And these were the men who made the loudest protests and outcry against legislation and against administration which was to make them do that which the vital interests of the community and of the State required to be done. The root of the evil connected with the housing of the people in London lay with the disregard of "owners" for the condition of their tenants. Many "owners" appeared to be under the impression that their investment in house property was to be as free from trouble or labour as money invested in the national funds is; and so long as they got the rent they expected, they did not trouble themselves about the state of the houses or of the people living therein. They were loth to spend money on them, as that curtailed their income, and the argument was constantly used that it was useless spending money to put the property in order, when anything they did to it would be promptly destroyed. And they cared not who were their tenants so long as a high rent was obtainable from them. Some declared that the people were so sunken, so degraded, so filthy, and depraved, and destructive, that nothing they could do could secure their property being kept in a sanitary or decent condition. Doubtless in many districts and many cases the conduct of the tenants was as bad as bad could be. As one of the Medical Officers of Health wrote in 1883:-- "It must be borne in mind that many of the occupants of tenement property are careless and filthy in their habits; and in addition are very destructive; fittings put up one day are pulled down and destroyed the next; ash-bin covers, closet doors, and even flooring boards, share the same fate." And many were the "owners" of various degree who endeavoured to justify their neglect on this ground. Were such an argument admitted, the owner could claim to be exonerated from the duty of keeping his property in proper order, and the evil conditions and consequences resulting from his neglect would go on increasing indefinitely, until a state of things destructive to the community was ultimately reached. Viewed broadly, and impartially, there was much truth as regarded the misconduct and uncleanliness of great numbers of tenants, but the central fact was that the "owner" was the person mainly interested in, and benefited by possession of the property, and therefore primarily responsible for maintaining it in a condition which should not endanger the health of the community. If, through the neglect and indifference of his predecessors, the property had fallen into a bad state, the consequences equitably fell upon him, just as the consequences of any other bad investment by his predecessor would have done. He had inherited something which was not worth as much as he anticipated--that was all; but the consequences must not be shifted on to the community, nor must his tenants be made the victims.