the year 1866). After speaking of the great attention he had given the subject, he says: 'He would ask those present to examine the plans of the buildings of these associations' (alluding to the Metropolitan Association for Improving the Dwellings of the Industrial Classes, the Labourers' Friend Society, under the presidency of Earl Shaftesbury, and the Marylebone Association), 'not of any selected portions, but of the whole buildings, and he thought they would see that very often much space was lost, and they might in most cases have been erected cheaper, and yet have been quite as substantial, healthful, and comfortable, had every advantage been taken to make a good commercial dividend.' Again, take the opinion of Rev. Richard Burgess, B.D.; he says: 'He repeated that the poor, for whom they wished to provide dwellings, were, as á rule, averse to living in those immense modern, or model edifices.' I would conclude with the speech of Professor Kerr, which I think will conclusively show that whatever may be thought of my propositions for meeting this question (one of the most important that can engage the attention of architects and the public), at least the existing plans are condemned. The Professor says: 'With regard to the first question, namely, what I call the "dogmatic" model (and I use the term "dogmatic," of course, in its merely scientific sense, as referring to something to be accepted without special argument), I may say that for 25 or 30 years the improvement of the dwellings of the labouring classes has gone steadily forward in one direction, and

only one; and it is not to be wondered at if it proves to be the fact, that in going on so long in one direction the excellent promoters of the scheme have overreached their purpose. This is by no means an unusual thing, and the question is whether a crisis in the course of this enterprise has not now arrived? I think it has; and so apparently do gentlemen of great intelligence who have spoken to-night. It is remarkable that the dogmatic plan has not been defended by any one of the speakers. It is not maintained in its integrity by any gentleman present. Therefore I must express my astonishment when I find the chief of our professional organs not only supporting it in its entirety, but paying me the great compliment of saying, that if the present opposition had not been brought forward by myself, it would not have considered it necessary to do more than dismiss it with a dozen lines of disapproval. I think it is to be regretted when we find sentimentality so far misleading an important and honoured organ of public opinion. But it is not to be wondered at either, for when one has been accustomed with unimpeachable motives to run in a particular groove for a quarter of a century, the convictions of habitual thought are not easily to be shaken.'

I do not think I need weary the reader with any more opinions to show that the great efforts which have been made to provide dwellings for the industrial classes have not succeeded,* and it is notorious, I may

* Professor Kerr says: "Take all the model lodging-houses throughout London, erected within the last five-and-twenty years, and they are only

say, that the existing houses they live in are ill adapted for the purpose, are not conducive to health, comfort, or cleanliness. It will therefore be quite unnecessary to quote any high authorities to confirm this, and I will at once proceed to consider the plans of new buildings I have erected, ending this chapter with the remark made by Mr. Edward Hall, F.S.A.: 'He felt more than ever that the matter of planning was at the root of the question, and not only planning as to the houses themselves of the metropolis, but also as to the streets and other lines of communication;' and desiring the reader, as he follows my propositions, to bear in mind, as I have tried to do, the maxim contained in the Report of the Special Committee to the Society of Arts (April 1864): It is of course essential to the success of undertakings for the improvement of the homes of the people, that they should be appreciated and patronised by those for whose benefit they are intended.'

6

a mere drop in the bucket, compared with the ordinary progress of population.' I remember reading a short time since, that the increase of population averaged 70,000 a year in London, and it required 7,000 additional houses to be built annually to meet the increased demand from this cause.

CHAPTER II.

EXPLANATORY OF THE

DESIGNS REGISTERED UNDER THE

TITLE

'B. FLETCHER'S MODEL DWELLINGS FOR THE INDUSTRIAL CLASSES FOUR DIFFERENT PLANS AND ELEVATIONS GIVEN, AND COMPARISON MADE BETWEEN THEM AND OTHER EXISTING HOUSES.

ON the sound old principle that ere you condemn a thing you should be able to suggest a better, let us now proceed to consider the houses which have been recently erected at Pentonville (see Plates No. 1, 3, 4, and 5), from the designs and under the superintendence of the Author. These houses have answered extremely well, no difficulty having been experienced in letting every set of apartments on remunerative terms, a result attributable, the Author cannot but believe, in great measure to the presence of advantages not possessed by any previously erected 'model dwellings,' but even more to the absence of the disadvantages alluded to in the last chapter as being so prominent in the Waterlow' and other similar erections.

6

In the first place, there is nothing in the external appearance of these houses to call attention to the fact that the same building is occupied in common by more than one family. No huge ungainly mass of brickwork, in appearance something between a barrack and a workhouse, as in the case of the building in Platt