detection of crime fall on English citizens, not as citizens, but as inhabitants of a given locality; and it is only right that those who would receive the ultimate and indirect economic gain should be charged with the initial expense. On all these grounds the economist would prefer to see this evil taken in hand by local and not by central authorities, at local not imperial expense.1

So far the Act of 1875 was drawn on principles which seem to be justified on economic grounds: the chief defect, and one which has rendered the measure much less operative than its authors hoped, was pointed out by Mr. Fawcett during the debate on the motion for going into committee :

'The Bill said that the owner of a house must be compensated at the market price of his property, and he was informed by competent authorities that in calculating the market price, an element which they would have to take into consideration would be the income which the house was yielding at the present time. Now it was perfectly notorious that the more disgraceful, the more overcrowded, and the more deficient was the state of many of these houses, the larger was the income they yielded; and the ratepayers would therefore see their money lavishly paid to owners who had allowed their property to fall into such a condition that it had to be condemned as unfit for human habitation. He was told that ominous rumours were spreading of the purchase of this class of property by house speculators in the hope of getting large compensation under this Bill. Fifteen ratepayers and therefore fifteen owners of these tumble

1 Another phase of this difficulty as between the localities and the Metropolis of the whole was discussed in connexion with Mr. Shaw Lefevre's Bill in 1882.

23 Hansard, ccxxiii. 41.

down habitations could set in operation this Act, under which their property would be bought at the full market price by the local authorities. He believed that if the right hon. gentleman would consult the local authorities, he would receive from them but one opinion-that the principle of compensation adopted in the Bill involved so much cost as to make it highly probable that it would produce but little beneficial effect." Now though Mr. Cross added a clause in committee in the hope of guarding against these anticipated evils, Mr. Fawcett's prediction has been confirmed, and the measure has proved to a great extent a dead letter.

49. This has also to some extent been the case with the Act of 1868, which was in some respects far more sweeping than that of 1875: it was intended to provide a means by which the local authorities-or if necessary the Secretary of State-should on the complaint of an occupier and report of the Local Medical officer compel the owners of houses to put them in good condition at their own expense or to demolish them.2 All sorts of difficulties have been found in working this measure, partly because it was itself defective, partly it is said because the members of local boards are often interested as individuals in property which would be condemned under the Act; and partly because the property is held by so many different persons that it was almost impossible to assign the proportions of expense which each ought to bear. This Act however embodied the sound principle that if houses are unfit for human habitation, the owners should be entitled to no further compensation

13 Hansard, ccxxiii. 761.

31 and 32 Vict. c. 130, §§ 12, 13, 18, 20, 23.

than the value of the materials after the expense of demolition and removal had been deducted. If the Act of 1868 were well carried out and houses duly scheduled for demolition unless the owners chose to render them thoroughly satisfactory, the question would be greatly simplified. There would be no need for any sudden action, but if the owners of such scheduled houses were treated as having no legal right of enforcing the payment of rents, there would be comparatively little difficulty in acquiring the property at a "reasonable" price. It is inconsistent with the whole tradition of English practice that while the dealer who sells unwholesome meat is liable to punishment, the landlord who lets unwholesome houses should be supported in his extortions and ensured against loss and in future action in the matter the methods of 1875 might be followed but the compensation allowed on the principles of 1868.

Another most important step was taken by Mr. Cross in 1874 in connexion with the Midland Railway Bill. A standing order was subsequently introduced which has in the present session proved fatal to the Bill for a new railway route to Brighton. It compels those who demolish the dwellings of the poor and clear large spaces for great industrial undertakings to provide new houses for those who are thus displaced: and thus put a stop to what had been the most fruitful source of the evil.

It may indeed be questioned whether it would not be possible to go further, and not only compel companies to abstain from reducing house accommodation, but compel them to provide suitable dwellings for their own employés. They could create villages for their men at some little distance from the terminus and provide the means for bringing their engine-drivers, guards, and porters to their

work with far greater ease than other employers of labour, and therefore it might be worth while to attempt a beginning, in this matter, with them. At the same time there is no reason why it should stop with them; large employers of labour might not unfitly be called on to see to the housing of their men, by providing good accommodation for the average numbers, as shown by their books, in their employ. In many cases there would be a distinct advantage to them in having the labourers thus grouped within reach, while with the present status and power of organisation which labourers possess there would be little danger of their suffering oppression, such as farm labourers have often felt, from the additional power which an employer possesses when he is also a landlord and can reduce the pay of his labourers by raising house

rents.

50. The necessity of making some provision for the supply of additional house-room for the poor led to the passing of Mr. Torrens's Artisans Dwellings Act (1868) Amendment Act in 1879.2 The Act of 1868, in the form in which it passed, had been chiefly a street improvement measure: in one district "three years and a half had been spent in pulling down one fifth of the premises without even beginning to rebuild, and in negotiating about freeholds and leaseholds while the plight of the wretched people was necessarily made worse than ever." By giving the vestries powers to rebuild as well as to demolish it was hoped that the demolition of rookeries might proceed more rapidly and without the increasing misery which was induced by pulling down bad houses

1 Devas, Groundwork of Economics, 409. 2 42 and 43 Vict. c. 64.

33 Hansard, ccxlv. 1938.

before better ones were provided. It thus appears that the really pressing question is not whom shall we make responsible for the expense of removing insanitary houses, but the far larger one, who shall be responsible for providing accommodation in which the people shall live with a prospect of enjoying reasonable health. But even so, the question need not be taken out of the range of measures affecting national vigour, and may be argued as an economic, not a philanthropic question.

The measures which have been passed avowedly for improving the Public Health seem hardly to require any comment here: Mr. Sclater Booth's Bill in 18751 did little more than consolidate existing Acts; and that of 18822 only extended it with reference to the condition of Hop-pickers.

2. National Administration of Capital.

51. Under this heading a very considerable number of measures must be discussed. We must note the national employment of capital which has taken place by the investment of £4,000,000 in the Suez Canal, and through the State undertaking to carry on a parcels post: we must also try to discuss the effect which recent legislation has had in determining the direction of private capital, either by giving greater facilities for the investment of capital in certain employments, or by rendering certain undertakings more attractive by making them more profitable but this large subject cannot be discussed at all fully in our limited space, and it is therefore necessary to omit all examination of the various budgets and of the effects on the employment of private capital which may

1 38 and 39 Vict. c. 55.

2 45 and 46 Vict. c. 23.