THIRD READING. (Hansard, 17 June 1875)

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY
said, that before their Lordships proceeded to the third reading of the Bill, he wished to make a few remarks, not in any spirit of opposition, but by way of observation on the practical working of the Bill. He would, in the first place, ask their Lordships to consider what the Bill 79 would do, and what it would not do. It seemed to him that the area of what it would not do was much larger than that of what it would do. Firstly, it did not attack the case of the smaller towns; next, although it dealt with very large areas, it did not deal with the dwellings of agricultural labourers; but, as their Lordships well knew, the disgraceful state of those dwellings in many parts of the Kingdom could not be denied. In the second place, there was a graver charge against it—the limits as to population laid down in the Bill were such that the measure would not attack the case of the smaller towns. Why? He ventured to think that the action of such a measure would be more beneficial in the case of towns below the limit of population laid down in the Bill than it would be in that of towns above it, and for this good reason—that in the large towns there was far more public spirit and far better means of dealing with the dwellings of the poor than was the case in the smaller towns. "Whenever, in the course of the discussions on the Bill, a complaint was made of the want of stringency in its enactments, some one on the Treasury Bench rose and said it was very important to look to the public spirit existing in the large towns. If half that was said on that score were true they might have been trusted to apply like Edinburgh and Glasgow for local Acts, so that in the matters to which this Bill related the large towns had, to a very great extent, the remedy in their own hands. It was not so with the small towns—they might, perhaps, possess a Local Board, but they had not the same wealth or public spirit. Yet for these the Bill did nothing. If comparisons were not odious, he might liken the conduct of the framers of the Bill to that of a certain Levite, who pursued his way to Jericho—being intent, no doubt, on great public matters—and passed by the aggravated case that lay on his way. In like manner the Government, intent on great measures, had passed by the unwholesome areas of small towns in their haste to alleviate the condition of the larger. As regarded the clearing away of unwholesome areas and the pulling down of unhealthy structures in large towns, he saw no reason why the Bill should not effect good; but he feared that its machinery was not very effective—it ap- 80 peared to him to be cumbrous and expensive, and in addition to this the process of getting to work would be a very long one. This would be the process: First, two justices of the peace or two ratepayers would go to the Medical Officer and point out the unhealthy area; the Medical Officer then made his report to the Local Authority; the Local Authority "take it into their consideration;" they then pass a resolution that the area was unhealthy; after passing that resolution they make an improvement scheme; having completed it, they were to announce its existence in the newspapers during the three autumn months; in the ensuing month they were to serve a notice on the owners and occupiers; they must then present a Petition to the Secretary of State or the Local Government Board for a confirming order; and, lastly, the confirming authority were thereupon to order an inquiry. It could not therefore be said that the procedure was unduly rapid, while it might almost be called cumbrous. Moreover, he feared two results—first, that when the Bill was passed and brought into operation, even should it accomplish its object, the carrying out of schemes under the Bill would entail considerable loss; and, secondly, he feared that the ejected persons would not be accommodated. There would be the cost of buying and pulling down houses. This, he feared, would provoke a cry on the part of the ratepayers, and have the effect of making the Bill extremely unpopular, and in that way hinder its working. An endeavour would be made to recoup by selling the land for the erection of model lodging-houses or by erecting such houses; but, looking to the great cost of building in large towns, it was to be apprehended that the people who had been unhoused by the pulling down of the rookeries in which they had lived would not be able to find in the new buildings dwellings at the rent which they could afford. He would place before their Lordships an illustrative case. In the course of the debates on this Bill a good deal had been said of what had been done in Glasgow and Edinburgh. Now, the case of Edinburgh was not analogous to many which would have to be dealt with under the Bill. Edinburgh was a town in which there was a great deal of space; and, further, in that town a provision was made that before 81 500 persons were ejected sufficient accommodation must be provided for them else where. The conditions there were therefore exceedingly favourable. But what was the result? The local authority was urged there to build some model dwelling houses as an experiment and an example. They accordingly, on a piece of land worth at least £2,000, built a block of houses which cost £6,972. So that the total cost of the undertaking might be roughly estimated at £9,000. The houses were sold by public auction, and eagerly bought, chiefly by the better class of working men, not exactly the class it was intended to benefit. Six or eight shops at the time he received his information still remained on hand, and supposing these to realize £250 each, it would make the total return for this expenditure of £9,000—£6,200. There were four deductions to be made from this example—1. It implied a direct payment from the rates for the benefit of a particular class. 2. The class benefited was not the class ejected or intended to be benefited. 3. Provision was not thereby made for the ejected occupiers. 4. The transaction involved a loss of 30 per cent. But it might be argued under this Bill private contractors were to build the houses. But even then they would not allow the loss to fall on them so that the expense and the failure would be the same. He however regarded the Bill as a well-intentioned effort on the part of Her Majesty's Government, although he considered its machinery cumbrous, its operations likely to be expensive, and its provisions for giving accommodation to ejected tenants likely to be inadequate.

EARL NELSON
said, that everybody seemed to think it necessary to give this measure their support, but, like the noble Earl who had just sat down, that support was what might be called backhanded and half-hearted. The noble Earl complained that the operation of the Act would not be quick enough; but, for his own part, he was glad its action was not too rapid, as that might create evils as great as those proposed to be remedied. The people really had to be educated as to what was necessary to be done. There was a remarkable and rapidly-growing tendency amongst the rural population to move from the country into the towns, which made it 82 of national importance that the health of the towns should be cared for. In France, in recruiting for their army from the country districts, they would summons 13,000 conscripts for 10,000 soldiers, but in the towns and manufacturing districts they had to summons 23,000 conscripts for the same number of soldiers, in one case having to reject only 3,000 in the other 13,000. He had been told that the inhabitants of the back slums of Westminster were in the habit of drinking spirits deliberately late at night with the view of making themselves drunk, because otherwise it would not be possible for them to sleep in their wretched dwellings. Feeling that the operations contemplated by this Bill would do much in the long run to lessen the temptations to drunkenness and promote the health of the people, he heartily supported the third reading.

§ EARL BEAUCHAMP
, in reference to the remarks of the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery), said, they were a condensation of all that had been said in opposition to the Bill during its progress through Parliament. The argument was—first, it was a very good Bill; then it was a Bill that would do no good at all; and then why was it not extended to small towns? There were several reasons why the Bill should not be applied to small towns. The system required for small towns was quite a different one from that which was called for in the case of large towns. The evil complained of was not that the population was dense in particular areas, but that the people were crowded in rookeries that were destitute of the proper sanitary arrangements. Some blocks of model lodging-houses contained, for the superficial ground area, a larger number of inhabitants than the condemned dwellings which had stood in the same places. Now, as a rule, these rookeries did not exist in small towns; and the Sanitary Authorities had already sufficient powers to deal with any nuisances that might arise with them.

§ LORD REDESDALE
again objected to the 12th clause as it then stood. It gave the Secretary of State and the Local Government Board powers over the property of persons such as had never hitherto been exercised except by Parliament 83 itself. The clause dealt with the modification of schemes, and he begged to move, as an Amendment, the insertion of this Proviso— Provided always, that if such modification or alteration shall require a larger public expenditure than that sanctioned by the former scheme, or the taking of any property otherwise than by agreement, or shall affect injuriously other property in a manner different to that proposed in the former scheme without the consent of the owner and occupier of any such property, it must be made by a provisional order to be confirmed by Act of Parliament in the manner provided in Section six of this Act on the completion of an improvement scheme.

§ EARL BEAUCHAMP
said, he did not think the Amendment necessary after the alteration which had been made in the clause when the Report was under consideration.

LORD ABERDAER
thought that if some such Proviso as that proposed by the Chairman of Committees were not adopted, a modification affecting private property might be sanctioned without the assent of Parliament.

§ LORD SELBORNE
thought that an Amendment such as that suggested by his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees was desirable.

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
said, he was not convinced, but after the opinion expressed by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Selborne) and other noble Friends he would urge his noble Friend (Earl Beauchamp) to accept the Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, it was a disadvantage that their Lordships had not before them a copy of the Bill as amended on the Report. After the Amendment introduced by his noble Friend (Earl Beauchamp) on the Report, it was provided by the clause that any modification must be laid before Parliament; but it was not provided that the modification should be confirmed by Parliament. It appeared to him that there was no inconsistency between the Amendment introduced by his noble Friend and that now proposed by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. He would suggest that the Amendment of his noble Friend (Lord Redesdale) should be attached to the end of the clause.

§ LORD REDESDALE
agreed to the suggestion of the Lord Chancellor.