UNHEALTHY AREAS. (Hansard, 18 March 1875)

MR. J. COWEN
objected that the clause omitted from the operation of the Bill towns which contained less than 25,000 inhabitants, and he moved an Amendment for the purpose of extending the operation of the clause to all urban sanitary districts as defined in the Sanitary Act of 1872.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
admitted that there were houses in towns with a population of 10,000 in quite as bad a condition as those in larger towns; but to such places the same remedies as those proposed in the Bill for large towns were not applicable. For instance, in small towns the land outside was easier to get than in large towns, and if any place wanted to improve, the best plan was to buy the ground and build the houses; but in this Bill they were taking very strong powers—calling on the ratepayers to pull down houses and see that proper dwellings were provided. That was a very costly process at the outset, though it would pay in the long run; but in small towns he thought that by a little extension of the 50 Act of 1868 the same results might be effected.

§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGU
, who had an Amendment to the same effect as that of the hon. Member (Mr. Cowen), said, it was not always easy to get land outside a small town for building. For instance, in the case of Folkestone, where he lived, and which might be matched with any town in England for abominable and pestilential holes from which scarlatina and fever were never absent, no land could be obtained. The whole land outside the town belonged to Lord Radnor, and he either could not or would not sell an inch of ground, and would only grant leases for a very short period. Only noble mansions, which were almost palaces, were allowed to be built, and for these a high ground-rent was charged. It was not likely he would give his consent to the building on that land of cottages for the humble working classes. He wished to follow the lines of the Public Health Act of 1872, and give the proposed powers to the authorities in the urban sanitary districts.

§ MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE
said, he thought the Home Secretary meant to meet the case of rural districts to which Torrens's Act did not apply, and this being so, he was inclined to support his proposal to confine the operation of this clause to large towns.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
said, he should Le glad if the Home Secretary would extend the operation of the Bill to towns of 10,000 inhabitants. There was something like public spirit in the large towns, and a sense of decency and self-respect which made them take action in the matter; but in the small towns the conditions were altogether different. There was a want of public spirit in them, and the ratepayers were opposed to everything like expenditure. He knew small towns in the Midland Counties, and in Lancashire, which were in a most disgraceful state, and in towns like Over Darwen, the people were dying almost like rotten sheep from the condition in which they lived. He should feel grateful if the Home Secretary could see his way to extending the provisions of the Bill, so as to embrace those smaller towns, and at the same time find some means of making the adoption of the measure compulsory in those districts.

§ MR. WHITWELL
said, he did not think that the present Bill was applicable to the smaller towns; but he was glad to hear the Home Secretary say that he intended to deal separately with small towns according to their respective merits. With power to take land by compulsion, the case of these smaller towns would be better met in a separate Bill.

COLONEL BERESFORD
referred to the unsanitary condition of some portions of Southwark, and thought, from the way in which he had spoken, that the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) must be profoundly ignorant of London.

§ SIR ANDREW LUSK
said, he thought the people in small towns were not so badly off for air and comfort as the inhabitants of large towns. We ought to begin with the latter, and not put too much pressure at the first upon the public.

§ MR. GOURLEY
expressed a hope that the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) would take the sense of the Committee on his Amendment. There was quite as much necessity for the improvement of the dwellings of the working classes in the rural districts as in our large towns.

§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGU
observed, with reference to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark (Colonel Beresford), that the question was not whether worse dens of filth were to be found in London or in other large towns than existed in the smaller towns; all that the supporters of the Amendment asserted was that in those smaller towns unhealthy rookeries did exist, and that they ought to be removed.

§ MR. STANSFELD
pointed out that urban sanitary districts in this country often contained a very limited population—as low sometimes as 300 or 400 persons. He was not in favour of granting exceptional powers to such very small constituencies, and therefore he should vote against the Amendment.

§ MR. FAWCETT
said, he thought an urban district under the Act of 1872 must be "a populous place," but even if his right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) were right, that was no reason why this provision should not be extended. The Committee had teen told not to be too hard upon the 52 ratepayers in small towns—as though it was proposed to bring them under some penal statutes; and the right hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest the local authorities in small towns might fall into the temptation of putting the Act in force. Suppose they did, and pulled down a house which was reported by medical authority as a cause of disease—such a proceeding would be a public benefit, not a public injury. The Home Secretary rested his opposition to the extension of the Bill on the assertion that in towns of 10,000 inhabitants and under, one could always in the immediate neighbourhood get land for the building of houses for the working classes; but the fact was exactly the contrary. In many small towns one could not get land for love or money, because it was possessed by one, two, or three great proprietors, and the most stringent regulations were made in the leases that only houses of a particular character could be built—houses of a character which it was impossible for working men to live in. It was not consistent with the dignity of the House to legislate in this piecemeal fashion, having a small Bill now, an amending Bill next year, and so on. If the Home Secretary was determined to get rid of these unhealthy-places in towns of 25,000 inhabitants, one was at a loss to see why, in the name of common sense, he should not deal in the same way with towns of 15,000 inhabitants.

MR. JAMES
said, he thought that if any legislation was attempted it should be as complete as possible, and was inclined to think the Bill should apply not only to urban, but to rural sanitary districts. Knowing well the neighbourhood of Folkestone, he could say that the condition of the rural poor between that town and Dover was infamous and disgraceful.

§ MR. EARP
urged the hon. Member to press his proposal to a division, for there could be no doubt that many small towns were in a fearful plight. The town he represented (Newark) would be glad to possess the powers which this Bill might give them. With a population of 14,000, it was expanding on every side, yet there was only one owner in the neighbourhood who was willing to lot his land on building leases. Fever of a virulent kind had lately broken out there, He would give 53 other towns than those of 25,000 inhabitants, where a suitable authority existed, the power to apply the provisions of this Bill if they thought fit to do so.

§ MR. STANSFELD
entirely admitted that there were reasons for extending this Bill to towns below the proposed limit; but, on the other hand, he saw serious objections to giving such powers, though only permissive, to the smallest urban sanitary authorities.

§ MR. MUNTZ
moved an Amendment, in page 2, line 9, to leave out "25,000," and insert "10,000," as he wished to apply the provisions of the Bill to a larger number of towns. It was invidious to mention the names of places; but he believed it would be found that towns with a population of 10,000 had houses as remarkable for dirt and infamy as those with a population of 25,000.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he was afraid that he could not adopt this Amendment. His original intention bad been to confine the operation of the Bill to towns of 50,000, but he was induced to extend it to populations of 25,000, which would really let in a considerable number of large towns. He wanted to give the Bill a fair start as far as the large towns were concerned, and there would in that case be less difficulty in extending its operations. Were they to make it at the outset applicable to towns of 10,000, the local authorities would not work it as it ought to be worked, the opposition of the ratepayers would be aroused, and the measure might become unpopular. At the same time, it was the intention of the Government to apply a different remedy to towns with a population of 10,000, which he hoped would have considerable effect in reducing the evils which he quite admitted existed in such places. There was the less necessity for doing what was asked by the hon. Member for Birmingham, as he would, when the convenient opportunity arrived, bring in a separate and a more suitable Bill to deal with the small towns.

§ MR. WHITWELL
, admitting the difference between large towns and small ones, advised the acceptance of the Home Secretary's assurance and the withdrawal of the Amendment.

§ MR. STANSFELD
pointed out that this was a permissive Bill, and therefore he did not understand the reasoning of the Home Secretary when he said he was afraid that the Bill would become unpopular if it were applied to towns of less than 25,000 population, because of the pressure on the rates. It was impossible to rely, where the population was small, upon the sanitary authority as a fairly representative body likely to act in the public interest. He had a shrewd suspicion that in such districts the boards consisted of surveyors, builders, and local solicitors, who attended more to their own than the public interest. As the Home Secretary had foreshadowed another Bill for small populations, of which the Committee knew nothing, and as no definite reason had been given for stopping at 25,000, he should support the Amendment.

§ MR. CAWLEY
said, he had not heard a reason for stopping at 25,000, except the insufficient one that they might frighten the ratepayers, and he preferred to adopt 10,000, both because they had already done so in Torrens' Act, and because there were towns of 10,000 which greatly needed some such Bill.

§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGU
said, he would remind the Committee that under the Municipal Corporations Act of 1834, towns of less population than 10,000 were entrusted with quite as great powers as were to be vested in towns of 25,000. The Home Secretary said he feared that to adopt the Amendment would be to make the Act costly and frighten the ratepayers. Now, as the Bill was permissive, his own fear, on the contrary, was that the Act would not be put into operation. The people who were frightened were not the ratepayers, but the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, who had evaded their promises last Session by alleging that they had not had time to settle the question of Local Taxation, and who in the present Session had forgotten all about it.

THE CHAIRMAN
reminded the noble Lord that the Question before the Committee was whether the numbers should be "25,000"or "10,000."

§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGU
said, he would submit himself to the Chair; but he thought that the Home Secretary had treated the House rather unfairly when he said that he had got a plan in petto for dealing with the smaller towns. It was not fair, however, to ask the Committee to legislate in the dark, and they ought to know what the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do.

§ MR. GOLDNEY
said, that there already existed an Act, passed in 1868, which authorized the local authorities of towns of 5,000 inhabitants to remove and order to be pulled down houses that were unfit for human habitations, although it did not give them the power of building them up again. The present scheme was not only for pulling down, but for re-building.

§ MR. DODSON
said, the question before the Committee was the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz)—namely, that the Bill, in its operation, should not be confined to towns having a population of 25,000, but that it should apply to towns with populations of 10,000 and upwards. The assumption of the duty by the local authorities was entirely optional. They were told that the Bill was a permissive and simple Bill; but it was a Bill containing 22 clauses, and comprising 22 pages, and he would say that there never was a measure introduced with so much pretension which reduced itself to so small a point. The only difference was that towns might obtain a Provisional Order under this Bill, instead of applying for a Private Bill.

§ MR. GOLDNEY
said, that under the Bill, when the urban sanitary authorities had passed a scheme, it would be the duty of the local authorities to purchase land and carry out the scheme. That was not to be called a Permissive Bill.

§ SIR ANDREW LUSK
said, his constituents did not consider the Bill as merely permissive; on the contrary, they thought it a most compulsory measure. For instance, the confirming authority could come and say—"Those houses must come down." Now, that was a great power. If 20 persons were to get up a requisition to the authorities in matters comprised in the measure, the local authorities must act. He did not think they should press the Bill too strongly. As far as his own constituency 56 (Finsbury) was concerned, he felt that it would be very hard to work it.

§ MR. FAWCETT
said, they now had only got through about half of Clause 2, and that being so, what could they know about Clause 7, which was said to be permissive? With respect to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz), proposing that the Bill be made to apply to small places containing populations of 10,000 and upwards, as well as to large towns with populations of 25,000 and upwards, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary admitted that there were places in small towns requiring similar legislation; but in small towns the Bill was not obligatory in reference to building. The right hon. Gentleman said it would become the duty of the local authorities to carry out the scheme. Now, the clause did not say that the local authorities "shall" carry out the scheme, but that they "may" carry it out. It was contended that the Bill was purely permissive; but if the clause was correct, he contended that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman was correct—there was no obligatory power to compel the local authorities to carry out the scheme.

§ MR. CAWLEY
said, hon. Members seemed to be confounding the terms "permissive" and "obligatory."

§ MR. MUNTZ
said, the hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir Andrew Lusk) need not be uneasy on the question of his Amendment, for it referred to populations under 25,000, and the population of Finsbury was above that. The difficulty in the case of large towns was, that in them land was sold at enormous prices.

§ MR. ALDERMAN COTTON
said, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said he would bring in a Bill to deal with the small towns, and, in his opinion, it would be wise not to postpone the present measure, on the principle that" a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush," and that there was a great difference between a population of 2,000 or 3,000, and one of 10,000 to 25,000—a population of 25,000 occupying a very large area; while the minimum of 25,000 would shut out some very important towns, even one of 24,999.

§ MR. RITCHIE
approved of the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Member 57 for the City of London (Mr. Alderman Cotton), and thought that if the taxpayers were to be relieved in some places, it would be well if they were also considered in small places.

§ MR. E. STANHOPE
said, the main reason for not applying these regulations to the smaller towns was that the small sanitary authorities would not, from well-known causes, carry them out. He agreed in the opinion that the same rule should be applied alike to small towns and country districts; but held that they required a totally different machinery from that to be applied to large towns.

MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH
said, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham was to extend the Bill to places with a population of between 10,000 and 25,000. The Home Secretary said he had another Bill which he meant to introduce to deal with the country and the small towns; but he (Mr. Kay-Shuttleworth) submitted that the food which was good for populations of 25,000 would be more suitable for small towns having populations of 10,000 and upwards than that which would be applicable to agricultural districts. He quite agreed in the remark of the hon. Member for London (Mr. Alderman Cotton) that it was better to have "one bird in hand than two in the bush." With regard to the Act of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Torrens), it gave much more stringent powers to local authorities than those of the present Bill; and that Act applied to all towns of not less than 10,000 inhabitants.

§ MR. SAMUDA
said, he should support the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham. He thought the Bill should be so framed as to range with the Act of 1868, for nothing could be more inconvenient than to have one mode of assessment for populations of 25,000, and another for populations of 10,000. He thought, therefore, that the Committee could not do better than to let the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham take effect.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, it was an inconvenience which could not perhaps be helped, that hon. Members who had come in after the earlier discussion on the clause should speak, although the result was that they urged arguments 58 which had been answered over and over again. The right hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson) was an instance. He could never have done what the House had done, read the Bill a second time; and he must be utterly ignorant of the real character of the Bill and the clauses it contained, or he would never have made the statement he did, that after great professions it turned out to be nothing at all. Having said that, too, he was yet most anxious that the Bill should be extended to towns of 10,000 inhabitants. He hoped before the House again got into Committee his right hon. Friend would read the Bill a second time, and then he would be better able to explain its provisions. He (Mr. Cross) admitted that, as a rule, towns with 10,000 inhabitants would be just as well able to administer the Bill as towns with 25,000 inhabitants. His anxiety, however, was that the Bill should work. It would be applied tentatively to large towns. As regarded smaller places, there would be a great outcry among country ratepayers, who did not see the prospective good of the Bill if it were applied to them. Not one instance had been cited to show that local authorities in the small towns had availed themselves of the provisions of Torrens' Act. When they came to the Government and said they had exhausted all the powers they already possessed, the Government would be quite willing to increase their powers.

§ SIR EARDLEY WILMOT
regretted that his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had not acceded to the earnest request made on both sides of the House to apply the Act to smaller towns. In the case of a town like Leamington, with 22,000 inhabitants, heartily approving the Bill, it was a pity that the local authorities would be unable to put it into force.

§ MR. DODSON
repeated that this Bill was a permissive one, because the local authorities were only to apply for a Provisional Order upon their being satisfied with the representations made to them. It would be, therefore, optional on their part to apply the Bill.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had given Notice of an Amendment to insert after the word "upwards" in Clause 2, page 2, line 9, the words "(4.) Urban sanitary districts in Ireland, containing, according to the last published Census, a population of 10,000 and upwards." In the absence of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he would move now his Amendment, substituting, however, the limit of 25,000 for 10,000.

THE O'CONOR DON
said, that as there was scarcely any town in Ireland with a population of 25,000, the Bill if extended to that country, with that limit, would practically be inoperative.

§ MR. RONAYNE
said, to raise the number to 25,000 was perfectly absurd. It would only, in that case, apply to five towns in Ireland, while the rest of the country would be entirely neglected. Even, at present, they had great difficulty in raising money for sanitary purposes. In the City of Cork the authorities applied to the Board of Works for a loan; but were told they could only advance half of what was asked, and they were prevented by law from raising the remainder. It was absurd to make the number 25,000, and he should move, therefore, that the number be 10,000.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, it was proposed originally that if a Bill of that kind was wanted for Ireland, the case of that country should be dealt with in a separate measure, because the circumstances of the two countries might, perhaps, be different. But he thought the Irish Members wished England and Ireland to be treated alike, and it was only on the understanding that the provision should be the same for both countries that he had consented to move the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin. 60 If, however, it was likely they were to have a lengthened discussion on the Irish question, he would rather withdraw the Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN
reminded the right hon. Gentleman that that Amendment could not be withdrawn, unless the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork were withdrawn first.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
said, he thought, if there was reason for extending the operation of the Bill to town populations of 10,000, there was much more reason for that course with regard to Ireland. If the figure was to be kept at 25,000, there were only five towns in Ireland to which the Bill would apply; and was the Government going to talk about improving the dwellings of the working classes, and apply the Bill as regarded Ireland to those five towns only? He trusted that the hon. Member for Cork would press his Amendment to a division.

§ MR. HEYGATE
said, he thought it would be better that the original Amendment should be withdrawn, than that a different number should be fixed for Ireland from that which had been fixed for England.

§ CAPTAIN NOLAN
supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork, and suggested with reference to the remarks of the Home Secretary, whether Ireland would be likely to occupy the time of the House less if they were to have a separate Bill.

§ MR. EARP
remarked that the Home Secretary spoke on this subject now rather as if it were a matter of population than a matter of fever. The spirit in which Members were now met by the Home Secretary was not in accordance with that in which the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Bill, when he described the existing fever haunts and spoke of dwellings where the very walls and floors were saturated with fever. It was not consistent with the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman made those remarks when introducing the Bill, that he should now say that the Bill was not to be applied to towns of small population. He trusted that the hon. Member for Cork would divide the Committee, and that if justice was not to be done to England in this matter we, should at all events have justice done to Ireland.

§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGU
observed, that if the question was complicated by its application to Ireland, it was the 61 Home Secretary himself who introduced that complication. The right hon. Gentleman challenged the opinion of Irish Members upon it. He had been told that if the line were drawn at 25,000 there were only five towns in Ireland to which the Bill would apply; and was it worthy of a great Government to propose a measure for Ireland which would apply only to five towns? He would recommend the Home Secretary to agree to the number being fixed at 10,000.

MR. MACGRGOR
said, that last Session during the discussion on the Licensing Bill, it was decided that the power of saying what was a populous place should rest with the magistrates. Now, he thought what they did then might furnish them with a means of settling the present difficulty. The local magistrates would know whether their own towns were in such a state as to require the application of the provisions of the Bill, and it might therefore be left to them to declare whether the town was such a populous place that the Bill ought to be applied to it or not.

§ MR. J. S. HARDY
was surprised to hear the Irish Members who were advocates of economy make such a proposition as that, as it would lead to the demolition of all the existing residences of the working classes and the erection of new ones at the cost of the ratepayers.

§ MR. RONAYNE
reminded the hon. Gentleman that the suggestion in question had come from a Scotch and not from an Irish Member. He himself should certainly be unwilling that the magistrates, who were the representatives of the landed proprietors, should have anything to do with it.

§ MAJOR O'GORMAN
said, he was at a loss to know why the Home Secretary, when so charitable to 25,000 persons, should not be equally charitable to 10,000. There were only four towns in Ireland with populations above 25,000 each; but while Ireland could parade only these four towns with populations of that extent, she could parade others with populations of as much as 10,000, and by adding these together it would be easy to multiply the populations of 25,000.

THE O'CONOR DON
said, that, after the decision that had been come to, it was perfectly useless to extend the operation of the Bill to Ireland, and they had better at once accept the proposal of the Home Secretary to exclude that country from its operation.

§ MR. P. J. SMYTH
begged to move that the number be 12,000.

THE CHAIRMAN
decided that the Motion was informal, as the Committee had already decided that the words "25,000" should stand part of the proposed Amendment.

§ MR. FAWCETT
proposed an Amendment, to the effect that the City of London should not be considered a district in itself, but should, for the purposes of this measure, merge into the metropolis at large. The City was represented at the Metropolitan Board of Works, and would, were the City to be constituted a distinct district, be voting away the money of the ratepayers of the other parts of the metropolis. There was no reason why the City should not contribute its fair quota, to the cost of clearing out the rookeries which it had itself created by the Holborn and other improvements, in carrying out which they had destroyed a large number of dwellings.

§ MR. ALDERMAN COTTON
reminded the Committee that the City of London had expended large sums on their bridges, which were open to the entire metropolitan population, and they had spent £2,500,000 on the Holborn Viaduct, which was an advantage to the entire of London. They had many "rookeries" in the City which they would remove, if the Bill passed—in Houndsditch, Whitecross Street, Crip-plegate, and the neighbourhood of Fetter Lane, and many other districts, and that work they would willingly undertake and carry out. They were desirous of providing suitable dwellings for their own poor, and of keeping them in the neighbourhoods in which they were employed. The total amount paid to them by the Metropolitan Board of Works 63 between 1858 and 1875 was £197,127, whilst the City had contributed to the Metropolitan Board no less a sum than £580,584. He thought the Metropolitan Board and the City authorities ought each to be left to the management of their respective districts.

§ MR. SAMUDA
said, he did not agree with the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), and he was of opinion that the City authorities ought not to have the control of matters in their own district taken out of their hands. A large number of "rookeries "within the City of London required to be removed and replaced, and that duty ought to be left in the hands of the City authorities. It was quite another matter when the time came to consider how to replace these rookeries with buildings such as the Bill contemplated; and it appeared to him that there was some force in the proposal of his hon. Colleague's (Mr. Ritchie's) Amendment to the 15th clause, which he should support when it was reached.

SIR JAMES HOGG
said, that the Amendment had taken him by surprise, for he had not heard of it till he came to the House that evening. He could only say that the Metropolitan Board were content to carry out their portion of the work, and to leave to the City the work which they would find to do under the Bill.

§ MR. RITCHIE
regarded the proposal to divide the metropolis into two parts as a step in the wrong direction. The tendency of late years had been to equalize rates, and in all matters connected with sanitary improvement London should be treated as a whole. Considering that the City would benefit by the general improvement of the metropolis, he argued that it would be unfair to exempt it from contributing anything to the cost of carrying out the Act. If the hon. Member for Hackney pressed his Amendment to a division he should go into the Lobby with him.

§ SIR SYDNEY WATERLOW
said, he hoped the Committee would not go to a division. The hon. Member for Hackney had said that, the Bill being a permissive one, the City would not put it in operation, and he said, by way of evidence, that the corporation in making the Holborn Viaduct swept away great numbers of workmen's dwellings, and did not replace them. The fact was that 64 within two minutes' walk of the Holborn Viaduct they had erected 168 dwellings, occupied by 800 persons, and within a stone's throw they were erecting another similar block, at a cost of £24,000 or £25,000, which would be completed in the approaching summer. The Corporation had set an example worthy to be followed by all other corporations in this respect. He trusted that the 00 Bill would remain as it had been introduced by the Government, and that they might be left to do their own work with their own money, and that the Board of Works might also do its work with its money.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hackney, and stated that the Bill would not apply to any portion of the borough which he represented (Chelsea); but the inhabitants would have to contribute equally with the other districts of the metropolis. It was important that there should not be any pretext for supposing that an injustice was done to any district; and therefore the City ought not to be exempted from contributing in like manner to the other metropolitan districts for the benefit of the whole metropolis.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he could not accept the Amendment. He believed there were a great number of places in the City which must come under the operation of the Bill, and he also believed that the City would set an example to other towns and cities in England, and show how the Bill could be worked. It would be rather a strong thing for the House to say the ancient and powerful Corporation of London should not be entrusted with the reform of their own courts and alleys. That would be an insult to the City of London, which he did not think the House would offer. If the City Corporation could not be trusted, what other corporate body could they trust?

§ MR. LOCKE
confessed to having no great love for the City of London, which had always taken very great care of itself. No one could get an entrance into the dwellings referred to by the hon. Member (Sir Sydney Waterlow) without paying a rent of 5s. 6d. a-week, and that was too expensive for a working man. It would not be right that the richest section of the metropolis should stand aloof from the poorer sections, in a reform by which all would be equally 65 benefited. The City of London had swept away an immense number of houses of the worst description, and were they to boast of their liberality in spending £24,000—an enormous sum to come out of the pockets of the City of London—in replacing those dwellings?

§ SIR FREDERICK PERKINS
, as an advocate for equalization of rates, thought that the City of London ought not to be exempted in the present instance from contributing its fair quota of taxation for carrying out the provisions of this useful measure.

§ MR. W. GORDON
contended that there was no necessity for including the City in this clause, because the Corporation had always been anxious to promote the well-being of the poor. With regard to Chelsea, as a Representative of that borough, he approved of the Bill, because it would sweep away those rookeries, especially in the northern part of the borough, which were a scandal to a civilized community, and in their place give comfortable dwellings for those who needed them most.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
admitted that the City deserved great credit for the vast improvements they had made; but, at the same time, no one could shut his eyes to the fact that the persons employed in the great factories and warehouses lived outside the City, and that by this Bill they were, in fact, exempting the wealthiest portion of the metropolis from its fair share of the expense of properly housing the working classes.

MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH
said, the Amendment would deprive the Corporation of the power of effecting improvements within its district. He was not inclined to go so far as that. He would support the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Ritchie), which would raise this question properly under the 15th clause; because, considering the rateable value of the City of London, its share of the cost of the improvements contemplated by the Bill would be comparatively small.