HOMES OF THE LONDON POOR.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1268, 31 May 1884, Page 2

HOMES OF THE LONDON POOR.

An account is published la the Times of a visit made by Sorton Parry, a magistrate, to the moat squalid districts of Southwark, on behalf of a committee of gentlemen formed in Brompton with a view to assist in the improvement of the homes of the London poor. The district visited is inhabited by thieves and outcasts, and by such toilers in the city as are compelled by reason of their long hours of labour to live close to their work. The district was described forty years ago by Dickens, and it is even worse now in consequence of overcrowding, caused by demolitions elsewhere. Sorton Parry, who was accompanied by a detective from Stones’ End Police Station, passed through Lant street to a narrow passage, “ the entrance to a thieves’ burrow, as if created on purpose to aid in the escape of those who committed felonies,” and made his way through layers of filth to a place known as Vineyard. Here the visitor found some squalid houses inhabited by hard-working people. Sorton Parry knocked at one of the little houses, and a woman, who, it seems, was standing behind the door, opened it. She, it was soon seen, was the landlady, come to collect the rents, which aye due every Monday morning if not paid on Saturday night. She answered with some asperity that the rents of the two little dens called rooms, six feet by seven feet, made together 11s fid a week—“ furnished,” she added, and disappeared. The other inquiries ware made- of the lodgers, who invited the visitors to inspect the furniture.” Any “sticks,” as furniture is called in these regions, more wretched than those which garnished these homes it would be hard to conceive. A truckle bedstead, occupying a large part of the room, a slip of a table, and two broken-down chairs comprised the “ furniture,” and the lodger, referring to a cup and saucer or two, said the “ crockery ” was “ their ” own.’ “ Their" referred to her husband and herself. Her husband was a worker on the river “ for the city,” and the upper floor lodger’s husband was a worker at Billingsgate, also for the city of London. There was an air of quiet resignation and humility among these people ; while the air of the landlady was of the defiant character, as much as to say, “if they can do bettor else, where, lot them go.” As to “sanitary arrangements to the houses, there wore none, and no pretence of any.” Here whole families lived in one room, and they appeared to think the overcrowding not the worst of the evils, as it kept them warm. The houses were wretchedly out of repair, and the window frames seemed to be starting from the brickwork. A narrow passage- brought the visitors to another ill phase of life—to the dens of immorality and crime. The church bell of St George’s had just struck the hour of noon ; but the people in this part of the borough had not fully risen. An alarm had evidently gone round, and heads came out of windows, while people slunk out of the doors, some of them followed by the eyes of the detective.sergeant. To describe the condition under which these people live, physical and otherwise, would be a task ungrateful to writer and reader. To state the matter 'shortly, these people are left to live like beasts, and they form the plague of social and moral life. They give work to judges, gaolers and hospitals, drain the profits from the workers apd the health from the soldiers. The spot is a lurking place for burglars, street robbers and women thieves ; and only soldiers, who have little beyond health to lose, are enticed to the spot. The visitors saw more wretched holes, the condition of which is horrible to think of, in which workers were crowded into fever-dens too shocking to describe in detail, and where they paid high rents—that is to say, 7s a week—for a space not fit for dog kennels. In one of these places ten persons lived. There were thirteen formerly; but three having been cut off in three weeks by bronchitis, the overcrowding had been reduced. The onus of ownership of this property—of gathering rents from the direst poverty, from viciousness and crime—lies, ic wag stated, between the Ecclesiastical Commissions! s and the Metropolitan Board of Works. The visitors then crossed the Borough High street, near the Church of St George, and went on to property, part of which, it has been found, belongs to the City of London Corporation, as owners of the Bridge House estate. Another part of the spot now visited, th e site of the old Marshalsea Prison, belongs to a lady of title; and another owner near here is a clergyman, who holds a rich living in the south-west suburbs of London. “ All the property is apparently in t;o hands of agents, and is all of a ‘weekly’ character. Angel Court, Collier’s Bents, on the north-east side of St Geerge’s Church, was the place in which the visitors found thgnselves. Four houses j ust behind St George’s Church were in a shocking unsanitary One wjth about eight rooms, containing 51 dwellers, was stated to be the property of the Corporation of London. These four houses have, with* two others on the same row, a corporate sign and the date of * 1768.’ The houses are now in a battered condition, and stairs broken, the yards in a state of filth, and the windows broken. An adjacent court called Unicorn Court is a breeding place for scarlet and typhoid fevers. The tenants’ landlord is a publican. All these places are under the shadow of the parish church, within a circle of a hundred yards ef it, and yet all tbs people met declared th»s

no ministers of religion called upon them A except the priest upon the Roman Oatholies ; that they shared no benevolence ; , that the only signs of a religions life _ ' brought to any was an occasional trket thrown in at the door; and that they were utterly forgotten by God and man—except by the rent collector and School Board visitors.”