Chapter XIV: Part II: The Practice of Horticulture (12)

The houses in Crete would seem to have been small in area, but this was compensated for in height, as the small plaques found in the palace at Cnossus show houses in two or three storeys, with gable roofs and windows subdivided by mullions and transomes, corresponding with those of the 15th to 17th centuries in England. The stone staircase in the palace rising through two storeys shows that even at this early period the houses in towns had floors superposed one above the other; to a certain extent the same extension existed in the later Greek houses found in Delos, in two of which there was clear evidence of wooden staircases leading within to the roof or to an upper storey. The largest series hitherto discovered is that at Priene in Asia Minor, where the remains of some thirty examples were found, varying in dimensions, but all based on the same plan; this consisted of an entrance passage leading to an open court, on the north side of which, and therefore facing south, was an open portico, corresponding to the _prostas_ in Vitruvius (vi. 7), and in the rear two large rooms, one of which might be the oecus or sitting-room, and the other the thalamos or chief bedroom. Other rooms round the court were the triclinium, or dining room, and cubicula or bedchambers. The largest of these houses occupied an area measuring 75 X 30 ft. Those found in Delos, though fewer in number, are of much greater importance, the house in the street of the theatre having twelve rooms exclusive of the entrance passage and the great central court, surrounded on all four sides by a peristyle; in this house the oecus measured 26 X 18 ft. In a second example the prostas consisted of a long gallery, the whole width of the site, which was lighted by windows at each end, the sills of which were raised 8 ft. or 9 ft. from the floor.

_Photo, Neurdein._
FIG. 4.--MUSICIAN'S HOUSE, REIMS.

_Photo, F. Frith & Co._
FIG. 5.--JEW'S HOUSE, LINCOLN.

_Photo, Neurdein._
FIG. 6.--HOTEL DE CLUNY, PARIS.]

_Photo, Neurdein._
FIG. 7.--HOTEL DE JACQUES COEUR, BOURGES, FACADE.

Fig. 8.--HALF-TIMBERED HOUSE AT HILDESHEIM.

_Photo. F. Frith & Co._
FIG. 9.--HOUSE OF JOHN HARVARD'S MOTHER, STRATFORD-ON-AVON.]

The remains of the houses found in the Peiraeus are of the same simple plan as those at Priene, and suggest that the Greek house was considered to be the private residence only for the members of the family, and without any provision for entertaining guests as in Rome and Pompeii. From the descriptions given by Vitruvius (ii. 8) it may be gathered that in his time many of the houses in Rome were built in unburnt brick, the walls of which, if properly protected at the top with a course of burnt brick projecting over the face of the brickwork, and coated inside and outside with stucco, were considered to be more lasting than those built in soft stone. Vitruvius refers also to Greek houses thus built, and states that in the house of Mausolus, at Halicarnassus, the walls were of unburnt brick, and the plastering with which they were covered was so polished that they sparkled like glass. In Rome, however, he points out, such walls ought to be forbidden, as they are not fit to carry an upper storey, unless they are of great thickness, and as upper storeys become necessary in a crowded city such walls would occupy too much space. The houses in Pompeii (q.v.) were built in rubble masonry with clay mortar, and their walls were protected at the top by burnt brick courses and their faces with stucco; they were, however, of a second- or third-rate class compared with those in Rome, the magnificence of which is attested in the descriptions given by various writers and substantiated by the remains occasionally found in excavations. Vitruvius refers to upper storeys, which were necessary in consequence of the limited area in Rome, and representations in mosaic floors and in bas-relief sculpture have been found on which two or three storeys are indicated. The plans of many Roman houses are shown on the _Marble Plan_, and they resemble those of Pompeii, but it is probable that the principal reception rooms were on an upper storey, long since destroyed. The house of Livia on the Palatine Hill was in two storeys, and the decoration was of a much finer character than those of Pompeii; this house and the House of the Vestals might be taken as representative of the Roman house in Rome itself. In those built in colder climates, as in England and Germany, account has to be taken of the special provision required for warming the rooms by hypocausts, of which numerous examples have been found, with rich mosaic floors over them.

Of the houses in succeeding centuries, those found in the cities of central Syria, described in the article ARCHITECTURE, are wonderfully perfect, in consequence of their desertion at the time of the Mahommedan invasion in the 7th century. Very little is known of the houses in Europe during the dark ages, owing to the fact that they were generally built in wood, with thatched roofs. The only examples in stone which have been preserved are those in the island of Skellig Michael, Kerry, which were constructed like the beehive tombs at Mycenae with stone courses overlapping inside until they closed in at the top. These houses or cells were rectangular inside and round or oval outside, with a small low door at one end, and an opening above to let the smoke out.

The houses, even in large towns like London, were built mainly in wood, in some cases down to the 17th century; in the country, the smaller houses were constructed with trunks of trees in pairs, one end of the trunk being sunk in the ground, the other bent over and secured by a ridge piece, thus forming a pointed arch, the opening of which was about 11 ft. The pairs were fixed 16 ft. apart, and the space included constituted a bay, any requisite increase in the size of the house being made by doubling or trebling the bays. The roofs were thatched with straw on battens, and sometimes with a collar beam carrying a floor, which constituted an upper storey. The end walls were closed with wooden studs and wattle-and-daub filling. The pairs of trees were known as forks or crucks. Vitruvius (ii. 1) suggests a similar kind of building in ancient times, except that the interlaced twigs were covered with clay, so as to carry off the rain. In Yorkshire there was another type of house, known as a coit, which was a dwelling-house and barn (shippon) united; the latter contained the cow-stalls with loft above, and the former was in two storeys, with a ladder inside the room leading to the upper floor.[1]

Passing now to structures of a less ephemeral character, the earliest houses of which there still remain substantial relics are those built in stone (see MANOR HOUSE). The Jew's House at Lincoln, 12th century, is one of the best-known examples, and still preserves its street front in stone, with rich entrance doorway and first-floor windows lighting the principal room, which seems invariably in those early houses to have been on the first floor, the ground floor being used for service and stores (see Plate I. fig. 5). To the 13th century belongs the old Rectory House at West Dean, Sussex, and to the 14th century the Parsonage House at Market Deeping, Lincolnshire. The principal examples of the domestic architecture of this early period in the country are castles, manor houses and farm buildings, as town houses occupied sites too valuable to be left untouched; this, however, is not the case in France, and particularly in the south, where streets of early houses are still to be found in good preservation, such as those at Cluny (fig. 1) and Cordes (Tarn), and others at Montferrand, Cahors, Figeac, Angers, Provins, Sarlat (fig. 2), St Emilion, Perigueux, Soissons and Beauvais, dating from the 12th to the 14th centuries. One of the most remarkable examples is the Musician's House at Reims (see Plate I., fig. 4), with large windows on the first floor, between which are niches with life-size figures of musicians seated in them. Generally speaking, the ground storeys of these houses, which in many cases were occupied by shops, have been transformed, but occasionally the old shop fronts remain, as in Dinan, Morlaix and other old towns in Brittany. Houses of the first Renaissance of great beauty exist in Orleans, such as the house of Agnes Sorel; and the example in the Market Place illustrated in fig. 3; in Tours, Tristan's house in brick with stone quoins and dressings to windows; in Rouen, Caen, Bayeux, Toulouse, Dijon and, in fact, in almost every town throughout France. Of houses of large dimensions, which in France are termed _hotels_, there are also many other fine examples, the best known of which are the hotel de Jacques Coeur (see Plate II., fig. 7), at Bourges, and the hotel de Cluny at Paris (see Plate I., fig. 6). In the 15th and 16th centuries in France, owing to the value of the sites in towns, the houses rose to many storeys, the upper of which were built in half-timber, sometimes projecting on corbels and richly carved; of these numerous examples exist at Rouen, Beauvais, Bayeux and other towns in Normandy and Brittany. Of such structures in English towns (see Plate II. fig. 9) there are still preserved some examples in York, Southampton, Chester, Shrewsbury, Stratford-on-Avon, and many smaller towns; the greatest development in half-timber houses in England is that which is found more particularly throughout Kent, Sussex and Surrey, in houses of modest dimensions, generally consisting of ground and first floor only, with sometimes additional rooms in the roof; in these the upper storey invariably projects in front of the lower, giving increased dimensions to the rooms in the former, but adopted in order to protect the walls of the ground storey from rain, which in the upper storey was effected by the projecting eaves of the roof. In the north and west of England, where stone could be obtained at less cost than brick, and in the east of England, where brick, often imported from the Low Countries, was largely employed, the ordinary houses were built in those materials, and in consequence of their excellent construction many houses of the 16th and 17th centuries have remained in good preservation down to the present day; they are found in the Cotswolds generally, and (among small towns) at Broadway in Worcestershire and (of brick) throughout Essex and Suffolk. Among the larger half-timber houses built in the 15th and 16th centuries, mention may be made of Bramhall Hall, near Manchester; Speke Hall, near Liverpool (see Plate III., fig. 10); The Oaks; West Bromwich; and Moreton Old Hall, Cheshire, one of the most elaborate of the series (see Plate III., fig. 11).

On the borders of the Rhine, as at Bacharach and Rhense, and throughout Germany, hall-timber houses of the most picturesque character are found in every town, large and small, those of Hildesheim (see Plate II., fig. 8) dating from the 15th and 16th centuries, and in some cases rising to a great height with four or five storeys, not including those in the lofty roofs. Houses in stone from the 12th to the 16th century are found in Cologne, Metz, Trier, Hanover and Munster in Westphalia, where again there are whole streets remaining; and in brick at Rostock, Stralsund, Lubeck, Greifswald and Dantzig, forming a very remarkable series of 15th and 16th-century work.

Of half-timber work in Italy there are no examples, but sometimes (as at Bologna) the rooms of the upper floors are carried on arcades, and sometimes on corbels, as the casa dei Carracci in the same town. The principal feature of the Italian house is the courtyard in the rear, with arcades on one or more sides, the front in stone or brick, or both combined, being of the greatest simplicity (examples in San Gimignano and Pisa). At Viterbo are small houses in stone, two of which have external stone staircases of fine design, and the few windows on the ground floor suggest that the rooms there were used only for stores. Houses with external staircases, but without any architectural pretensions, are found throughout the Balkan provinces.

The introduction of the purer Italian style into England in the 17th century created a great change in domestic architecture. Instead of the projecting wings and otherwise picturesque contour of the earlier work the houses were made square or rectangular on plan, in two or three storeys, crowned with a modillion cornice carrying a roof of red tiles; the only embellishments of the main front were the projecting courses of stone on the quoins and architraves round the windows, and flat pilasters carrying a hood or pediment flanking the entrance doorway. In the larger mansions more thought was bestowed on the introduction of porticoes (scarcely necessary in the English climate), with sometimes great flights of steps up to the principal floor, which was raised above a basement with cold and dark passages; a great saloon in the centre of the block, lighted from above, took the place of the great entrance hall of the Tudor period, and the rooms frequently led one out of the other, without an independent entrance door. On the other hand, in the ordinary houses, the deficiency in external ornament was amply made up for by the comfort in the interior and the decoration of the staircase and other rooms. Towards the close of the century the square mullioned and transomed windows, with opening casements, gave way to sash windows, introduced from Holland, and these with moulded and stout sash-bars gave a certain character to the outside of the houses, which are valued now for their quiet unpretentious character and excellent construction. In the closes of many English cathedrals, on the outskirts of London, and in some of the older squares, as Lincoln's Inn Fields and Queen Square, are examples of this style of house. The substitution of thin sash-bars in the 19th century, and their omission occasionally, in favour of plate-glass, deprived the house-front of one of its chief attractions; but the old English casements and oriels or bow-windows have been again introduced, and a return has been made to the style which prevailed in the beginning of the 18th century, commonly known as that of Queen Anne.

_Photo, Frith & Co._
FIG. 10.--SPEKE HALL, NEAR LIVERPOOL.

_Photo, F. Frith & Co._
FIG. 11.--MORETON OLD HALL, NEAR CONGLETON, CHESHIRE.]

From Garner and Stratton, _Domestic Architecture of England during the
Tudor Period_, 1910. By permission of B. T. Batsford.

FIG. 12.--SOUTH COURT OF SUTTON PLACE, SURREY, 1525.

From _Gotch, Architecture of the Renaissance in England_, 1894. By
permission of B. T. Batsford.

FIG. 13.--MOYNS PARK, ESSEX, 1580.]

From Belcher and Macartney, _Later Renaissance Architecture in
England_, 1901. By permission of B. T. Batsford.

FIG. 14.--HAM HOUSE, PETERSHAM, 1610.

From Gotch, _Architecture of the Renaissance in England_, 1894. By
permission of B. T. Batsford.

FIG. 15.--BRAMSHILL, HAMPSHIRE, 1612.]

From Belcher and MaCartney, _Later Renaissance Architecture in
England_, By permission of B. T. Batsford.

FIG. 16.--THE EARL OF BURLINGTON'S VILLA, CHISWICK. EIGHTEENTH
CENTURY.

From the same source as above.
FIG. 17.--HOUSES IN CAVENDISH SQUARE, LONDON. EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.]

Perhaps in one respect the greatest change which has been made in the English house is the adoption of "flats"; commenced some time in the 'fifties in Ashley Gardens, Westminster, they have spread throughout London. In consequence of the great value of the sites on which they are sometimes built, to which must be added the cost of the houses pulled down to make way for them, the question of expense in material and rich decoration has not always been worth considering, so that frontages in stone, with the classic orders brought in with many varieties of design, have given the character of a palace to a structure in which none of the rooms exceeds the modest height of 10 ft. The increasing demand for these, however, shows that they meet, so far as their accommodation and comfort are concerned, the wants and tastes of the upper and middle classes. In some of the London streets, where shops occupy the ground floor, a far finer type of house has been erected than that which could have been afforded for the shopkeeper's residence above, as in old times, so that London promises in time to become a city of palaces. The same change in the aspects of its streets has long been evident in Paris, but there is one feature in the latter city which has never yet found its way into London, much to the surprise of French visitors, viz. the _porte-cochere_, through which the occupants of the house can in wet weather drive and be landed in a covered hall or vestibule. This requires, of course, a small court at the back, so small that one wonders sometimes how it is possible for the carriage to turn round in it. The _porte-cochere_ also, from its dimensions, is a feature of more importance than the ordinary street doorway, even when a portico of some kind is added; on the other hand, the strict regulations in Paris as regards the projection of cornices and other decorative accessories gives to the stranger the appearance of monotony in their design, which certainly cannot be said of the houses in flats lately built in London. Within recent years an old English feature, known as the bow-window, has been introduced into Paris, the primary object of which does not seem yet to have been thoroughly understood by the French architect. An English bow-window, by its slight projection in front of the main wall, increases greatly the amount of light entering the room, and it is generally placed between solid piers of stone or brick. The French architects, however, project their piers on immense corbels, and then sink their windows with deep external reveals, so that no benefit accrues to the room, so far as the increased light is concerned. In Paris, since 1900, there has been a tendency to introduce a style of design in French houses which is known as "l'art nouveau," a style which commenced in furniture as a reaction against the revival of the Empire and Louis XIV. and XVI. periods, and was then extended to house fronts; this style has unfortunately spread through the various towns in France and apparently to Germany, again as a reaction against the formal classic style of the latter half of the 19th century. It is probable that in Italy and Spain "l'art nouveau" may meet with the same success, and for the same reasons, so that in the latter country it will be a revival, with modifications, of the well-known Churrigueresque style, the most debased Rococo style which has ever existed. In England it has never met with any response. (R. P. S.)

FOOTNOTE:

[1] A complete description of these houses will be found in _The
Evolution of the English House_, by S. O. Addy.

HOUSEHOLD, ROYAL. In all the medieval monarchies of western Europe the general system of government sprang from, and centred in, the royal household. The sovereign's domestics were his officers of state, and the leading dignitaries of the palace were the principal administrators of the kingdom. The royal household itself had, in its turn, grown out of an earlier and more primitive institution. It took its rise in the _comitatus_ described by Tacitus, the chosen band of _comites_ or companions who, when the Roman historian wrote, constituted the personal following, in peace as well as in war, of the Teutonic chieftain. In England before the Conquest the _comitatus_ had developed or degenerated into the thegnhood, and among the most eminent and powerful of the king's thegns were his dishthegn, his bowerthegn, and his horsethegn or staller. In Normandy at the time of the Conquest a similar arrangement, imitated from the French court, had long been established, and the Norman dukes, like their overlords the kings of France, had their seneschal or steward, their chamberlain and their constable. After the Conquest the ducal household of Normandy was reproduced in the royal household of England; and since, in obedience to the spirit of feudalism, the great offices of the first had been made hereditary, the great offices of the second were made hereditary also, and were thenceforth held by the grantees and their descendants as grand-serjeanties of the crown. The consequence was that they passed out of immediate relation to the practical conduct of affairs either in both state and court or in the one or the other of them. The steward and chamberlain of England were superseded in their political functions by the justiciar and treasurer of England, and in their domestic functions by the steward and chamberlain of the household. The marshal of England took the place of the constable of England in the royal palace, and was associated with him in the command of the royal armies. In due course, however, the marshalship as well as the constableship became hereditary, and, although the constable and marshal of England retained their military authority until a comparatively late period, the duties they had successively performed about the palace had been long before transferred to the master of the horse. In these circumstances the holders of the original great offices of state and the household ceased to attend the court except on occasions of extraordinary ceremony, and their representatives either by inheritance or by special appointment have ever since continued to appear at coronations and some other public solemnities, such as the opening of the parliament or trials by the House of Lords.[1]

The materials available for a history of the English royal household are somewhat scanty and obscure. The earliest record relating to it is of the reign of Henry II. and is contained in the _Black Book of the Exchequer_. It enumerates the various inmates of the king's palace and the daily allowances made to them at the period at which it was compiled. Hence it affords valuable evidence of the antiquity and relative importance of the court offices to which it refers, notwithstanding that it is silent as to the functions and formal subordination of the persons who filled them.[2] In addition to this record we have a series of far later, but for the most part equally meagre, documents bearing more or less directly on the constitution of the royal household, and extending, with long intervals, from the reign of Edward III. to the reign of William and Mary.[3] Among them, however, are what are known as the _Black Book of the Household_ and the _Statutes of Eltham_, the first compiled in the reign of Edward IV. and the second in the reign of Henry VIII., from which a good deal of detailed information may be gathered concerning the arrangements of the court in the 15th and 16th centuries. The _Statutes of Eltham_ were meant for the practical guidance merely of those who were responsible for the good order and the sufficient supply of the sovereign's household at the time they were issued. But the _Black Book of the Household_, besides being a sort of treatise on princely magnificence generally, professes to be based on the regulations established for the governance of the court by Edward III., who, it affirms, was "the first setter of certeynties among his domesticall meyne, upon a grounded rule" and whose palace it describes as "the house of very policie and flowre of England"; and it may therefore possibly, and even probably, take us back to a period much more remote than that at which it was actually put together.[4] Various orders, returns and accounts of the reigns of Elizabeth, James I., Charles I., Charles II., and William and Mary throw considerable light on the organization of particular sections of the royal household in times nearer to our own.[5] Moreover, there were several parliamentary inquiries into the expenses of the royal household in connexion with the settlement or reform of the civil list during the reigns of George III., George IV. and William IV.[6] But they add little or nothing to our knowledge of the subject in what was then its historical as distinguished from its contemporary aspects. So much, indeed, is this the case that, on the accession of Queen Victoria, Chamberlayne's _Present State of England_, which contains a catalogue of the officials at the court of Queen Anne, was described by Lord Melbourne the prime minister as the "only authority" which the advisers of the crown could find for their assistance in determining the appropriate constitution and dimensions of the domestic establishment of a queen regnant.[7]

In its main outlines the existing organization of the royal household is essentially the same as it was under the Tudors or the Plantagenets. It is now, as it was then, divided into three principal departments, at the head of which are severally the lord steward, the lord chamberlain and the master of the horse, and the respective provinces of which may be generally described as "below stairs," "above stairs" and "out of doors." The duties of these officials, and the various officers under their charge are dealt with in the articles under those headings. When the reigning sovereign is a queen, the royal household is in some other respects rather differently arranged from that of a king and a queen consort. When there is a king and a queen consort there is a separate establishment "above stairs" and "out of doors" for the queen consort. She has a lord chamberlain's department of her own, and all the ladies of the court from the mistress of the robes to the maids of honour are in her service. At the commencement of the reign of Queen Victoria the two establishments were combined, and on the whole considerably reduced. On the accession of Edward VII. the civil list was again reconstituted; and while the household of the king and his consort became larger than during the previous reign, there was a tendency towards increased efficiency by abolishing certain offices which were either redundant or unnecessary.

The royal households of such of the continental monarchies of Europe as have had a continuous history from medieval times resemble in general outlines that described above. There are, common to many, certain great offices, which have become, in course of time, merely titular and sometimes hereditary. In most cases, as the name of the office would suggest, they were held by those who discharged personal functions about the sovereign. Gradually, in ways or for reasons which might vary in each individual case, the office alone survived, the duties either ceasing to be necessary, or being transferred to officers of less exalted station and permanently attached to the sovereign's household. For example, in Prussia, there are certain great titular officers, such as the Oberstmarschall (great chamberlain); the Oberstjagermeister (grand master of the hunt); the Oberstschenk (grand cup-bearer) and the Obersttruchsess (grand carver), while, at the same time, there are also departments which correspond, to a great extent--both as to offices and their duties--to those of the household of the English sovereigns. This is a feature which must necessarily be reproduced in any monarchical country, whatever the date of its foundation, to a more or less limited extent, and varying in its constitution with the needs or customs of the particular countries.

See also LORD STEWARD; LORD CHAMBERLAIN; MASTER OF THE HORSE; PRIVY
PURSE; and CIVIL LIST.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The great officers of state and the household whom we have
particularly mentioned do not of course exhaust the catalogue of
them. We have named those only whose representatives are still
dignitaries of the court and functionaries of the palace. If the
reader consults Hallam (_Middle Ages_, i. 181 seq.), Freeman (_Norman
Conquest_, i. 91 seq., and v. 426 seq.) and Stubbs (_Const. Hist._ i.
343, seq.), he will be able himself to fill in the details of the
outline we have given above.

[2] The record in question is entitled _Constitutio Domus Regis de
Procurationibus_, and is printed by Hearne (_Liber Niger Scaccarii_,
i. 341 sq.). It is analysed by Stubbs (_Const. Hist._ vol. i. note 2,
p. 345).

[3] _A Collection of Ordinances and Regulations for the Government of
the Royal Household, made in Divers Reigns from King Edward III. to
King William and Queen Mary_, printed for the Society of Antiquaries,
(London, 1790). See also Pegge's _Curialia_, published partly before
and partly after this volume; and Carlisle's _Gentlemen of the Privy
Chamber_, published in 1829. Pegge and Carlisle, however, deal with
small and insignificant portions of the royal establishment.

[4] _Liber niger domus Regis Edward IV._ and _Ordinances for the
Household made at Eltham in the seventeenth year of King Henry VIII.,
A.D. 1526_, are the titles of these two documents. The earlier
documents printed in the same collection are _Household of King
Edward III. in Peace and War from the eighteenth to the twenty-first
year of his reign_; _Ordinances of the Household of King Henry IV. in
the thirty-third year of his reign, A.D. 1455_, and _Articles
ordained by King Henry VII. for the Regulation of his Household, A.D.
1494_.

[5] _The Book of the Household of Queen Elizabeth as it was ordained
in the forty-third year of her Reign delivered to our Sovereign Lord
King James, &c._, is simply a list of officers' names and allowances.
It seems to have been drawn up under the curious circumstances
referred to in _Archaeologia_ (xii. 80-85). For the rest of these
documents see _Ordinances and Regulations, &c._, pp. 299, 340, 347,
352, 368 and 380.

[6] Burke's celebrated Act "for enabling His Majesty to discharge the
debt contracted upon the civil list, and for preventing the same from
being in arrear for the future, &c.," 22 Geo. III. c. 82, was passed
in 1782. But it was foreshadowed in his great speech on "Economical
Reform" delivered two years before. Since the beginning of the 19th
century select committees of the House of Commons have reported on
the civil list and royal household in 1803, 1804, 1815, 1831 and
1901.

[7] Torrens's _Memoirs of William, second Viscount Melbourne_,
ii-303.

HOUSEL, the English name, until the time of the Reformation, for the Eucharist. The word in O. Eng. was _husel_. Its proper meaning is "sacrifice," and thus the word _hunsl_ appears in Ulfilas' Gothic version of Matt. ix. 13, "I will have mercy and not sacrifice." The ultimate origin is doubtful. The _New English Dictionary_ connects it with a Teutonic stem meaning "holy"; from which is derived the Lithuanian _szwentas_, and Lettish _swets_. Skeat refers it to a root meaning "to kill," which may connect it with Gr. [Greek: kainein].

HOUSELEEK, _Sempervivum_, a genus of ornamental evergreen plants belonging to the natural order _Crassulaceae_. About 30 species are known in gardens, some of which are hardy perennial herbs, and grow well in dry or rocky situations; the others are evergreen shrubs or undershrubs, fit only for cultivation in the greenhouse or conservatory. The genus _Sempervivum_ is distinguished from the nearly allied _Sedum_ by having more than five (about 12) petals, and by the glands at the base of the ovary being laciniated if present. The common houseleek, _S. tectorum_ (Ger. _Hauswurzel_, Fr. _joubarbe_), is often met with in Britain on roofs of outhouses and wall-tops, but is not a native. Originally it was indigenous in the Alps, but it is now widely dispersed in Europe, and has been introduced into America. The leaves are thick, fleshy and succulent, and are arranged in the form of a rosette lying close to the soil. The plant propagates itself by offsets on all sides, so that it forms after a time a dense cushion or aggregation of rosettes. The flowering stem, which is of rather rare occurrence, is about 1 ft. high, reddish, cylindrical and succulent, and ends in a level-topped cyme, reflexed at the circumference, of reddish flowers, which bloom from June to September. The houseleek has been known variously as the houselick, homewort or great houseleek. _Sedum acre_ (stone-crop) is styled the little houseleek. In Germany it is sometimes called _Donnerkraut_, from being supposed to protect the house on which it grows from thunder. The leaves are said to contain malic acid in considerable quantity, and have been eaten as salad, like _Portulaca_. _S. glutinosum_ and _S. balsamiferum_, natives respectively of Madeira and the Canary Islands, contain a very viscous substance in large quantity, and are used for the preparation of bird-lime; fishermen in Madeira, after dipping their nets in an alkaline solution, rub them with this substance, rendering them as tough as leather. _S. montanum_, indigenous in Central Europe, according to Gmelin, causes violent purging; _S. arboreum_, [Greek: to mega aeizoon] of Dioscorides, is employed in Cyprus, the East, and northern Africa as an external remedy for malignant ulcers, inflammations and burns, and internally for mucous discharges.

HOUSING. The housing of the poorer classes has become a pressing problem in all populous Western countries, and has engaged, in a varying but constantly increasing measure, the attention of legislative and administrative bodies and of philanthropic individuals and societies. The general interest was signalized by an International Congress held in London in 1907. The recognition of the problem is due in the first instance to the science of public health, the rise of which dates from the second quarter of the 19th century; and in the second instance to the growth of urban populations consequent on the development of manufacturing industries and of trading and transporting agencies, both of which tend to mass increasing numbers of people in convenient centres. To have a clear view of the subject it is necessary to distinguish these factors and their respective influence upon the problem. Urban congestion is quite secondary, and only important because and so far as it has a prejudicial effect upon health and strength. Further, the requirements on the scientific side, made on behalf of public health, are of very much wider application and more expansive than those which arise from the mere growth of urban population. That is obvious at once from the fact that they extend to rural housing, which has indeed become a prominent feature of the question in recent years. To ascribe the housing problem to the "factory system," as some writers have done, is to put forward an inadequate and misleading view of it. It is, in fact, particularly acute in some places totally devoid of factories and least acute in some purely factory towns. If the factory system were abolished with all its effects the housing question would remain. But there is a more important distinction than extent of application. The requirements of public health are indeterminate and interminable; knowledge increases, or rather changes, and the standard constantly rises. It is the changing standard which gives most trouble; housing at one period thought good enough is presently condemned. Fifty years ago no house existed which would satisfy modern sanitary standards, and the mansions of the great were in some respects inferior to the worst quarters to-day. And to this process there is no end. It is quite conceivable that urban congestion might cease to be a difficulty at all. That actually happens in particular towns where the population is stationary or diminishing. One whole nation (France) has already reached that point, and others are moving towards it at varying rates. But even where the supply of houses exceeds the demand and many stand empty, the housing problem remains; condemnation of existing accommodation continues and the effort to provide superior houses goes on. In other words, there are two main aspects of the housing question, quality and quantity; they touch at various points and interact, but they are essentially distinct. The problem of quantity may be "solved," that of quality has no finality.

The importance attached to housing is much enhanced by the general tendency to lay stress on the material conditions of life, which characterizes the present age. Among material conditions environment takes a leading place, largely under the influence of the theory of evolution in a popular and probably erroneous form; and among the factors of environment the home assumes a more and more prominent position. There is reason in this, for whatever other provision be made for work or recreation the home is after all the place where people spend most of their time. Life begins there and generally ends there. At the beginning of life the whole time is spent there and home conditions are of paramount importance to the young, whose physical welfare has become the object of increasing care. But the usual tendency to run to extremes has asserted itself. It may be admitted that it is extremely difficult to raise the character and condition of those who live in thoroughly bad home surroundings, and that an indispensable or preliminary step is to improve the dwelling. But if in pursuit of this object other considerations are lost sight of, the result is failure. Bad housing is intimately connected with poverty; it is, indeed, largely a question of poverty now that the difference between good and bad housing is understood and the effects of the latter are recognized. The poorest people live under the worst housing conditions because they are the cheapest; the economic factor governs the situation. Poverty again is associated with bad habits, with dirt, waste, idleness and vice, both as cause and as effect. These factors cannot be separated in real life; they act and react upon each other in such a way that it is impossible to disentangle their respective shares in producing physical and moral evils. To lay all responsibility upon the structural environment is an error constantly exposed by experience.

Defective quality embraces some or all of the following conditions--darkness, bad air, damp, dirt and dilapidation. Particular insanitary conditions independent of the structure are often associated; namely defects of water-supply, drainage, excrement and house refuse removal, back-yards and surrounding ground; they contribute to dirt, damp and bad air. Defective quantity produces high rents and overcrowding, both of which have a prejudicial effect upon health; the one by diminishing expenditure on other necessaries, the other by fouling the atmosphere and promoting the spread of infectious illness. The physical effects of these conditions have been demonstrated by comparative statistics of mortality general and special; among the latter particular stress is laid on the mortality of infants, that from consumption and from "zymotic" diseases. The statistical evidence has been especially directed to the effects of overcrowding, which can be stated with greater precision than other insanitary conditions. It generally takes the form of comparing the death-rates of different areas having widely contrasted densities of population or proportions of persons to a given space. It is not necessary to quote any of these figures, which have been produced in great abundance. They broadly establish a connexion between density and mortality; but the inference that the connexion can be reduced to a precise numerical statement and that the difference of mortality shown is all due to overcrowding or other housing conditions is highly fallacious. Many other factors ought to be taken into account, such as the age-distribution of the population, the birth-rate, the occupations, means, character and habits of the people, the geographical situation, the number of public institutions, hospitals, workhouses, asylums and so forth. The fallacious use of vital statistics for the purpose of proving some particular point has become so common that it is necessary to enter a warning against them; the subject of housing is a popular field for the exercise of that art, though there is no need of it.

The actual state of housing in different countries and localities, the efforts made to deal with it by various agencies, the subsidiary points which arise in connexion with it and the results attained--all these heads embrace such a vast mass of facts that any attempt to treat them fully in detail would run to inordinate length. It must suffice to review the more salient points; and the most convenient way of doing so is to deal first with Great Britain, which has led the way historically in extent of need, in its recognition and in efforts to meet it, adding some notes upon other countries, in which the question is of more recent date and for which less information is available.

THE UNITED KINGDOM

The importance of housing and the need of improvement had by 1909 received public recognition in England for nearly 70 years, a period coinciding almost exactly with the systematic study of sanitation or public health. The active movement definitely began about 1841 with voluntary effort in which Lord Shaftesbury was the most prominent and active figure. The motive was philanthropic and the object was to improve the condition of the working classes. It took the form of societies; one was the "Metropolitan Association for Improving the Dwellings of the Industrial Classes," incorporated in 1845 but founded in 1841; another was the "Society for Improving the Condition of the Labouring Classes," originally the "Labourers' Friend Society," of which the Prince Consort became president. That fact and the statement of the Society concerning improved housing that "the moral were almost equal to the physical benefits," sufficiently prove that public interest in the subject and a grasp of its significance already existed at that date. Legislation followed not long after and has continued at intervals ever since.

_Legislation._--Twenty-eight Housing and Health Acts, passed between
1851 and 1903, are enumerated by Mr Dewsnup, whose monograph on _The
Housing Problem in England_ is the fullest account of the subject
published. The first was the Shaftesbury Act of 1851 for the
establishment of lodging-houses for the working classes; the last was
the Housing of the Working Classes Act of 1903. The Shaftesbury Act
had in view the provision by local authorities of good lodging-houses
for the better class of artisans, and particularly of single persons,
male and female, though families were also contemplated. It was
accompanied in the same year by another act, not included in the list
of twenty-eight, for the regulation and control of common
lodging-houses, from which Mr Dewsnup reasonably infers that the
object of Lord Shaftesbury, who inspired both acts, was the separation
of the casual and disorderly class frequenting common lodging-houses
from the more regularly employed and respectable workers who were
sometimes driven to use them for lack of other accommodation. At any
rate this early legislation embodied the principle of differential
treatment and showed a grasp of the problem not always visible in
later procedure. The most important of the subsequent acts were those
of 1855 and 1866, both intended to encourage private enterprise in the
provision of working-class dwellings; the Torrens Act of 1868
(Artisans' and Labourers' Dwellings Act) for the improvement or
demolition of existing buildings; the Cross Act of 1875 (Artisans' and
Labourers' Dwellings Improvement Act), for extending that process to
larger areas; the Public Health Act of 1875; the Housing of the
Working Classes Act of 1885 following the report of the Royal
Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes, of which King
Edward, then prince of Wales, was a member; the Housing of the Working
Classes Act of 1890; the Public Health (London) Act of 1891. The acts
of 1875 (Public Health), of 1890 and of 1891 are still in force. The
story of this half-century of legislation (which also includes a
number of Scotch and Irish acts, local private acts and others bearing
on the question) is one of tentative efforts first in one direction
then in another, of laws passed, amended, extended, consolidated,
superseded. Many of the enactments, originally of limited application,
were subsequently extended, and the principal laws now in force apply
to the whole of the United Kingdom. Two main objects can be
distinguished--(1) the treatment of existing dwellings by demolition
or improvement; (2) the construction of new ones. The second head is
further subdivided into (a) municipal action, (b) private action.
These objects have been alternately promoted by legislative measures
conceived and carried out on no systematic plan, but gradually and
continuously developed into an effective body of law, particularly
with regard to the means of dealing with existing insanitary
dwellings. The advancing requirements of public health are clearly
traceable in the series of enactments directed to that end. The
Nuisances Removal Act of 1855 took cognizance of premises in such a
state as to be "a nuisance or injurious to health," and made provision
for obtaining an order to prohibit the use of such premises for human
habitation. In the same act overcrowding obtained statutory
recognition as a condition dangerous or prejudicial to health, and
provision was made for compelling its abatement. The campaign against
bad housing conditions thus inaugurated by the legislature was
extended by subsequent acts in 1860, 1866 and 1868, culminating in the
Cross Act of 1875 for the demolition (and reconstruction) of large
insanitary areas and the extremely important Public Health Act of the
same year. The constructive policy, begun still earlier in 1851 by
Lord Shaftesbury's Act, was concurrently pursued, and for some years
more actively than the destructive; but after 1866 the latter became
more prominent, and though the other was not lost sight of it fell
into the background until revived by the Royal Commission of 1885 and
the housing legislation which followed, particularly the Housing of
the Working Classes Act of 1890, amending and consolidating previous
acts.

The laws in operation at the beginning of 1909 were the Public Health Acts of 1875 and 1891 (London), as amended by subsequent minor measures, and the Housing of the Working Classes Act of 1890, amended in 1894, 1900 and 1903. The Public Health Acts place upon the local sanitary authority the obligation of securing, under by-laws, the proper construction, draining and cleaning of streets, removal of house refuse and building of houses, including structural details for the prevention of damp and decay, the provision of sanitary conveniences and an adequate water-supply; also of inquiring into and removing nuisances, which include any premises in such a condition as to be a nuisance or injurious to health and any house so overcrowded as to be dangerous or injurious to health. For the purpose of carrying out these duties the local authority has the power of inspection, of declaring a building unfit for human habitation and of closing it by order. The Housing Acts give more extended power to the local authority to demolish insanitary dwellings and clear whole areas or "slums," and also to construct dwellings for the working classes with or without such clearance; they also retain the older provisions for encouraging private enterprise in the erection of superior dwellings for the working classes. The procedure for dealing with insanitary property under these Acts is too intricate to be stated in detail; but, briefly, there are two ways of proceeding. In the first the local authority, on receiving formal complaint of an unhealthy area, cause an inspection to be made by their medical officer, and if the report in their opinion justifies action, they may prepare an "improvement scheme," which is submitted to the Local Government Board. The Board holds an inquiry, and, if satisfied, issues a provisional order, which has to be confirmed by a special act of parliament, under which the local authority can proceed to demolish the houses concerned after paying compensation to the owners. This procedure, which is authorized by part i. of the act of 1890, is obviously both cumbrous and costly. The second way, provided for by part ii. of the act, is much simpler and less ambitious; it only applies to single houses or groups of houses. The medical officer in the course of his duty reports to the local authority any houses which are in his opinion unfit for human habitation; the local authority can then make an order to serve notices on the owners to repair the houses at their own expense. Failing compliance on the part of the owners, an order for closing the houses can be obtained; and if nothing is done at the end of three months an order for demolition can be made. Buildings injurious by reason of their obstructive character (e.g. houses built back to back so as to be without through ventilation and commonly called "back-to-back" houses) can be dealt with in a similar manner. Small areas containing groups of objectionable houses of either kind may be made the subject of an improvement scheme, as above. Where areas are dealt with under improvement schemes there is a certain obligation to re-house the persons displaced. Building schemes are provided for under part iii. of the act. Land may be compulsorily purchased for the purpose and the money required may be raised by loans under certain conditions. The provisions thus summarized were considerably modified by the "Housing, Town Planning, &c., Act," passed at the end of 1909. It rendered obligatory the adoption (previously permissive) of the housing provisions (part iii.) of the act of 1890 by local authorities, simplified the procedure for the compulsory purchase of land required for the purpose and extended the facilities for obtaining loans. It further gave power to the Local Government Board to compel local authorities to put in force the act of 1890 in regard both to existing insanitary housing and the provision of new housing. Power was also given to county councils to act in default of rural district councils in regard to new housing. The procedure for dealing with insanitary houses by closing and demolition under part ii. (see above) was rendered more stringent. The general intention of the new act was partly to facilitate the administration of the previous one by local authorities and partly to provide means of compelling supine authorities to take action. Its town-planning provisions are noted below.

_Effects of Legislation._--The efficacy of laws depends very largely on their administration; and when they are permissive and dependent on the energy and discretion of local bodies their administration varies greatly in different localities. That has been the case with the British housing and health laws, and is one cause of dissatisfaction with them. But in the aggregate they have effected very great improvement. Public action has chiefly taken effect in sanitary reform, which includes the removal of the worst housing, through demolition or alteration, and general sanitary improvements of various kinds. In some large towns the worst parts have been transformed, masses of old, narrow, crowded, dilapidated and filthy streets and courts have been swept away at one blow or by degrees; other parts have been reconstructed or improved. The extent to which this has been accomplished is not generally recognized. It is not easily demonstrated, and to realize it local knowledge, observation and memory are needed. The details of the story are hidden away in local annals and official reports; and writers on the subject are usually more concerned with what has not than with what has been done. Both the Public Health and the Housing Acts have had a share in the improvement effected. The operation of the former is slow and gradual, but it is continuous and far more general than that of the latter. It embraces many details which are not usually taken into account in discussing housing, but which have as much bearing on the healthiness of the home as the structure itself. The Public Health Acts have further had a certain preventive influence in laying down a standard for the erection of new houses by the ordinary commercial agencies. Such houses are not ideal, because the commercial builder studies economy and the question of rent; but the standard has risen, and building plans involving insufficient light and air, such as once were general, have now for several years been forbidden almost everywhere. Supervision of commercial building is, in fact, vastly more important than the erection of dwellings by public or philanthropic agencies, because it affects a vastly larger proportion of the population. The influence of the Public Health Acts in improving the conditions of home life cannot be estimated or summarized, but it is reflected in the general death-rate, which fell steadily in the United Kingdom from 21.1 per 1000 in 1878 to 15.4 per 1000 in 1907.