than in Germany, where the increase of population, the growth of manufacturing industry and the urbanization of the people have proceeded at an exceptionally rapid pace in recent years and have combined with increasing wealth and a rising standard of living to force the question into prominence. Up to 1909 no uniform legislation for the empire had been framed and no central authority existed for dealing with housing; but the several states have their own public health and housing laws, and great activity has been developed in various directions. The most general difficulty is deficiency of quantity consequent on the rapid change in the distribution of the population. The proportion of the whole population living in the great towns increased from 7.2% to 16.2%, or more than doubled between 1890 and 1900; in England it only increased by about one-tenth. Slums are a much less conspicuous feature than in England because of the comparatively recent development of German towns, but where old quarters exist on a large scale, as in Hamburg, the conditions are quite as bad as anything in English towns, and call for similar measures. Public sanitation in Germany is still as a whole less advanced than in England; but in some cases it is superior and in general it is coming up rapidly; the administration of sanitary laws, as of others, is more effective and uniform, and less subject to evasion. This also contributes to the comparative absence of slums. And there is a third factor which has perhaps the greatest influence of all, and that is the superior manner in which German homes are kept. But the pressure of inadequate quantity is urgent; it has caused high rents, overcrowding, and the development of large barrack or block dwellings which are becoming the prevailing type. At the same time it has led to many and varied efforts to meet the difficulty. Isolated attempts go back to an early date. For instance a building society was formed in Berlin in 1849, Alfred Krupp began to build his “colonies” at Essen in 1863, Barmen started a society in 1871 and there were other cases; but general attention seems first to have been drawn to the subject by the reforming efforts of Pastor Bodelschwingh at Bielefeld about 1884 in connexion with his Arbeiterheim. In short housing reform in Germany is really a matter of the last 20 years. The first efficient by-laws for regulating building in Berlin were not adopted till 1887; the previous regulations dating from 1853 permitted many abuses and under them a great deal of bad housing was constructed, especially after the establishment of the empire and the beginning of the great development of the capital.
The worst feature is the general prevalence of dwellings containing a very small number of rooms—from 1 to 3—and consequent overcrowding. The following figures are extracted from the Report to the Board of Trade on Rents, Housing, &c., in Germany (1908, Cd. 4032). They indicate the proportion of dwellings containing 1, 2 or 3 rooms, or (in a few cases) the proportion of the population living in such dwellings. The towns are those for which the information is given. They are not selected as particularly bad specimens but as representative, and they include most of the capitals and chief industrial centres. The figures relate to the year 1900, except in a few cases, in which they are taken from a municipal house census in 1905.
| Town. | 1 Room. | 2 Rooms. | 3 Rooms. | Total under 4 Rooms. |
| Berlin | 8.0 | 37.2 | 30.6 | 75.8 |
| Aachen | 13.7 | 32.0 | 21.9 | 67.6 |
| Barmen (pop.) | 1.5 | 24.3 | 28.8 | 54.6 |
| Bremen | 3.8(?) | 26.8 | 26.1 | 56.7(?) |
| Breslau (pop.) | 3.9 | 46.0 | 24.4 | 74.3 |
| Chemnitz (pop.) | 1.7 | 34.8 | 29.9 | 66.4 |
| Dantzig | 3.3 | 45.0 | 29.9 | 78.2 |
| Dortmund | 4.7 | 45.5 | 30.0 | 80.2 |
| Dresden | 0.8 | 3.5 | 27.8 | 32.1 |
| Düsseldorf | 5.0 | 26.4 | 22.7 | 54.1 |
| Elberfeld | 8.4(?) | 36.9 | 21.7 | 67.0(?) |
| Essen | 2.9 | 35.4 | 30.0 | 68.3 |
| Hamburg | 1.0 | 3.9 | 24.7 | 29.6 |
| Königshütte (pop.) | 10.0 | 60.4 | 16.8 | 87.2 |
| Leipzig (pop.) | 0.4 | 1.7 | 14.5 | 16.6 |
| Mannheim | 3.1 | 22.1 | 40.4 | 65.6 |
| Munich (pop.) | 4.6 | 24.1 | 28.4 | 57.1 |
| Plauen (pop.) | 1.3 | 14.2 | 21.8 | 36.3 |
The figures must be read with a certain amount of caution, as they are not in every case compiled on a precisely uniform method with regard to inclusion of kitchens and attics. For this reason the position of Bremen and Elberfeld is probably more unfavourable than it ought to be. But broadly the table shows that in most of the large towns in Germany more than half, and in some cases more than three-quarters of the dwellings have less than 4 rooms. Leipzig is the most striking exception. If working-class quarters alone are taken it is found that dwellings of more than 3 rooms are so few as to be negligible. In Stuttgart, where housing is very dear, the percentages for working-class quarters are—1 room 21.0, 2 rooms 51.8, 3 rooms 26.9; total under 4 rooms 98.7. Königshütte, the chief coal and iron centre in Silesia and a purely working-class town, shows the same state of things; 60% of the whole population live in dwellings of 2 rooms and 87% in less than four. It is interesting to compare English towns. The proportion of dwellings containing less than 4 rooms in London was (1901) 52.2%, in Berlin 75.8%; the proportion of the population living in such dwellings was—London 38.7%, Berlin 71.5%. Not only is the proportion of small dwellings very much higher in Berlin but the proportion of the population living in them shows a far greater discrepancy. This indicates a much higher degree of overcrowding. The only point in which Berlin has the advantage is the smaller number of single-room dwellings. The proportions are London 14.7%, Berlin 8.0%. But it is to be observed that overcrowding is not so common in 1–room dwellings, which are often occupied by a single person, as in those with 2 or 3 rooms, which are occupied by families, though probably the most extreme cases of overcrowding occur in particular 1–room dwellings. In the English county boroughs the proportion of dwellings with less than 4 rooms was 24.0%, in other urban districts 17.4, and in all urban areas including London 26.4%. When all allowance is made for minor errors and discrepancies it may be broadly concluded that the proportion of small dwellings containing less than 4 rooms is at least twice as great in German as in English towns, and that the conditions as to accommodation which in England prevail only in London are general in urban Germany. As a set-off German rooms are generally larger than English ones and in block dwellings there is often a little ante-room or landing which does not count but really increases the space.
The German census does not take cognisance of overcrowding and there is no general official standard; but some towns have adopted a standard of their own, namely, six or more persons to 1 room and ten or more to 2 rooms. In Breslau, which is one of the worst towns, 17.5% of the population (53,000) of the “city” or inner ring were overcrowded on this basis in 1900. In Barmen, which is not one of the worst, 20% of the 2-roomed and 17% of the 3-roomed dwellings (together housing more than half the population) were overcrowded according to the English standard. Overcrowding and other bad conditions are worst in the basement or cellar dwellings, of which some towns have a very large number. In Breslau 15,000 persons were living in 3853 such dwellings in 1900; in Berlin 91,426 persons were living in 24,088 basements. Some of these are free from objection, but 11,147, housing 38,663 persons, were situated in back buildings and unfit for habitation on account of darkness, damp, dilapidation and the like. “Back” houses are a feature of old towns; they are houses which do not give on the street but lie behind and are approached by a passage; they are what we call courts and quite as insanitary as anything of the kind in English towns.
With regard to rents the Board of Trade (London) Report gives the following figures for Berlin and a number of other towns:—
| No. of Rooms per Dwelling. | Predominant Range of Weekly Rents. | |
| Berlin. | Other Towns. | |
| 2 rooms | 5/- to 6/- | 2/8 to 3/6 |
| 3 rooms | 7/- to 9/3 | 3/6 to 4/9 |
| 4 rooms | .. | 4/3 to 6/- |
Rents are higher in Berlin than in any other town, though Stuttgart comes very near it. The following table of index numbers shows the relations of 32 towns to Berlin:—
| Town. | Index Number. | Town. | Index Number. |
| Berlin | 100 | Nuremberg | 53 |
| Stuttgart | 97 | Aachen | 53 |
| Düsseldorf | 79 | Crefeld | 52 |
| Dortmund | 68 | Bremen | 52 |
| Anchaffenburg | 67 | Plauen | 52 |
| Hamburg | 66 | Leipzig | 51 |
| Mannheim | 64 | Dantzig | 49 |
| Königsberg | 62 | Mülhausen | 48 |
| Munich | 63 | Königshütte | 47 |
| Essen | 62 | Stettin | 46 |
| Solingen | 61 | Magdeburg | 43 |
| Bochum | 57 | Chemnitz | 40 |
| Elberfeld | 57 | Zwickau | 38 |
| Barmen | 57 | Brunswick | 37 |
| Remscheid | 56 | Stassfurt | 33 |
| Breslau | 56 | Oschersleben | 28 |
| Dresden | 54 |
Comparing rents in Germany and England, the Board of Trade Report gives the following table, to which the corresponding ratio of French towns has been added.
