§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 7 (Duty of local authority to carry scheme when confirmed into execution).
§ MR. FAWCETTmoved, as an Amendment, in page 5, line 29, to leave out "sell or let," and insert "lease for a period not exceeding ninety-nine years." The hon. Member said, he did so in order to meet what he regarded as a serious defect in this clause—a want of provision as to the appropriation of the land dealt with under the Bill. As the clause stood, if the local authority, having cleared ground of condemned houses, declined for any reason to let the ground to private individuals or trustees, or to build on it themselves, there was nothing in the Bill to say how the land was to be appropriated. In order to effect the same object, the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir Sydney Waterlow) had placed on the Paper two Amendments. One was, that if at the end of three years this clause, as it stood, should not be carried out, if the land in question was not leased or sold to private individuals or bodies of trus- 733 tees, or if the local authorities themselves were not to carry out the scheme, the land should he sold by the local authorities at the expiration of three years in the public market. Suddenly, however, that Amendment was withdrawn, and the hon. Member had substituted another of a different character, which, if carried, would introduce into the Bill a novel principle and one fraught with the most important consequences. That second Amendment amounted to this, that if at the end of three years the land was not sold or leased to private individuals or bodies of trustees, and if the local authorities should not themselves by that time be prepared to carry out the scheme, then private individuals or bodies of trustees should apply to the Home Office or the Local Government Board and ask them to appoint an arbitrator who should decide whether the price asked for the land was a reasonable price, the seller being compelled to accept such price as the arbitrator might fix. There was an Amendment which obviously raised a question of the utmost importance. He undertood the Home Secretary was going to accept that Amendment. The clause, as it stood, allowed the local authorities to sell or lease the land to private individuals, and what he himself wished to propose by his Amendment was that they should not have the power to sell it, but simply the power to lease it for a period of 99 years or less. He thought that if they were obliged to sell the land, they might have to do so at a ruinously low price, too inadequate to repay them any expenditure they might have incurred. He wished the Home Secretary to tell the Committee what were his intentions with respect to the clause.
§ SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWthought it was unusual to discuss an Amendment or question the Government in reference to it until it had been arrived at. He would only at present say that the best actuaries drew very little, if any, distinction between leasing land for 99 years and parting with it altogether by sale.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that one of the main objects of the Bill was to place in the hands of the great corporations of the country, power which they did not now possess, which they had asked for, and were desirous of exercising. Under these circumstances, he had resisted the placing of 734 any further compulsory powers in the hands of the central authority than those suggested by some hon. Members opposite, and to confer which he had himself placed an Amendment on the Paper. The local authorities would naturally resent such a step, as it would, in fact, throw a doubt upon their willingness to take steps under the Bill for the removal of the rookeries which existed in their towns. He had often been told, both in that House and in the public Press, that the Bill was not sufficiently strong because it contained no power of compulsion; but his answer to that charge was that, confined as the clauses were to the great towns, he was certain the local authorities in those great towns would carry out the provisions of this measure to the satisfaction of the House and of the country. With regard to the particular point alluded to by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), he did not believe there was any danger that the corporations who were bound to carry out the scheme would for a moment turn round when this Bill was passed and refuse to carry it out. If compulsion were put upon the corporations, it might be impossible to carry the Bill through that House, and even if they succeeded in forcing the measure through Parliament, it would be impossible to compel the corporations to carry its provisions into useful effect against their will. Under these circumstances, the Government had thought it better to carry the corporations with them on this question, and they had accordingly drawn the Bill as it now stood. He was decidedly opposed to the Amendment, because it would be perfectly monstrous to enable a corporation to say that they could not sell, which would, in a great number of cases, depreciate the value of the property; while in others the leasing of it for 99 years would, as the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone had justly observed, be a distinction without a difference.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, that the difference between selling and leasing the property was this—that, if leased, the corporations would at the end of the lease come into possession of it. As he could not find out what course the Government intended to pursue with reference to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir Sydney Waterlow) he would withdraw 735 his own Amendment, and propose it at a subsequent stage.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, the two objects of the Bill were to get rid of nuisances and to provide better accommodation for the working classes. It might be easy enough to carry out the first of those objects, but he was afraid it would be very difficult to secure the second; and that difficulty would be greatly increased by prohibiting the corporations from selling the land they acquired under the provisions of the Bill, because out of London people would not build on leasehold land, and the result of such a restriction would be that no poor people's dwellings would be built to replace those removed under this measure.
MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHwished to mention that the Amendment would preclude the Peabody Trustees from carrying out any scheme, because they could only spend their money upon land which they had bought.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. FAWCETT, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 6, line 3, to leave out "without the express approval of the confirming authority," said, that as the clause now stood it gave power to the local authorities to carry out the scheme themselves at the expense of the ratepayers if it obtained the assent of the confirming authorities—namely, the Secretary of State for the Home Department or the President of the Local Government Board. He did not wish to give them that power. It was impossible to discuss the Amendment without considering the present position of local taxation and local government, and the great injustice which the Bill might inflict on the ratepayers. Supposing a great building scheme was to be carried out on land which had to be cleared at an expense involving £1,000,000, how, he asked, was that money to be obtained? It would be obtained by borrowing from the Public Works Commissioners on a loan to be repaid in a fixed number of years, and in doing that great injustice would be inflicted upon a certain class of ratepayers. If the loan was to be paid in 21 years, and supposing a man tad the lease of a house for 21 years, the burden would fall upon the leaseholder of that house, while the owner would not contribute a single penny towards this improvement scheme. He 736 ventured to say when that fact became known to the country, everyone would decide that the proposition was extremely unfair. Nothing at the present moment was so serious connected with the finances of the country as the extraordinary rapidity with which the local authorities were accumulating debt; and if they allowed those authorities to enter into these vast building speculations, although the debts of the various municipal authorities were no less than £80,000,000, and were increasing at the rate of £3,000,000 per annum, they would give them the power of adding in the future an indefinite augmentation of the debt. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Hastings (Mr. Kay-Shuttleworth) had alluded to the Peabody Trustees, but their buildings had to be let far below their market value, or if they were not they would be placed far beyond the reach of the class for which they were intended. In the same way, if some such provision as he proposed were not inserted in the Bill, either the buildings must be let at competition rents, or at rents which would not yield a profit on the outlay. In the former case, they would not be taken by persons of the class displaced; and, in the latter, there would be the initiation of an expensive and otherwise objectionable system of favouritism. In addition, if they once sanctioned the principle of a person living in a house erected by public money at a rent less than the market value they would be doing a thing which was an injustice to the ratepayers. If the buildings of the Peabody Trustees were let at rents yielding a fair return, a tenant occupying five rooms would have to pay as much as £30 a-year.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSthought the fears of the hon. Member would be removed if he referred, for example, to what had been done by the Corporation of Glasgow. There was reason to expect that, as in that case, the building schemes would be of positive advantage to the ratepayers. At the same time, nothing could be further from his desire than to allow local authorities to enter unrestrictedly into large building speculations. In Glasgow what the Corporation had done was to set an example, leaving others to follow it out. That was all that these words were inserted for; they were put in for the 737 express purpose of taking care that local authorities should not enter into large building speculations, but that they should be allowed to provide for certain special cases, and thus set an example to private voluntary enterprize.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
On the Motion of Mr. CAWLEY, Amendment made in page 6, line 5, after "scheme," by adding—
Except that they may lay out, form, pave, sewer, and complete all such streets upon the land purchased by them as they may think fit, and all streets so laid out and completed shall thenceforth be public streets, repairable by the same authority as other streets in the district.
MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHmoved, as an Amendment, in page 6, line 5, to add, after "scheme," the following words:—
Provided that complete plans of the new buildings shall be submitted to the confirming authority for approval, and that no grant, lease, or arrangement as aforesaid shall be binding till such approval shall have been obtained.He thought, although there were a great many safeguards in the Bill, there was one wanting in this clause.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSobjected to the Amendment, on the ground that it would lead to delay and expense. Beyond that, he believed the provision was already in the Bill; but if the Amendment were now withdrawn, he would consider the matter when the preceding clauses were printed in their amended form.
§ MR. CAWLEYobjected to the provision, as it would defeat the object of the Bill, and trusted the right hon. Gentleman would neither accept it now, nor at any future period.
MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, he was perfectly satisfied with the promise of the right hon. Gentleman, and would withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWmoved, as an Amendment, in page 6, lines 6 and 7, to leave out "care shall be taken in carrying the scheme into effect to," and insert—
In any grant or lease of any part of the area which may be appropriated by the scheme for the erection of dwellings for the working classes, the local authority shall impose suitable conditions and restrictions as to the elevation, size, and design of the houses, and the extent of the accommodation to be afforded thereby and shall.
§ MR. DODSONthought the words in the Amendment, "in any grant or lease of any part of the area," were somewhat too restrictive. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether they were or not.
§ MR. FAWCETTwished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether it was intended to be laid down as a principle that the working classes, to whom political power had been given, were an exceptionally helpless section of the community, and could not attend to these matters themselves?
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the question raised by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Fawcett) had been fully discussed before. He wished to point out that the sole object of the Amendment was to provide that the local authority should see that the plans of the houses were correct.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Words inserted.
§ MR. RATHBONEmoved, as an Amendment, to leave out all the words from "provision," in page 6, line 7, to "and," in line 9, inclusive, the object of the Amendment being to take away the necessity for the continued appropriation of such a number of dwellings for the use of the working classes as might have been at first contemplated under the scheme.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would accept the Amendment, as the object to which the words referred to was provided for in another part of the Bill.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Words struck out accordingly.
§ SIR SYDNEY WATERLOW, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 6, line 10, after the word "arrangement," to insert words which would have the effect of enabling differences arising on various points between the local authority and the company or person making an offer for the purchase or lease of the lands to be determined by an arbitrator appointed by the confirming authority on the application of either party within three years from the passing of the Confirming Act, said, when they were last in Committee on the Bill, the hon. Member 739 for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) moved to report Progress on the ground that this Amendment was too important to be discussed at half-past 11 at night, as if the proposal involved a new form of legislation and was a new principle in the Bill. In answer to the objection, he (Sir Sydney Waterlow) was ready to admit that the principle of the Amendment was of great importance—namely, that of giving power to the confirming authority to complete the scheme, and it would be a crucial test by which it could be determined whether this measure would remove the evil of overcrowding. But this was no new form of legislation, nor was it a new principle. The Amendment had been copied almost verbatim from a clause in the Metropolitan Streets Improvement Bill of 1872 inserted at the instance of the Government of the day, and it could not be said that it was inconsistent with the preceding clauses in the Bill. He found the same principle also in a Bill passed as far back as 1663 in the reign of Charles II. It might be said there was no necessity for the Amendment; but the history of some metropolitan improvements showed there was the greatest necessity for it. In 1838 and 1840 two Bills were passed for making a new street from Holborn Valley to Clerkenwell Green. Let any one walk down that street now and observe the enormous mass of vacant land on either side. Not only had there been great loss in the value of the land so long left vacant, but the vestries of the particular district had lost a sum in rates perhaps as large as the value of the land itself. In 1857 a Bill was passed for making a new street from London Bridge to Black-friars, and the number of vacant spaces left on either side of the new street again showed the necessity of this Amendment. He was sorry to say there was a large number of owners who had a strong aversion to the erection of houses for working men near to their own property, and those owners would do their utmost to prevent the completion of schemes unless the power now proposed were granted. He therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not object to the confirming authority accepting the responsibility he was going to place in their hands. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
§
Amendment proposed,
At the end of the Clause, to add the words "if after the expiration of three years from the date of the passing of the confirming Act any difference arise between the local authority and any Company or person making an offer in writing for the purchase or lease of the lands appropriated as aforesaid to dwellings for the labouring classes, or any of them, or any part thereof, as to whether such offer is to he entertained, or as to the terms to he inserted in the contract with reference to the purchase-money or rent, or with reference to the conditions upon which the said land is to he sold or let, or with reference to the houses and buildings to be erected thereon, such difference shall from time to time, if the confirming authority think is expedient that the case should be referred to arbitration, be referred to and determined by an arbitrator to be appointed on the application of either party by such confirming authority, and the decision of such arbitrator shall be binding on all parties, and shall be carried into effect accordingly."—(Sir Sydney Waterlow.)
§ MR. CAWLEYthought it would be better simply to enact that if in the course of three years the areas were not occupied, the land should be sold by public auction, subject to certain restrictions to carry out the scheme. If the arbitrator was simply to say whether an offer was to be accepted or not, the Amendment would place the whole matter in the hands of the person who had made the offer, and two or three persons might enter into an arrangement with a view to getting the land on their own terms.
SIR JAMES HOGGdiffered from the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir Sydney Waterlow), and thought the circumstances were not analogous to those which arose in carrying out the Street Improvement Act. The Amendment seemed to imply a certain want of confidence in the local authorities which they did not deserve.
§ MR. DODSONthought the purpose of the Amendment just and desirable, and hoped that if the Home Secretary could not accept it in its present form he would endeavour to improve it and accept its principle. In many cases it might be necessary to compel local boards to take action.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSfeared the Amendment would not work, that, in fact, it would delay the sale of land for 12 or 18 months. He admitted there were several reasons why it was desirable that some pressure should be put upon the local authority to carry out the powers given by the Bill; but he thought it extremely likely that in the event of 741 wilful neglect, a mandamus would lie; but at any rate, individually, he saw no difficulty in so working the Bill, in London especially, as to compel the local authority to take action. The proposal of the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone would cause endless confusion and be impracticable. By the Act relating to Glasgow the corporation of the city were prevented from proceeding with the scheme of improvement until they had satisfied the sheriff that the requisite accommodation for a certain number, not less than 500, of the working classes had been provided. That was a screw of the strongest possible character, and a modification of it would be preferable to the Amendment. He should, however, be willing to consider the question further before the Report.
§ MR. RATHBONEhoped that full consideration would be given to the difference between London and corporate towns in the Provinces, where there would be no difficulty in providing the house accommodation required. In Liverpool, for instance, the "Welsh builders would soon provide any number of houses, and in any towns similarly situated it would be a pity to throw any needless obstacle in the way of the demolition of the fever nests.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, he must still contend that, although the clause might appear to be compulsory, it was in certain contingencies only permissive, and there was not a single word to prevent the ground from being cleared and remaining unoccupied for an indefinite number of years. He could not agree that the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir Sydney Waterlow) offered the best way of meeting the difficulty, but some provision ought to be adopted that the land should be offered for public competition, after it had been unused for a certain time, care being taken that nothing should be erected upon it to affect prejudicially the sanitary condition of the neighbourhood. The clause could not remain as the Home Secretary proposed to leave it, unless the Act were to become a dead letter, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would give some more distinct intimation of the intention of the Government in regard to the clause than he had yet done.
§ SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWsaid, he did not share in the views put forward 742 by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) for he did not apprehend that under the Amendment those who desired to purchase cleared land would obtain it at less than the market value. The land would be valued by a competent arbitrator, so that the contingency spoken of would not occur. He regretted, from experience, he could not share the faith entertained by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in local authorities; for under the Holborn Viaduct Act, the Corporation of the City of London was bound to build dwellings for those who were driven from their homes by that improvement, but 10 years had since elapsed and as yet not a single house had been built. It was useless then to provide that certain things "shall" be done, unless a time was fixed for it, and a penalty imposed, and he trusted that compulsory power would be taken in the Bill with a view to insure its objects being fully carried out. He should not press his Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman would promise to bring up upon the Report a provision to carry out its object.
MR. ASSHETON CROSShad no doubt that, under the Bill as it stood in the 5th clause, the confirming authority would have full power of securing that substituted dwellings were provided for the parties to be displaced before they were disturbed. They would require to be satisfied on that subject before sanctioning any proposed scheme. If the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone could suggest any means of strengthening that provision, in accordance with the objects of the Bill, he (Mr. Cross) would be glad to give the proposal his best consideration.
§ MR. W. M. TORRENS, being desirous of seeing a scheme adopted which would work well, sincerely sympathized with the object which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had in view. Ten years' experience, however, of the subject sought to be dealt with by the Bill compelled him to say that he (Mr. Torrens) did not share the sanguine expectation which the right hon. Gentleman had expressed. He had no doubt that while the right hon. Gentleman was Home Secretary he would make corporations do their duty; but that was not the security they required for the carrying out of this most perplexing experiment. When he (Mr. Torrens) had 743 the honour of carrying a measure with the same object, but not on the same lines, as that of the right hon. Gentleman, he was more sanguine than he was now, but he had seen hope after hope die out. Of this he was persuaded—that the driving of great thoroughfares through such places as St. Giles's would only intensify the evils of overcrowding in the neighbourhood, and that the providing of suitable accommodation for those who were to be displaced would saddle the towns with an amount of expense which would compel Parliament to repeal the Act. What had happened at Paris? Whole districts had been covered with splendid edifices, but the poorer classes had been again and again driven back, and, as a matter of fact, Communism never existed in Paris until Haussman had effected his transformation of the city. Greater control should be given to the local authorities in London. It was incorrect to say that the local bodies had not shown an intention of repressing the system of overcrowding and of enforcing cleanliness and proper sanitary regulations under the Act of 1868. Overcrowding could not be put an end to merely by destroying the houses in which the very poor herded together. The evil had been created by legislation and by the changes in the law of settlement, which had led all men who were out of work to come to London and the other large towns, where they remained to prey on each other. He knew of a case in the parish of St. Luke's where, the parish having interfered in consequence of the frightful state of a court, the owner of the property came forward like a man and at considerable expense pulled down the condemned buildings and erected others in their stead, the consequence being that the poor were attracted to them in greater numbers than ever, and the overcrowding in them was worse than it had been before.
§ MR. DODSONthought that the purport of the Amendment was somewhat misapprehended, because it merely gave the confirming authority a discretionary power to appoint an arbitrator in cases where he thought fit to do so. He wished to see that the objects of the Bill were secured, and thought that there should be some better security for their being carried out than the mere chance of the right hon. Gentleman's continuing at the 744 Home Office. The Government might be changed, and although they might, on the whole, obtain a wiser Administration, they might not perhaps get a wiser Secretary of State. Besides, the right hon. Gentleman was only the confirming authority for the part of the country he acted upon by his own hand, and not for the whole of it. He should, however, advise the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone to withdraw his Amendment, provided that the right hon. Gentleman would himself undertake to propose some amendment of the Bill in the direction indicated on the bringing up of the Report. If no such undertaking was given, he (Mr. Dodson) would divide with the hon. Baronet, and if the Amendment was defeated, at all events a protest would be made in favour of the principle embodied in the Amendment. Under the 13th clause, persons were compelled to part with their property without receiving that benefit which under all other compulsory laws was granted; and that being the case, it was but just to those persons who were compelled to part with their property that the Bill should absolutely secure, as far as possible, the object for which they were compelled to part with their property.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would admit that if land was taken for the purpose of the scheme it was quite necessary it should be carried out. Provision was made in the Bill for housing the persons who were turned out.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, that was what they had been contending for; but provision was not to be made for those displaced, simply the working classes.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was not going into the question of the working classes. The scheme always had been as he had stated, and he referred, in support of this, to the last clause of the Preamble—"It is expedient that provision should be made for dwellings." That, he believed, would be practically provided for in Clause 5. In that clause certain Amendments had been made, and when it was reported he would reconsider its entire tendency and details, so as to determine whether any further provision was necessary to carry out to the full extent the spirit and principle of the Bill.
§ MR. DODSONbegged to remind the right hon. Gentleman that Clause 5 was 745 silent as to the time within which dwellings were to be provided for those who were dispossessed.
§ Question put, "That those words be there added."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 48; Noes 137: Majority 89.
§ MR. CAWLEYmoved, as an Amendment, in page 6, after line 10, to insert—
Provided also, that in any case in which the local authority erect any dwellings out of funds to be provided under this Act, they shall sell or dispose of all such dwellings within five years from the time of completion thereof.He thought it exceedingly undesirable that the local authorities should become the permanent owners of this class of property.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he did not wish that corporations should hold such property in perpetuity; but if they were compelled to sell it within five years, they might incur loss. If his hon. Friend consented to substitute "a reasonable period" for "five years," he would accept the Amendment.
§ MR. MUNTZsaid, "a reasonable period" was no definition at all. He would suggest "ten years" instead of "five."
§ MR. CAWLEYsaid, he would accept the proposed alteration.
§ Amendment amended accordingly, and agreed to.
MR. JAMES, in moving, as an Amendment, to add at the end of the clause words which would forbid the grant to any premises of a licence to sell intoxicating liquors to be drunk on the premises, or of any new licence to sell such liquors for consumption off the premises unless the number of such premises was less than 1 for every 1,000 of the population within the area, said, he could assure the House that he did not in any degree introduce this subject as a matter of party feeling, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department would be able to accept the Amendment, which was one of a practical kind, and was founded on fair and equitable considerations. He was not going to discuss the Licensing Bill of last year, or to allude to the attractions of the public-house; but if a genuine effort were made to improve the homes of the poor, the measure by which 746 it was proposed to remove social and domestic misery ought to be considered in every aspect. It was an undeniable fact that in large towns public-houses almost invariably occupied the best sites, generally at the corners of streets, and he thought that steps should be taken so that this state of things should not be indefinitely repeated on sites where fever nests and rookeries had been rooted out. On the Shaftesbury Park Estate no evil had arisen from the fact that there public-houses were conspicuous by their absence. He thought that some explanation ought to be given by the right hon. Gentleman with reference to this peculiar question—namely, how it was proposed to deal with licensed houses hereafter erected under the provisions of this Bill. He begged to move the Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed,
At the end of the Clause, to add the words "No licence to sell intoxicating liquors for consumption on the premises shall he granted for any now premises within the area to which the scheme relates, and no new licence to sell intoxicating liquor by retail for consumption off the promises shall he granted for any promises in such area, unless it is proved to the licensing justices that the number of premises for the time being licensed to sell therein as last aforesaid is less than one for every thousand of the population inhabiting such area."—(Mr. James.)
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he could not accept the Amendment. If the matter was to be dealt with, it must be in quite a different manner and by a general measure. The question was one which had been frequently discussed in Scotland. It would be most unwise to mix up the licensing question with a scheme for improving artizans dwellings.
§ MR. ERNEST NOELsaid, he could not conceive on what ground the Amendment was objected to. In his opinion it was a moderate and reasonable proposal, for it did not seek to interfere with the social rights of the people, but merely to take care that money taken compulsorily from the ratepayers to clear sites and spaces should not be expended in raising up large gin-palaces. He did not agree with the Permissive Bill; but he should certainly support the Amendment, on the ground that those ratepayers who thought that houses of that sort would greatly increase the rates ought to be considered.
§ MR. EVELYN ASHLEYconfirmed what had been stated by the hon. Member 747 for Gateshead (Mr. James) with reference to the absence of public-houses on the Shaftesbury Park Estate. Great satisfaction was expressed at it by every one except the publicans who were kept away, and the magistrates, although pressed to increase the number of public-houses in the neighbourhood to make up the deficiency within the area, had rightly refused to do so. Although he was one of those who did not go in entirely for the Permissive Bill, he yet thought that as very little was get out of the Licensing Bill of last year, they should get what they could out of this; and in that view, small contributions such as this offered by the hon. Member for Gateshead should be thankfully received. He hoped the Amendment would be carried.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he was sorry to hear the Home Secretary say that he did not want the licensing question matter to be mixed up with his Bill. The Bill was intended to make more comfortable, cleaner, happier, and healthier the dwellings of the working classes, and surely a proposal like the one before the Committee ran exactly in a line with it. The hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. James) thought that those houses which they were going to erect would be more likely to be clean, happy, comfortable, and healthy if they kept away these temptations from their immediate neighbourhood. He (Mr. James) wished to diminish the temptations to drunkenness, which was the cause, nine times out of ten, of miserable and degraded homes. He wished to free the neighbourhood to some extent of those places where, according to his Friend the hon. Member for Hudders-field (Mr. Leatham), "the presiding genius has an interest in filling the glasses and emptying the pockets of his customers." He proposed to protect them from those temptations, and he desired to have an "oasis" in the desert of drunkenness. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), however, regretted that his hon. Friend had not quite had the courage of his opinions in this matter. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) wished that he had gone a little further. For no human being could say what was the exact number of public-houses that ought' to be supplied to a given number of population. He could not quite understand why, if a public-house was an evil, 999 748 persons were to be free from it, whilst if there were 1,001 in the area they should suffer from it. It was impossible logically to maintain the proposition of his hon. Friend, for this trade was either good or bad; if good, they ought to make it as free as the wind; but if bad, they ought to prohibit it. But he took the Amendment as he found it, and thought it really deserving of some favour. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Jenkins), in one of his excellent works, describing a "rookery" and its surroundings of gin-palaces, public-houses, and beer-shops, said—
Veritable wreckers they who conduct these haunts, viler than the wreckers who place false beacons and plunder bodies on the beach.That was stronger language than he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) used; but if there were any truth in it, Parliament was responsible, and he did not think they should wash their hands of all the crime that arose. Last year both parties in that House by a large majority passed the third reading of the Licensing Bill, doing all the harm they possibly' could to the working classes, and his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary must have had many an uncomfortable hour during the last Recess, and now when he heard what was going on in consequence of his legislation—legislation which, in his heart, he was as much ashamed of as any of them. Take Lancashire, a large portion of which he (Mr. Assheton Cross) himself represented. What was the state of things there? The Chief Constable's report shows an increase of 7,148 proceedings for drunkenness. In Liverpool, the apprehensions for drunkenness, disorderly, and incapable were in 1873, 20,970; and in 1874, 23,303. Also in the first five weeks after Cross's Act, 1874, came into force, an increase of 10 per cent in arrests for drunkenness. Now that they had done all they could to deteriorate the man, they spent hour after hour in that House pottering over this Bill to improve the houses in which he lived. But he maintained they must improve the men first, and remove them from those temptations which were their curse. He was sorry not to see the Prime Minister in his place, because, allusion having been made to the Shaftesbury Park Estate, he wished to call attention to the address which the right hon. Gentleman had delivered at its inauguration. His words were very important. He 749 was addressing a meeting called to promote the interests of the Shaftesbury Park Association. The leading principle of that association was not only to erect good working-men's dwellings, but that they should be kept perfectly free from the contamination of drink shops. On the 18th of July, last year, the Prime Minister, at Shaftesbury Park, said—I have never in my life been more astonished than by what I have unexpectedly witnessed to-day—a city suddenly rising in the desert. The experiment you have made has succeeded, and therefore can hardly be called an experiment, and in its success is involved the triumph of an interesting effort for the moral elevation of the great body of the people…I cannot doubt that this movement will spread. I myself view it with great interest, because it is a subject which at this moment engages the attention of Parliament. However, to a certain degree, you may be said to have solved a question which has perplexed Parliaments; and from what I have seen here, from what I am told I shall learn, from the information which has been promised me, I think I see the possibility of obtaining results which may guide the national councils in accomplishing an enterprise which I believe is impending in this country—the attempt upon a large scale to improve the dwellings of the great body of the people.So that the right hon. Gentleman did not, like the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, object to the two questions being mixed up together. He repeated that he regretted the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) was not now in his place, for after that speech he would be bound to vote with the hon. Member for Gateshead. But what could the Home Secretary mean by saying that the Amendment ought not to be mixed up with the objects of the Bill? Read the Preamble itself, which specially points out the evil of "buildings so densely inhabited as to be highly injurious to the moral and physical welfare of the inhabitants." That was exactly what public-houses were, that was the only reason why he had ever objected to them, because they were "highly injurious to the moral and physical welfare of the inhabitants." The Government in the Bill were doing what he had been condemned as the most desperately wicked politician ever seen for doing—namely, trying to make people moral by Act of Parliament. Then again, the Preamble said, touching the effect of these objectionable houses—Diseases are constantly generated there, causing death and loss of health, not only in 750 the courts and alleys, but also in other parts of such cities and boroughs.Again; exactly, his charge against the public-houses. But they did more than promote disease and death, for the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), the other day, described those who kept such places as men who deal in articles "producing crime, disorder, and madness to a very great extent." Did they really wish such places to be established in their new and improved districts? He should vote for the Amendment, and all those who did not wish to go on in make-believe legislation, but really wished to turn this Bill into one that would do something to increase the happiness and prosperity and morality of the working classes of this country, ought also to support it.
§ MR. ALDERMAN COTTONsaid, he could not help thinking, with the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, that till the Permissive Bill was passed the licensing of public-houses had better be left in the hands of the justices.
MR. J. COWENsaid, the Amendment did not go far enough. The existence of public-houses ought not to be allowed in these buildings. It was a very usual thing for a clause to be inserted in leases for building on estates to be occupied by the wealthier classes that no public-house should be erected. If it was desirable so to protect the dwellings of wealthy people it was far more so those of the working men.
§ MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSsaid, he concurred with the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) that the Amendment did not go far enough. He could not vote for it for the reason that made it difficult for him to support a Permissive Bill—that it was the duty of the Imperial Parliament to take upon itself to determine for a country what law should prevail upon the subject, and not throw the responsibility on public bodies of deciding matters of such vast importance. He would have voted for a clause prohibiting altogether the erection of public-houses in these districts. He should support the clause.
MR. E. SMYTHThe hon. Member opposite (Mr. Alderman Cotton) has expressed his concurrence with the Home Secretary that the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. James) is not consistent with the objects of the Bill. And why? Because, 751 says the hon. Gentleman, it is an artizans and labourers dwellings Bill. Now, no other argument is needed to justify the Motion of the hon. Member for Gateshead, for surely no one will contend that a publican is either an artizan or a labourer. You are proposing to erect more healthy dwellings for the working classes, and all that my hon. Friend asks is, that you take care that your dwellings when they are erected shall not be diverted from the objects for which they are built, and turned into dwellings for those who do not belong to the working classes at all. In fact, the Amendment is a necessary corollary to the main provisions of the Bill. The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle has shown that if you are sincere in wishing to promote the moral and physical welfare of the labouring classes, you will keep them as far as possible from the contaminations of which he has spoken; but, apart from this weighty consideration, which has really received no answer, I accept the argument of the hon. Gentleman opposite, and turn it against himself. This is a Bill to provide suitable dwellings for the working classes, and therefore it is not a Bill to provide taverns and beer-shops. For that reason I shall vote with my hon. Friend, and I hope he will divide the House.
§ SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWsaid, the land that was to be built upon for artizans dwellings could not be used for public-houses, but the portion that was to be sold could be utilized as the purchaser thought fit. It was not right that the ratepayers' money should be spent in purchasing interests in public-houses, and that in 12 months after the same interest should be re-created without the authorities being recouped the money they had spent in purchasing it up. There were, in these existing crowded localities, more public-houses than were wanted, and it would be a great boon to reduce them.
§ MR. T. CAVEsaid, opponents of the United Kingdom Alliance could accept the Amendment, which was necessary because municipalities, for the sake of saving a halfpenny rate, might be tempted by higher offers to let land for public-houses.
§ SIR ANDERW LUSKsaid, it would be better not to take into consideration the Permissive Bill when they were dealing with this question. He hoped the 752 right hon. Gentleman would adhere to his Bill, or otherwise he would get into trouble. If there was no necessity for a public-house, the magistrates would not grant a licence, and if there was, why should not the neighbourhood have one?
MR. JAMESsaid, the object of the Amendment was to try and do something to remedy a prevailing evil, and he thought it was practicable if carried out. He must press it upon the Committee.
§ MR. MUNTZobjected to the Amendment, because it was an attempt by a side-wind to nullify the provisions of an Act of Parliament already on the Statute Book. There was no practical result to be derived from this perpetual meddling with private enterprize, and he should therefore vote against it.
§ MR. CUBITTsaid, that by forbidding the erection of public-houses on a piece of land the value of the adjoining land was increased in value for that purpose. It was the practice on large estates to set out a certain number, in order that the number should be limited. In all other cases, the most inconvenient sites were provided.
§ Question put, "That those words be there added."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 53; Noes 109: Majority 56.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSmoved, as an Amendment, to add at the end of the clause the following words:—
The local authority may, when they think it expedient so to do, without themselves acquiring the land, contract with the owner of any land comprised in an improvement scheme for the carrying out of the scheme in respect of such land by such owner.
§ MR. SHAW-LEFEVREinquired, whether it was intended that the local authority should be at liberty to pay money out of the rates for the purpose of enabling an owner to carry out improvements in his property? If so, he thought the Amendment would be objectionable.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, there was no such intention. If he were advised that there was the least doubt on that point, he would take care to have it removed.
§ Amendment agreed to; words added.
§ MR. FAWCETTmoved, as an Amendment, to add to the clause words providing that if at any time within three 753 years after the local authority had acquired any plot of land the confirming authority should determine on, or if at the expiration of such three years the local authority should have been unable to lease the same for the purposes of the Act, the obligations of this enactment imposed upon the local authority should with respect to the land so un-leased, cease and determine. As the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir Sydney Waterlow) had failed to carry his second Amendment, he (Mr. Fawcett) made this proposal to give the opportunity of confirming the idea embodied in the hon. Member's original Amendment. As the clause stood it was permissive in regard to carrying out the scheme, and there was nothing under Clause 7, as it stood, to ensure that the land when cleared out would be used. It was no answer on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to say that this or that was not the intention of the Government; what the Committee had to look to was the legal application of the words contained in the clause. Did the Home Secretary pretend to say that in Clause 7, as it stood, there was anything to make the carrying out of the scheme obligatory? If not, what would become of the land, supposing the scheme should not be carried out? The object of his own Amendment was simply to prevent in future that taking place which the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone had described as having taken place in the City of London, where great improvements had been carried out, and where, though it was the intention that houses should be built for the working classes, the people residing in the cleared areas were turned out, and other parts of London became more crowded than before, the land remaining unoccupied. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the great principle which animated him with respect to the Bill was, to have a generous confidence in the local authorities; but the local authorities, though they might be anxious to carry out the scheme, might, from considerations of wise and just prudence, shrink from incurring the expenditure which the scheme involved, and find other excuses for not doing what was required. If the Amendment which he proposed were accepted, he believed the scheme would be adopted in localities where it was advisable that 754 it should be adopted, while it would not be adopted in places where it was not desirable, and that nothing would be more likely to effect the clearance of unhealthy areas.
§
Amendment proposed,
At the end of the Clause, to add the words "If at any time within three years after the local authority have acquired any of the before mentioned plots of land the confirming authority shall so determine, or at the expiration of such three years the local authority shall have been unable to lease the same for the purpose aforesaid, the obligations by this enactment imposed upon the local authority shall, with respect to the land so unleased, cease and determine."'—(Mr. Fawcett.)
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he wished the Committee and the whole country to understand clearly the point at issue between himself and the hon. Member for Hackney. The hon. Member wished to make the measure a Towns Improvement Bill, and had urged his view in every possible variety of shape during this discussion. He (Mr. Cross), on the other hand, desired that the measure should not be a Towns Improvement Bill, but something else—namely, a measure that would prevent the occurrence of those evils that have been so forcibly and vividly depicted to-night by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Torrens) as having been brought about in Paris by the destruction of the dwellings of the working classes without any provision having been made for their accommodation. The object of the Government was to get rid of the rookeries, but also to provide for the erection of houses in the place of those destroyed, and thus to prevent the vice, filth, overcrowding, indecency, misery, disease, and death that must be the inevitable result of the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Fawcett's) Towns Improvement Bill. That was the sole issue between himself and the hon. Member, but it was a grave one, and was one in which all the people of this country had the deepest interest. The hon. Member wished to leave the accommodation of those who were turned out of their dwellings to be met by the law of supply and demand, and by those of political economy. Well, the Government did not wish to place houses at the disposal of the people turned out at a cheaper rate than they ought to pay, they did not want to pauperize these people; 755 but they wanted to take care that in clearing out the rookeries for the benefit of the whole community the persons driven from those rookeries should not be damaged by it. They wished to build houses for them such as the people could live in and carry on their occupations in, but they must pay for them. That was the issue between them. [Mr. FAWCETT: No, no!] That was at the bottom of the issue, and it was clearly shown by the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke), who wished to change the title of the Bill; but he was glad to say that was not the ground taken up by his hon. Friends opposite. He had that faith in the great municipal institutions of England that when they came to Parliament and said—"We come here for a scheme to carry out these improvements "they would fully carry out that scheme. He asked the House to have confidence in the municipalities and in local self-government; and he contended that by passing the Amendment, they would be holding out great temptation to municipal authorities to evade the Act.
MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHalso opposed the Amendment, on the ground that it would put a great temptation before the local authorities, and afford them a means, where they desired it, of evading the Act. At the same time, he was quite sure that nothing was further from the thoughts of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) than that the people who inhabited these places should be sent forth houseless and homeless, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had either misunderstood, or not treated quite fairly the remarks of the hon. Member.
§ MR. DIXONdeprecated any proposal which would throw difficulties in the way of the successful working of the Act among our large provincial population such as he feared was suggested by the Amendment. All the arguments adduced by the Home Secretary had been in favour of the importance of re-building habitations for the working classes in those places where there had been great clearances; but there was a difference between the metropolis and the provincial towns, because in the latter there was no necessity for the immediate re-building of the houses. He suggested that the difference should be recognized.
§ MR. WHITWELLconsidered that 756 when the Provisional Orders were laid on the Table would be the time to see that they contained compulsory powers.
§ MR. RATHBONEurged that the Home Secretary should accept the proposition of the hon. Member for Hackney so far as applying the relaxation to all places outside the metropolis.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the discussion showed how right the Government were in taking care that the Bill should apply only to very large towns. The more the details were discussed, the more it would be seen that they were only applicable to very large places. Indeed, he stated originally that he would rather apply it to towns of still larger population than was fixed in the Bill. At the same time, for the comfort of hon. Members, he would call attention to the fact that there was on the Paper a clause which would give ample power to the central authority to select any part of a scheme which it might appear desirable not to carry out.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had not condescended to answer his question, but had simply repeated the worn-out taunt that he (Mr. Fawcett) did not care for the working classes, and that Her Majesty's Government was a benevolent Government which did. ["Oh, oh!"] He was not the least afraid to have his political character judged by the working classes. The worst friend to the working classes was he who attempted to deceive them by trying to make them believe that this House could do for them what it could not do, and what they only could do for themselves. That was the principle which he had always endeavoured to advocate, and whatever the consequences he would, for the sake of the working men themselves, continue to advocate it. He wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman a business question—Would the right hon. Gentleman point out the words in the clause which would give any security that the ground when cleared would be appropriated to any purpose? If the right hon. Gentleman would not answer it now, he (Mr. Fawcett) would move to report Progress in order to secure an answer at a future time.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he could only reply as he had done before. He must refer the hon. Gentleman to the original scheme, which he did not 757 appear thoroughly to understand. The local authorities would have to lay down the original scheme, and the permanent authority would, as a matter of course, require to be shown in that scheme how they proposed to deal with the land. It was distinctly stated that it should be their duty not only to take steps for securing the land, but also for carrying the scheme into operation.
MR. EAWCETTsaid, he would assume that the scheme had gone before the Home Secretary, and that he was satisfied with it, but how was it to be carried out? The enacting part of the clause said that the scheme was to be carried out in either of three ways; but supposing the parties concerned did not choose to act, how was the scheme to be carried into effect?
§ Question put, "That those words be there added."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 211: Majority 168.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 8 (Notice to occupiers by placards).
§ On the Motion of Mr. HAMOND, Amendment made, in page 6, line 11, by leaving out "eight," and inserting "thirteen."
§ MR. FAWCETTmoved, as an Amendment, in page 6, line 12, the omission of the words "occupied wholly or partially by persons belonging to the working class as tenants or lodgers," his object being to extend the benefit of the notice to be given to the occupants of condemned houses equally to all, irrespective of the class to which they belonged.
§ SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWregretted the course taken by the Home Secretary on that point, and the Amendment of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Hamond).
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, with regard to the latter point, the effect was that in every case there would be 13 weeks' notice.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.