LEAVE. FIRST BEADING. (Hansard, 12 February 1866)

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, he begged to move for leave to bring in a Bill to enable the Public Works Loan Commissioners to make advances towards the erection of dwellings for the labouring classes in populous places. He would describe in a few words the present state of the law as to facilities for the erection of houses for the 429 labouring classes. By the Act 14 &c 15 Vict. c. 34, passed in 1851, power was given to town councils and local boards, and to the vestries of parishes exceeding 10,000 inhabitants, to borrow money from the Public Works Loan Commissioners for the erection and furnishing of lodging-houses for the working-classes. The regulations under which loans were to be made under that Act were those usually adopted by the Government when advances were made for public works. Practically, how ever, that Act never came into operation, for only one application was made to the Public Works Loan Commissioners for the erection of dwellings for the labouring classes. In the year 1855 another Act was passed, the 18 &c 19 Vict. c. 132, under which companies might be formed with special powers to erect dwellings—and not lodging-houses merely—for the labouring classes in populous places. That Act, however, conferred no power of borrowing money from the Public Works Loan Commissioners and it proved also a failure; for he believed that the Government Office, within the cognizance of which the provisions of the Act came, had not received more than one communication on the subject. Already the Public Works Loan Commissioners had power to grant loans at moderate rates of interest for other purposes connected with the sanitary arrangements of great towns, such as the removal of nuisances and the utilization of sewage; and he now proposed, by the measure which he asked leave to introduce, to extend the power conferred by the Act 14 & 15 Vict, to minor local authorities in all parishes, to public companies, and even to private persons, who would thus be enabled to obtain from the Public Works Loan Commissioners advances to the extent of not more than half the cost of the buildings proposed to be erected, and at a rate of interest of 4 per cent, payable by the usual instalments, and according to the same conditions as loans for public works. The ordinary operation of the Act would be as follows:—All questions of interest and repayment would be left, as now, to the Treasury, subject to the general rules of the Exchequer Commissioners, and the first Commissioner of Works would certify as to whether buildings proposed to be erected or improved under the Act were really suited as dwellings for the labouring classes. The Public Works Loan Commissioners would only have to satisfy themselves as to the security and the due payment of the 430 instalments. The general question had largely occupied public attention during the last few years, and the object with which it had been discussed was likely to be promoted considerably by the operation of this Bill. In the Session of 1863 the attention of Parliament was, for the first time, specially called to the effect upon the condition of the poor in populous places of the great public improvements which were being effected in the metropolis and other large cities; in that Session an unusually large number of Bills were introduced for extending railway communication, and an opinion which pervaded the debates of that Session, and particularly those of 1864, was that, while these measures were really public improvements, as he believed they were, they ought to be accompanied by some measure giving additional facility for the construction of the displaced dwellings of the poor. He need not remind them of what private munificence had done. It happened most opportunely that they had been able that morning to read that most generous letter by Mr. George Peabody, in which he stated the conditions upon which he proposed to supplement the most munificent donation which he had given to the poor of the metropolis. The trustees had therefore £250,000 as the nucleus of a fund for large operations in the direction proposed by this Bill. He (Mr. Childers) should not be doing wrong to refer to the urgent necessity for and the result of their operations as stated in their Report, printed last December. They said— At the present moment, owing to the vast changes in the metropolis, by which the houses of the labouring poor have been demolished to so great an extent, the cost of accommodation for them has been greatly increased. It, of course, varies in different localities; but, on an average, the weekly charge for a single room of a very poor description is from 2s. 6d. to 3s.; for two rooms, 5s. or 5s. 6d.; and for three, from 6s. 6d. to 7s. In a note, it was stated— In London, unless steps are taken, the poor bid fair to be thrust out of house and home, and to have no place left to dwell in. Our Street Improvement Acts and our railway demolitions are turning out the poor by thousands. Even in our crowded and deplorable districts, such as the streets and alleys running out of Drury Lane and in the region of Seven Dials, apartments are not to be had; and the rents in some neighbourhoods have been raised SO per cent. A respectable omnibus conductor in our neighbourhood, who seeks to have two rooms, dingy and small, to accommodate five persons, pays 7s. a week. A wretched family, where the husband never brings to his home more than 12s. per week, and often 431 loss (where there are five children), pays 5s. a week for two low, damp kitchens. But the mere test of rent affords no adequate standard by which to contrast the squalor and discomfort of one of these tenements with the light and airy and agreeable apartments in the Peabody buildings; and for one room there the charge per week is 2s. 6d.; for two rooms, 4s.; and for three rooms, 5s. So far, the trustees of Mr. Peabody's gift, for £60,000, had provided accommodation for 850 persons; and, even on this moderate scale, the rents realized gave favourable promise for similar undertakings. He would also refer to the report in that morning's paper of the society which had been formed for the erection of improved dwellings for the working classes, which showed that the investment of capital in these buildings, with moderate assistance such as the Bill proposed, might be expected to produce a fair Return. Upon the relations of supply and demand, he would quote a report presented a few weeks ago to the Metropolitan Board of Works by Mr. Bazalgette, who said— The effect, however, of all metropolitan railway and street improvements is the destruction of large masses of houses, the occupants of which are driven towards the suburbs, and the area of London is thereby extended. The Railway Bills of the present Session include within their limits of deviation about 16,000 houses. Now, assuming one-half of that number of houses only to be destroyed, this would amount to one-sixtieth part of all the houses in London, and the occupants of these must find homes nearer to the suburbs, and will require ready means of access to the centre. He need hardly Bay that the great majority of the houses referred to were those of the labouring classes, for whom other dwellings ought to be found. He believed the effect of this Bill would be greatly to assist the desired provision, and he thought he had stated sufficient to justify its introduction. The House would have other opportunities of considering its details.

§ MR. KINNAIRD
said, he could hardly express the satisfaction with which he heard the proposal of the Government to meet an evil admitted on all hands, and proved by the statistics which the hon. Gentleman had quoted. He had stated that he was far from deprecating any of those improvements in the metropolis which must follow upon the great demolition of houses which was going on. While glad that Government proposed to meet the immediately resulting evil, he would suggest whether, as there were large districts which were nothing better than fever-producing and pauper-producing districts, compulsory powers, such as those conferred on railways, could not be vested 432 in the Home Office or some other authority which could judge of the condition of these localities, to remedy in some measure the excessive evils which resulted from overcrowding. He hoped that this Session, if the Government did not, some private Member would introduce a measure which should confer power on a competent authority to do something for porters and others who were compelled to live near to where they were employed. The power so conferred could be exercised gradually so as to inflict the least amount of inconvenience inseparable from the wholesale demolition of houses by railway companies, and in this way a useful remedy could be applied to an existing evil without those hardships consequent upon railway extension. While wishing to see such a measure as that he suggested brought forward, he heartily supported that now introduced.

§ MR. LOCKE
said, that the granting of compulsory powers for public purposes had not always proceeded on consistent, or even beneficial, principles. But, as applied to the removal of nests of fever and the creation of suitable dwelling places for the labouring classes, the question became of general interest and acquired an importance second to none. Dr. Ferguson had shown the effects of overcrowding in fever generating districts; and when such districts were discovered, compulsory powers ought to be given to the municipal authorities to take down the dwellings in which the fever lodged, and erect others in their stead. Local boards, vestries, and similar public bodies had not the means, even supposing them to possess the will, to make advances for the erection of these dwellings; in proposing to find the money the Government, therefore, were taking steps to confer on the metropolis a boon long and ardently desired, and difficult if not incapable of attainment by any other means. In furtherance of the object in view, he thought by judicious arrangements it would be possible likewise to secure the co-operation of influential public companies.

§ SIR HARRY VERNEY
said, that while concurring heartily in any proposal having for its aim to benefit the poor, it should not be forgotten that, if all new buildings for the accommodation of the poor were as lofty as those recently erected, London, as a place of residence, would be much less healthy than it had been hitherto. Light and air would no longer penetrate as freely into the streets. If it were possible to introduce some stipulations, that when the 433 buildings were lofty they should not be crowded together, it would add, he thought, to the utility of the measure. He should also like to see a clause introduced, providing that there should be a different set of pipes to carry off the rain water from those which carried off the sewage.