miserable compensation for the destruction of his home, the abandonment of his business, to say nothing of his load of debt to the building society. In this case so much local feeling has been aroused that the whole scheme has had to be reconsidered. It is asserted by some housing zealots that people buying poor property should recognize that they are indulging in a speculative transaction, and must not be surprised if they are badly hit. But there is an additional hardship in the present system of compensation being limited to the market value of the land cleared of buildings. For the value of the land is reduced according to the use put upon it by the purchasing authority. Thus, if the land when cleared is to be used for the purpose of a workingclass housing scheme, the value will be fixed on that basis, no matter how high its value may be as a commercial site. A decision of the High Court in the case Northwood v. the London County Council showed up in the limelight the effect of these provisions. In this case certain licensed premises had been included in a slum clearance scheme, and the court held that the licensee could not claim any compensation for trade disturbance, loss of licence or trade fixtures, nor for the increased value of the site consequent upon the existence of the licence. The premises had been included in a slum clearance scheme on the ground, apparently, that they formed a part of the slum area, and not on the ground that they were in an insanitary condition in themselves. It is indeed harsh that persons whose property taken from them should only receive nominal compensation because of its geographical situation. is The Unhealthy Areas Committee, which was appointed to consider the matter, submitted the following principles to govern the scale of compensation : (1) When a landlord has allowed his property to fall into a condition which is unfit for human habitation, it is not equitable that he should receive anything by way of compensation for the structure, even though he continue to draw revenue from it by reason of the exceptional shortage of accommodation now prevailing. (2) Where an area is unhealthy by reason of the number and arrangement of the buildings upon it, it is equitable to consider that all such buildings are depreciated in value by that condition, even when they may in themselves be unexceptionable. Mr. Neville Chamberlain and his committee acknowledged that the existing drastic provisions were "likely to lead to such inequality and injustice as between individuals as to encounter violent opposition," but the Government has so far not found any more equitable basis for compensation. The present state of the law therefore puts an obstacle in front of local authorities as soon as they attempt to improve their unhealthy areas. Some modification of the clause is imperative. Possibly local authorities will be empowered to allow varying rates of compensation according to the hardships inflicted, although such power may lead to some abuses in small districts. In any case, the alternative scale recommended by the Unhealthy Areas Committee is now admitted to be unsatisfactory, and so another scheme must be devised that will not make unduly high demands upon the Treasury, and yet will be less harsh in its individual application. Apart from the injustice inflicted on poor owners by local authorities taking over unhealthy areas, there is a political consideration that is often overlooked. Under the powers given by recent housing legislation, a public body may acquire insanitary property, and proceed to recondition it at the expense of the ratepayers. Socialists and sentimentalists, who so frequently join hands upon local authorities, are advocating this procedure, regardless of the financial and political consequences. The repair and upkeep of any houses not in sound structural condition will be costly and, if carried out by committees slow in decision and inclined to bureaucratic extravagance, will involve heavy and recurring burdens upon the rates. Even more serious than the financial risks is the danger that a local council may be tempted to conciliate the tenants of poor property by bribes in the form of lower rents and added amenities in order to capture votes. Imagine an East End council becoming the owners of hundreds of acres of poor property near the London docks! We should expect scandals such as those that have been revealed recently in the administration of relief under the poor law. Already the menace of corruption is evident in the north of England, where tenants of new municipal houses, all living in one district, have been organizing so as to vote in combination for those municipal candidates who advocate a decrease of rents. We have become so bewildered by the various social reform expedients, all paid for out of the public purse, that many people lose sight of the fundamental defects of State or municipal ownership and, forgetting what private enterprise has done in the past, fail to see what it is accomplishing quietly to-day, and how it may well develop in the future. In these days of State subsidies, for example, little is heard of the valuable help given by such private enterprise as the Peabody Donation Fund, which is now in its sixty-third year. The fund at the beginning of 1927 amounted to £2,409,467 19s. 6d. The governors have now provided for the artisan and labouring poor of London 16,619 rooms. The average weekly earnings of the head of each family in residence last year was £2 5s. 2d. per block tenements, and £3 5s. 11d. for cottages. The average weekly charge, including the weekly proportion of rates, worked out to 3s. 2 d. per room. The rent in all cases includes the free use of water, laundries and sculleries. The figures show that the benefactions of the late Mr. Peabody are still providing homes at a comparatively low rental for over 23,000 Londoners. Statistics showing the better health enjoyed by those who occupy the Peabody buildings as compared with the remainder of the population are impressive. The proportion of deaths, including those inhabitants who are removed to hospitals, is only 7.17 per 1,000 as compared with 11.6 per 1,000 in London; while 42 per 1,000 children die under the age of one year in Peabody houses as compared with 64 per 1,000 in London. This work of private enterprise is progressing, and during the past few months new tenements and cottages erected at Hammersmith have been. occupied. It is interesting to note that among the tenants in the Peabody buildings are 523 charwomen, 842 labourers, 403 porters, and 232 warehouse labourers. The Chairman of the Governors of the Peabody Fund is the Duke of Devonshire, and a number of well-known men give their services to the Fund unobtrusively. The Socialist advocates of municipal ownership are strangely silent about such private service, which is by no means unique. Within the last three years voluntary enterprise has established a number of societies in provincial towns. These experiments in trying to meet local needs have been inspired by the Voluntary Housing of the Poor Crusade, in which Mr. T. Speake, a sanitary inspector of Shrewsbury, has taken a prominent part. Under this scheme, Housing of the Poor Trusts have been set up in over twenty local government areas where the housing conditions are acute. Usually the trust has been launched as a Public Utility Society with limited dividends. Its object is to raise funds with which to supplement the work of the local authority by meeting the needs of the poor who cannot rent the municipal houses. In most cases the leaders of the Churches have taken the initiative. The constitution of each society is so framed as to secure the subsidies and loans offered under the various Housing Acts. In every case where there has been success, there has been close co-operation with the local council, which can help in such ways as the selection of suitable houses for closing or for reconstruction, the choice of sites, the laying-out of roads, and the installation of sewers and drains. A few actual examples may be of interest. At Kendal, a housing company was formed in 1925, and some 48 houses are now completed, with rents fixed at 7s. 6d. per week plus rates. In this case the owner sold ripe building sites at the usual price of agricultural land. At Market Drayton the society decided to improve a group of 28 insanitary houses, and bought for £1,125 this property which had been condemned as unfit. The houses are being improved with capital provided in the shape of gifts to the society. At Manchester, with the help of loans and donations, 24 houses have been built at rents of about 6s. 11d. per week. The well-known St. Pancras scheme of the Magdalen College Mission has done valuable work; but here again a considerable part of the capital has been provided by means of free gifts, and the treasurer, secretary, architect, surveyor, and solicitor are giving their experience and work as honorary officials. The way that the Rev. Father Jellicoe of the Magdalen College Mission has spoken of this admirable venture has been somewhat misleading, for he has not given sufficient emphasis to the amount of free capital and gratuitous service that have so much contributed to its success. At Birmingham there is a society founded by the Birmingham Continuation Committee of C.O.P.E.C., with the object of purchasing insanitary property and carrying out schemes of betterment. As the first instalment of their work they are completely reconditioning 19 houses, and providing an inside water supply. The rents of these old houses are being collected by a lady member of the committee, who holds a sanitary inspector's certificate. At Bristol an association, promoted by the Bristol Council of Christian Churches, has converted houses scheduled for demolition into tenement flats, which can be let at an inclusive rent of IOS. 10s. per week. At Leamington new houses are being built. It A different policy has been adopted at Shrewsbury by the local trust. Here it has been decided not to attempt any reconditioning, but to build new houses for those families who now live in insanitary areas, and in time to hand the whole of the property of the trust over to the council. At Altrincham, new houses are being erected at an all-in cost of about £600, and progress has been facilitated by the gift of an acre of land from the Earl of Stamford. At Cambridge, prominent university and town representatives have erected some 22 houses, to be let at a rent not exceeding 5s. 6d. a week. There are various other schemes in existence, notably in Kensington, Paddington, Oswestry, and also in Glasgow. Admittedly these public-spirited undertakings can have only limited results. They can help comparatively few families, but the value of a number of citizens learning from practical experiences the difficulties and the remedies for dealing with slums cannot be over-estimated. We have suffered in the past in this country because housing and slum clearances have been mainly in the hands of professional men and of enthusiasts who serve on local authorities. With few exceptions those housing reformers, who are not professional surveyors, architects or accountants, or local councillors, have been cranks, usually of the Socialist persuasion. The voluntary societies are training scores of persons in all parts of the country to appreciate the realities of the slum problem. There is one further aspect of the slum problem worthy of consideration. Even in the case of the clearance of worn-out property by local authorities, there need not necessarily be a heavy loss. A profit may actually be made to the relief of local rates, if foresight and wisdom are exercised. This is one lesson to be learnt from some of the schemes carried out in the United States, where town planning is far more advanced in its practical application to problems, especially to built-up areas, than in this country. In both New York and Chicago, for example, poor and worn-out properties have been demolished, and the sites so developed |