possible improvement of the houses would have sufficed. The only thing was to clear away the whole, and rearrange the streets. But for such r epresentations, made in face of great opposition, the sanitary condition of St. Giles's District would not be in its pre sent satisfactory position. He (lIIr. Murphy) was not satisfied with the name of the Act under which these schemes were carried out. The -Housing of tho Working Classe s Act was really a Nui sance Removal Act, framed on a large scale-at all events, so far as Part 1. was concerned. 'I'hey cleared away insanitary prop erty, and made the best UBC they could of the land. Parlio.ment very properly required that du e regard should be paid to the people displaced, but the main intention was to get rid of unhealthy ar eas. It wa s certainly an expensive Act; it did not always work well, and many of th em would like to see it amended in one way or another. If, for instance, the cost of working the Act could fall on the owners, it would be a matter for satisfaction to the ratepayers. Questions of this sort were for Parliament j but inasmuch as these areas were dangers to the community, the community was justified in spending money to get rid of them. Another point they had to consider was how these conditions came into existence. It was largely through faulty Build.ing Acts, or perhaps want of such Acts. Some of the property in the Clare Market area in the Strand District was probably built in the time of Charles II. There were no Building Acts at th at date, or if there were th ey wer e very insufficient. These conditions had been brought about owing to want of control and supervision, and from that point of view there was some justification in spending public money in finding a rem edy, Apart, however, from the ethics of the question, it was the duty of medical officers of health to ende avour to fr ee their districts of these slums. Dr. SYKES admired Dr. Priestley for his courage in coming there and so

May. 1900]

Present... Day Area-Condemnation

589

frankly telling them his opinions on this qu estion. He congratulated him in being able to carry out Part II. of the Act, but that did not justify him in saying what he had said of Part 1. Person ally. there appeared to him more difficulty in administering Part II. of the Act than Part 1. He rather felt that Dr. Priestley was on the wrong line in one direction, in his comparison of London with other places. He was sure Dr. Chalmers and other provincial officers would forgive him" if he said that London was altogeth er exceptional. For instanc e, Dr. Priestley had said that in Liverpool th e land had cost 12s. per square yard. Dr. Mansfi eld Robin son had told him (Dr. Sykcs) th at in Shoreditch £4 lOs. per square yard had been paid. That was a very gr eat and serious difference. Dr. Priestley spoke about cottages. They might perhaps. build cottages down at the Cryst al Palace, but it was iplpos sible to do so in Central London. Such cottages would soon be shut in by lofty buildings, and if the cottages were then inspected twenty times a day they could not be improved. Dr. Pricstley objected to Part I. because it was so expensiv e. They admitted that all public work was expensive, but it might be simplified and economized. One of the difficulties under schemes was the question of re-housing. On the condemned area the houses were packed to the limit of 300 cubic fcet per person; but when re-housed 600 cubic feet had to be provided-in effect doubling the number of persons to be accommodated. This could be remedied by requiring the authority to provide the same amount of cubic dwelling-space as had been condemned. Dr. Priestley suggested a complete house-to-house inspection. Th at would be an enormous work, entailing a very largo staff. He could not accept Mr. Shirley Murphy's statement, that if public authorities did not take action in the matter the insanitary conditions would in all probability remedy themselves in time. If insanitary areas were dealt with by th o owners, there would probably be no rehou sing at all, because they would ultimately convert the dwelling. hou ses into offices, factories, workshops, and store-places. The displaced population would be forc ed still further outward, and the conditions centrally would get worse instead of better. Where private owners rebuilt dwelling-houses, accommodation of a very different, and usually better, class was provided. He knew of str eets where single-room ten ements could formerly be had at 2s. to Bs, per week which were now sites of residential flats, rented at £ 50 to £ 70 a yca.r and more. In ono street there were on one side ordinary" made down" houses, while on the other side such houses had been replaced by flats, so that there were two populations in the same street of totally different characters. The poorer people had not been displaced or re-housed by any public authority, but by private enterprise, and those who could pay most had been provided for best. Dr. HE:-.InROUGH asked whether Dr. Priestley's methods could apply to certain old walled-in towns, where the approach to a row of houses was up a narrow covered passage, with cowshcds and stables adjoining. The only wny for the animals to get in and out was through the same covered way. In BOrne cases the only approach to the cowshed was through the passage of the house itself, and all manure had to be brought through the house. The hous es were without through ventilation, and their construction was bad, to say nothing of defective ashpits and other sanitary defects . :Mr."WIGHTMAN, J.P., said he had ventured there at the reque st of Dr. Priestley, to endorse what he had said with regard to the condition of Lambeth, and to the way they had tried to improve its sanitary condition. He knew that if they had such condition s as he onco knew existed in St. Giles, they would have had to take different steps; but they had been fairly free from localities of that

590

Present..Day Area-Condemnation

[PubUc Health

kind; even their narrowest streets were not altogether without a fair amount of light and air. In their district Dr. Priestley's plan of dealing with these houses not only commcnded itself to the Vestry, but it also commended ltsell to the people who had to live in them. He represented those who had to meet these people; to advance the se schemes in the pre sence of those who were going to be removed, without any compensation, with probable loss of work, and probably what was worse to them-loss of association. I£ thcy regarded an area purely from th e sanitary point of view, they could get rid of the people (and one gentl eman said he was glad to know they did not come back again); but however good that might be from a scientific point of view, there ought also to be considered the humanitarian side. He looked at this matter and these people, knowing their circumstances, knowing what removal spelled to them, and he said that some risk ought to be taken before they were dlshoused, even if that risk resulted in the lowering by a decimal or two the standard of sanit!\~ion. Where a general clearance was about to take place, he would make it a aMle qua non that accommodation for re-housing the displaced people should be provided in the neigh . bourhood. He was glad to say that this principle had been conceded by the London and South-Western Railway Company. Only last night it waa reported to them that full accommodation would be provided for the people dishoused owing to the alterations at Waterloo Station. He had. a great deal of sympathy with what Mr, Blashill had said. Th ey must not go away with the idea that they in Lambeth were opposed to all clearances if they were necessary, but they entirely disagreed with gentlemen who said these people could go somewhere, anywhere out of their district. They thought even the poorest had a right to live, and if their houses were taken away proper accommodation should be found for them in the same neighbourhood. Mr. FLE~ING said it was very difficult to confine one's self to the scientific aspect of this important question. The human aspect had necessarily to be considered, and from this point of view he felt great sympathy with the views expressed by the Chairman of the Lambeth Vestry. The Housing Question at tho bottom was a financial question. He was not familiar in detail with tho parish of Lambeth, but the two cases quoted presented features of interest. The London and South-Western Railway were going to provide houses for the displaced persons at rents to be fixed by the Home Secretary, but it should not be forgotten railway companies regarded this compulsory re-houeing at less than market rents as a serious tax on the cost of the widening of the railway lines, and they became consequently less willing to propose widening schemes. He was interested in the case quoted in the paper, to the effect that the Vestry had recently compellcd a syndicate to fix the rent of dwellings they were erecting a.t a maximum of 25. per room. He would like to know under what Act that maximum had been enforced, and what were the circumstances connected with it. It was clear that if the railway company could not provide accommodation at 2s. 6d. per room without loss, this syndicate would be at even greater loss. There was a popular impression that rent was dependent upon cost, but this was a fallacy. Rent was determined principa.lly by demand, and not by cost. Take, for instance, the Boundary scheme, the cost of which Dr. Priestley said was lavish. The cost per room would be found to be within a pound or two of the cost of the Peabody Buildings. Yet the average rent per room was Bs, in one case and 25. 3!d. in the other, although the cost was practically identical. If they took the cost per foot cube, they would find the Boundary Street buildings had been built at a cost less than the recent Guinness Buildings, which werc

!l&Y.19001

Present..Day Area..Condemnation

591

dcsigned on vcry economical lines. With regard to the question of re -housing tho actual persons displaced, an interesting sidelight on the qucstion aro se in connection with Columbia Buildings, a block erected by the Guinnsss trustees close to the Boundary Street area. These buildings were distinctly below the average of the ordinary Guinness Buildings. Moreover, th ey were built just at thc moment the people were being displaced from Boundary Street. A large number of the displaced families moved into these Columbia Buildings, but at the end of six months hardly any of them remained there. They could not stand the discipline necessarily enforccd by the trustees. But while tho people had gone, the buildings remained, and would have to remain for many years yet. Thus, to secure a doubtful temporary advantage, a far more serious permanent disadvantage resulted. As to comparison with Liverpool, he was in conflict with Dr. Priestley, because he told them the Liverpool buildings paid very well, while the London buildings did not. He had apparently heen furnished with incomplete data. At Liverpool, as l\ matter of fact, the buildings were subsidi zed from rates, while the buildings built by London voluntarily had paid their way. Dr. Sykes had told them the price of land was less in Liverpool; this was an important point to bear in mind. There were many other differences to be considered. 'Vages were less in Liverpool, and bricks and other materials were far less costly. If Dr. Priestley would Iavour him 'with a call some day, he would show him exactly how the difference between the 3s. and the Is. 4d. was made up, and he could attack the items in detail if he so desired. Tho action of the medical officer of health in this question of Part T. condemnation appeared to him rather that of the surgeon when he brought the knife to bear on a patient. They only took this action whcn there was no other remedy; thoy only asked the ratepayer to bear this cost when there could be no other help. It "Was obviously a very costly procedure, and should not be employed more than was absolutely necessary to save human life. Dr. H. BEALE COLLIXS said he understood that the people displaced by the Waterloo improvement were to be re-housed within a.mile, but the London and South-Western Railway Company had acquired fifteen acres of land near his district apparently for the purpose of re-housing some of the persons they were to displace by tho extension of their railway. The PRESIDENT said this paper had given rise to a. most interesting and valuable discussion. Dr. Priestley's paper, in conjunction with Mr. 'Vightman's remarks, probably more nearly represented the fa.cts as to Lambeth than either alone. He was prepared to think that, with some exceptions, Part II. of the Act might meet all the requirements of the district; the mistake was in assuming that the conditions were the same everywhere. Dr. Priestley had assumed that repairs would accomplish all that was necessary in o,-ery case. Indeed, he hardly mentioned a single case under Part II. which was not capable of being dea.lt with by repair, and had not taken into consideration cases under Part II. which required demolition. That was a very incomplete view of the Housing of the Working Classes Act. Mr. Blashill wanted them to come to a conclusion as to what was meant by unfitness for human habitation, but they had no hesitation on that question. It was, moreover, defined in the Act itself; and the mere putting of houses described in Section 4 of the Housing of the Working Classes Act into repair would not meet the requirements of tho case. With Mr, Wightman's remarks on the humanitarian aspect they all heartily sympathized, and if Mr. Wightman went away with the impression that medical officers of health were not more anxious on this subject than anyone else, he

592

Present..Day Area..Condemnation

[Public Health

would be making a great mistake. At the same time, they were doing a great deal of good by clearing these areas. Persons of this class needed to be scattered and distributed among other strata of society. The supply of areas needing condemnation under Part I. was limited, and if these people went out of such badly constructed and badly placed houses into better houses, which such tenants would speedily cause to become out of repair, they could be dealt 'with as Dr. Priestley suggested. Dr. BOND said they had heard much about tho great expense of working Part I. of the Act, but no ono had mentioned the saving of public money that was effected as a consequence of the improvement in. tho areas. They knew that a great majority of the residents in these insanitary areas, when ill, went to workhouses or hospitals. Tho insanitary area. was conducive to illness, and the expense to the district therefrom was often lost sight of. Dr. PRIESTLEY, in reply, said that after very careful consideration he had come to the conclusion that they had no area in Lambeth that required condemnation under Part I. of the Act. They had no area which could only be remedied by means of an improvement scheme. That being so, the simplest method was to proceed under Part II. He experienced no difficulty in dealing with different owners. It was often the freeholder who was the" owner" under the Act, and frequently the same freeholder for a number of houses. As a general rule, there was no difficulty in getting the necessary repairs done. By that he did not mean the whitewashing of a ceiling, but practically the demolition and rebuilding oj' a house. He could show them houses in his district which had been pulled down under Part II. and rebuilt, and were again occupied by the same people who resided in them prior to his representations. Of course, they must fully understand that he only spoke for Lambeth, and he thought he was justified in saying that no representation could be made under Part I. for any area therein. A question had been raised as to the correctness of his statistics from Liverpool. All his figures were given him by Dr. Hope or by the late engineer of that cityMr. Boulnois-who definitely told him the houses were not subsidized out of the rates. The Manchester figures also were obtained from the medical officer of health and the borough surveyor.

A NEW MILK-PRESERVING PROCESS.*-A new milk-preserving process is being put to a test on the Continent. It is the invention of two Austrians, and takes the unusual form of preserving the milk, not in a fluid condition, but in the form of a powder. The milk about to be preserved is taken direct from the cow, and placed in a vessel at a tem0 perature of about 40 C. (equal to 104 0 F.), and is there kept until the whole of the water contained in it has evaporated. The resulting residue is then thoroughly dried in suitable chambers, and after complete desiccation it is finally put into cans, which are hermetically sealed. With the object of increasing the keeping quality of the powder, and rendering it more readily soluble, the milk, prior to being evaporated, has added to it about one-tenth per cent. of an alkaline carbonate, which, when combined with fatty matters, forms a compound capable of easy solution in water. It is claimed for the new powder that it may be kept for years in these hermetically-closed vessels without its keeping being in any way adversely affected.

*

Food and Sanitation.