FIRST READING. (Hansard, 20 February 1866)

MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENS
Sir, I beg earnestly to call the attention of the House to the fact that some kind of legislation, and without further delay, should be adopted with reference to the dwellings of the class that live by labour in our great towns. The condition of these dwellings is becoming every year more disgraceful and dangerous. It is dangerous not merely to those who are without a habitation sufficient for their health and comfort, but it is a danger to those who live near them, and to the community generally, towards whom there is perpetually approaching nearer and nearer the contagion arising from these close dwellings. Every year, within the memory of the present generation, the want has grown greater and more intense. About twenty years ago societies were formed which sought by private enterprize to remedy, or at least to mitigate, the evil. I have not one word to say in depreciation of their motives, or in disparagement of their efforts. On the contrary, I think they are entitled to great credit for their perseverance in 819 well doing. Besides these efforts, there have been others by charitable persons. First, by that noble-hearted woman, Miss Burdett Coutts, whose life seems to be devoted to doing good. A gentleman of another country, also, Mr. Peabody, but who has realized a large fortune in this country, has devoted a great portion of it to relieving the wants of the people. A gentleman residing not far from this House, Mr. Gibbs, is entitled to similar praise. I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham is a member of one of those societies which do not profess that their sole object is benevolence, but think they can combine charity with speculation. These societies have done much good; but it is impossible for them to accomplish the good which I anticipate will result from the measure I now propose. If I could be made to believe that charity and speculation could grapple with the evil with which we have to contend, I should not waste one moment in proposing a different plan of action. But I very much doubt whether charity and speculation combined can grapple with the evil, and I shall proceed, therefore, to propose a different course. Charity and speculation are but crutches at the best, and I wish to see the artizans of our towns, without obligation to anyone, inhabiting houses worthy the habitation of Christian men. I do mot disparage charity and speculation, but I put it to the House whether that class on whose fidelity, loyalty, and persevering energy we rely for our greatness as a nation, are not entitled to have every facility afforded them, that they may have houses in which they can live with comfort, and in which their children can be brought up with decency. This is not so at present. From personal observation I can say that there are dark places in the metropolis in which the families of the working classes are packed together in a manner repulsive to sight and more repulsive to reflection. I am here to-night to say that if our Exchequer is full, if times are easy with the Treasury, if we can borrow any amount of money we require at 3 per cent, we should not forget the class without whose labour and loyalty these blessings could not be had. We are greatly dependent on the obedience to law, the loyalty, the order, and the sobriety of the working classes. There were times in this country when money could not be had on anything like the terms on which it can I be had now, and if the country be prosperous it is because the people are orderly and loyal, and have faith in the justice of 820 this House. There have been the means for more than twenty years for advancing out of the Exchequer sums to those classes who are more fortunate in being the possessors of power in this country. The landed interest have been abundantly helped by loans advanced to them at low interest to drain their estates. Mercantile towns, too, have had large sums lent to them at low interest, repayable, as in the other case, by easy instalments, and they have profited much thereby. Hitherto the working classes have not had any such concessions granted them; and I, in their behalf, now ask that they shall be allowed to share in the joint-stock credit. Will you deny to the working classes a share of the benefit? Will you refuse to lend money for improved dwellings if it can be shown that the security is good? The security which I would suggest is the rates of the district, or borough, or parish, where it is proposed to erect improved dwellings, or to pull down and rebuild. The plan that I suggest is, that wherever the Home Office shall be called upon by any corporate body, or, in default of the corporate body, by twenty ratepayers in any district, it shall direct an inspection to be made of any district where pestilence is supposed to prevail, or where the circumstances of the case from overcrowding have become so grave as to render the dwellings unfit for human habitation. The Home Office can then call upon the local authorities to form an estimate of the expense to be incurred by removing and rebuilding, these estimates are to be published by the Home Office; and then it shall be competent for the Public Loan Commissioners to advance on the security of the rates of the borough, or district, or parish, such sum as will enable the work to be done. I do not prescribe, or attempt to prescribe, or to limit the discretion of the Home Office, but I invoke its aid in this matter, because hitherto the local power and the central power have been placed in antagonism. I do not think we can depend on this need being supplied by permissive legislation. The Bill introduced a few nights ago by the Under Secretary (Mr. Childers) is, in principle, a permissive Bill. That Bill grants loans to municipalities, public companies, and private individuals for the purpose which I have in view; but it does not secure that what I have in view shall he accomplished. It is solely a permissive commercial Bill; whereas the ground of my application is that unless measures be taken to insist on the want being met, the people will be left 821 in their misery and helplessness. As a permissive measure, that of the hon. Gentleman is ample; but in large towns, where the want is more greatly felt than anywhere else, no dependence is to be placed in the efficacy of spontaneous action. Experience has proved it is futile to depend upon voluntary effort in a case of this kind. Until we can put a system in operation which does not depend on the ignorance or the selfishness of individuals, we shall never reach the evil. With regard to the question of repayment, we have promising and even flattering statements of the profit that can be made on these buildings. If any think that 6 or 7 per cent may be made by investing their capital in the building of houses for the labouring classes, by all means let them so invest it; for the more that is done the better I shall be satisfied. The Census of 1861 cannot be accurately analyzed with reference to class, but I believe that those who live by daily labour within the bills of mortality number 648,000; whereas the improved accommodation provided during the last twenty-two years by voluntary and charitable efforts, is sufficient for no more than 9,000 persons. If this be the result of charity and speculation combined, are hon. Gentlemen willing to leave for a single year great masses of population to live in a state which nobody will for one moment pretend to say is fit for any subject of the Queen? In many cases one, two, three, four, and even five families are obliged to live in a single room. Births taking place there, deaths taking place there, I am not exaggerating, and I am referring to honest, upright artizans, whose well-being ought to be dear to all. As the inevitable result, there is pestilence; and fever holds its never ending revel there. I could multiply too easily the evils resulting from the system. These places are the wellheads of pauperism—the springs of demoralization, decrepitude, and death; and, until they are dried up, to expect health in the inhabitants is vain. I asked Dr. Rendle, of St. George's, Southwark, how he thought he would be able to grapple with the evil in his parish. The reply was— Of course, any help will be useful; but Alderman Waterlow's, Mr. Peabody's, Lord Townshend's, or any other scheme will be as nothing unless some systematic, legal, and compulsory Act is passed. Dr. Bruce, the medical inspector of St. Luke's, says— I speak from personal knowledge, and say that 822 in numerous instances the houses of the industrial population are a disgrace to our civilization, and a source of danger to the health of the community. The present state of things is a direct and steady feeder of pauperism, To get rid of them we must get the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lend the money. I do not ask for London alone. Liverpool is as anxious for the passing of a compulsory Bill as London. Dr. Trench, head of the sanitary department there, says that something of the kind is indispensable. Glasgow will be only too happy to avail itself of the power asked for. Newcastle-upon-Tyne will be too thankful. I admit that I am bound to show that what I wish for may be granted without loss to the Treasury, for I should be sorry, on the part of the working classes, to come here asking for a dole. I might, indeed, urge that in equity they have a claim even for that, after the sums which have been so liberally, and I do not say unwisely, lavished on more favoured portions of the community. But I waive that, and I undertake to say, that if the Treasury will allow thirty years for repayment, and lend the money at 3½, or even at 4 per cent, it will he faithfully repaid. It may be said that the rates will be damnified; but I deny that, inasmuch as the rental of the improved dwellings will be available to recoup the rates. If, however, there shall unhappily be some loss, no man conversant with the relief of the poor will deny that the ratepayers will be more than compensated by the diminution of pauperism and consequent diminution of poor rate which will be caused by improved dwellings for the people, I may be told that we have no more right to interfere with free competition in the building trade than we have to interfere with it in any other trade. I speak in the presence of great economical authority, and I venture to invoke that authority without the least knowing what the answer will be. I ask also, "Are we to have free trade in fever? Are we to have fever factories created and supported amongst us without stint?" Do the wealthy residents of the West End know from what infected shops or from what fevered hands their furniture, or their clothing comes? It may be asked, "Why not procure cheap trains, and send the workpeople out of town?" But workpeople must he near their work. Ask any employer of labour whether he wishes his workmen to come early to their work, dry and warm, and in good heart, or to come 823 from the country perhaps drenched with rain or blanched with cold. All the employers I have spoken with on the subject agree in saying, "Whatever you do let us have our people around us." I indeed met with one exception, but in that case the employer said that he should take his factory out of town. What we have to do is to rectify that economical law by which capital exercises a kind of centripetal force over labour, causing it to flock to great centres of employment, and then neglecting the countervailing precautions which ought to be taken to prevent the mischief thus caused. Dr. Trench, of Liverpool, states, as the result of his inquiries there, that in 52,000 houses the workpeople of that town actually enjoy but one-third of the quantity of cubic feet of air which the law prescribes shall be provided for prisoners in gaols! Surely the working population are better than felons. I hope, and I believe, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give the subject a wide, a broad, and statesmanlike consideration. I do not desire to alter one word of the Government Bill; but let us not leave the working classes to the mercy of charity, or to the chance of speculation. Speculators we all know will never do more than choose the sunny spots. But let it not be said to the people, now we have taught them to value education and to read a cheap press, that the House of Commons has not time, or inclination, or money to entertain a subject of this vital importance to their interests.

§ MR. LOCKE
said, he seconded the Motion, and would remind the House that this was no new question. The question was one that had been for several years before the country, and whatever view hon. Members might entertain with regard to the Bill about to be introduced, he was sure that there was not one of them who would not admit that the subject was one that demanded their most serious attention. He did not think the question was second to any that could be brought forward for consideration by that House. What was the condition of the people, not only in this great city, but in the other large towns throughout the Kingdom? It must be obvious to everybody that, in point of fact, there was not a sufficient number of habitations provided for the people, and the greater portion of the dwellings in which they did reside were totally unfitted for the purpose. Many benevolent persons had, no doubt, hitherto stepped forward for the purpose of rendering all the assistance in 824 their power. A most munificent gift had been made by Mr. Peabody, and that gift he believed had been dealt with in a manner to make it as beneficial as possible. But that was really only as a drop in the ocean and could not effect much. It had, however, effected one good thing—namely, that with respect to the houses that had been built, it had furnished a model for other persons hereafter to follow. With respect to private speculation one thing was clear, and that was that capitalists would not invest their money in property of this description, because as respected ordinary house property the sum that ought to be received by a landlord was no less than 7 per cent profit upon his outlay, and he was not aware that Mr. Waterlow's scheme had ever been supposed to have produced more than 5 per cent. Such being the case, he did not think it at all likely that that improvement which was so desirable in the dwellings of the working classes would be carried out unless some compulsory Act was passed by that House. The proposition made to meet the difficulty was extremely simple. Where certain blocks of houses were discovered to be of a dangerous character, and unfit for habitation, the machinery might be put in force, which, under the Land Clauses Consolidation Act, enabled the local authority to take the property, compensating the owners in the usual way, and to fit it for residences for the working classes. The object in view could not, however, be effected unless the Government were to step forward and lend the money for the purpose, and he should appeal to his right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, who had already introduced a Bill on the subject, to take the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend into consideration, and to see how far its provisions could be accommodated to the end sought to be attained. He sincerely hoped that the Bill of his hon. Friend would meet with the best consideration from every Member of that House.

§ MR. KINNAIRD
said, he wished to tender his thanks to the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. M'Cullagh Torrens), for having directed the attention of the House to a subject of such interest and importance.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, that as the House was anxious to proceed with the Cattle Plague Bill, he should only say a few words with regard to this subject. The Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman differed from the measure of the Government in this respect, that it gave compulsory 825 powers to take land, and to obtain money from the Exchequer Loan Commissioners, whereas the Bill which he (Mr. Childers) introduced gave a voluntary power of borrowing money. He could only say that he would consider the plan by which the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to carry out his proposition, and if that plan was feasible it would give him much pleasure to do what the hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke), wished him to do. At the same time he must say that he saw, on the part of those who had charge of the public purse, difficulties which must be surmounted before the plan could be carried out.