[TO THE EDITOR Of THE "SPECTATOR."]
SIE;--WhilSt thanking you for your courtesy in publishing my letter—Spectator, March 9th—I cannot but feel surprise at your comments. As to "materials" or "no projections," &c., which are comparatively matters of minor importance, let us leave them to the joint wisdom of the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Carpenters' Company to be settled with the Local Government Board. But is it fair, is it rational, is it wise, to condemn "Model By-laws" without afford- ing your uninitiated readers the smallest insight into the grievous evils they are intended to grapple with ? The wolf is at the door. With all due deference I venture to say that under the circumstances Rural District Councils in adopting by-laws have only discharged a common duty they owe to their working-class neighbours in securing for them, as far as may be at present, dry homes to live in, pure air to breathe, and wholesome water to drink.—I am, Sir, &c., [Of course we want sanitary dwellings, but our complaint is that our stupid "Model By-laws" do not realise that a wooden or a chalk house, or any other than a stone or brick house, may be perfectly healthy as well as cheap. The "Model By-laws as applied to rural districts are an unintelligent, expensive, and inefficient way of securing the sanitary requirements we all desire. We can publish no more letters on this subject.— En. Spectator.]
Previous page
