640 REPORT—1904. 
the Municipality as logically calling for municipal housing on a similarly large 
scale, public attention was roused. It began to come home to the citizens that 
very gigantic operations were being carried out, and very gigantic responsibilities 
for the future being incurred, without, as it seemed, any thorough diagnosis 
or any definite plan. The whole problem was seen to he one which, in other 
circumstances, would have called fora Royal Commission, The demand was made 
for a local inquiry on similar lines; and, when the Prime Minister gave his cordial 
approval to such an inguiry, the Municipality appointed a mixed Commission of 
nine councillors and six private citizens, with a remit to examine (a) the causes 
which led to congested and insanitary areas and overcrowding; (5) the remedies 
which could or should be adopted for the clearance of existing congested, insani- 
tary, and overcrowded areas, and for the prevention of these evils in future; and 
(c) any other phases of or questions connected with the housing problem in Glas- 
gow which the Commission may deem it desirable, necessary, or expedient to con- 
sider and report upon. 
The evidence, report, and recommendations are now before the public. 
Generally speaking, they bear out the conclusion that many things hitherto dis- 
cussed as parts of the Housing Problem are not problems at all, but phenomena 
which merely need to be known to secure that they are put an end to. Slums 
must be cleared away; streets must be widened; overcrowding must be pre- 
vented; the liberty of the landlord to sell and of the tenant to use insanitary 
houses must be interfered with; light and air space must be guarded as a right of 
the poor. These are dictates of public health and public morals, and the Com- 
mission calls for the firm administration of powers which the Municipality already 
has and for further powers where these are not sufficient. 
Connected incidentally with this there are, indeed, minor problems, such as 
questions of procedure, of acquisition, of compensation, and the like; but, so far 
as I am able to judge, the real Housing Problem of to-day narrows itself down to 
this: how far the experience gained points in the direction of the Municipality 
itself building and owning houses for certain of the poorer classes. 
To this the Commission has contributed an answer in so far that, in the 
special circumstances of Glasgow, it recommends a limited scheme of municipal 
building and owning. But it adds the words ‘without expressing any opinion 
upon the general policy of municipal housing.’ 
I venture to think that there is no more pressing duty now incumbent on 
economists than to take up this general question. I propose, then, first, to con- 
sider building and owning of house property as a branch of municipal activity ; 
and, secondly, to examine the particular circumstances which suggest a revision or 
relaxation of general principles. 
For a Municipality, deliberately and of set intention, to add a new competitive 
industry to its already manifold activities, is a serious matter from three points of 
view. 
(1) House-owning is a business, and it is neither a routine business nor one 
where success is certain. So far as it has not a monopoly, a Municipality cannot 
presume upon demand—cannot command a remunerative sale for what it provides. 
As a builder, it has advantages and it has disadvantages; as an owner, it has 
also advantages and disadvantages—particularly, perhaps, in that it has a con- 
science. 
Assuming, however, that a Municipality can manage its enterprises as well as 
private citizens manage theirs, and that its house-owning covers all recognised 
expenses and runs no risk of coming upon the rates, what must be emphasised is 
that it pledges the future ratepayers for the security of all the capital borrowed. 
It is short-sighted to conceal the dangers and responsibilities of this by calling such 
a debt ‘productive.’ Borrowed capital changed into stone and lime certainly 
remains an ‘asset,’ but whether the asset is worth much, or little, or nothing, 
depends on the value which future generations will put upon it. An old mill may 
be ‘good’ for half a century more as a building, and yet be worth less than 
nothing as a mill. So may a tenement of houses, by change of circumstances, lose 
