§ Order for Second Beading read.
§ SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the attention of the House had already been called by various Members to this Bill, and he was sorry to say that the Notice of opposition which had been given to the measure by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir Sydney Waterlow) rendered it necessary for him to encroach more than he usually did upon the time of the House in order to explain a few of the salient points of the Bill which he had reason to know were objected to. He would pass over the preliminary clauses of the Bill in order at once to come to these salient points. The first desire of the Metropolitan Board of Works, who promoted the Bill, was to make two small street improvements, one of which was a new street in continuation of Clarence Road, commencing in the Kentish Town Road, at the junction therewith of Clarence Road, and terminating at the junction of Great College Street and King's Road, wholly in the parish of St. Pancras; and the other was a new street connecting Cotton Street with Preston's Road, in the parish of All Saints', Poplar, commencing in Cotton Street at its junction with Wells Street, and terminating in Preston's Road at its junction with Bedford Street. Nobody made any objection to the street improvement in Kentish Town. It was not necessary, therefore, that he should make any observation upon it; but with regard to the Poplar improvement certain papers had been placed in his hand which alleged that the Metropolitan Board were anxious to evade their responsibilities in regard to the accommodation of the working classes. He wished to give a most distinct denial to that charge. They had long had under consideration the best means of accommodating the whole of the people whom it was intended to displace; and everybody in the district was in favour of the Bill. Indeed, the Poplar District Board in- 828 tended to contribute one-half of the expenses; and although he did not know who had issued the circular to which he referred, in that respect it was entirely inaccurate, and the persons who had issued it might have spared themselves the trouble. Clause 39 of the Bill was one of the provisions of the most vital importance which the measure contained. It was a clause to extend the time limited for the compulsory purchase of certain lands under the Act obtained by the Metropolitan Board in 1877 in regard to the Western improvements. He thought that everybody would allow that a new street 60 feet wide from Charing Cross to Tottenham Court Road, and another from Regent Street up to New Oxford Street, were most desirable improvements so far as the Metropolis was concerned. They would have been finished long before this but for the unfortunate 33rd section of the Act of 1877, which had acted as a bar ever since the Act was passed. That clause required that before throwing open to the public any new streets provision should be made for the accommodation of the labouring classes who were displaced by the making of such new streets. That clause had so impeded the operations of the Metropolitan Board, and, in point of fact, the Act was found to be so unworkable and so useless in every shape and form, that it had been reconsidered by a Committee, over which the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross) presided, who recommended that its provisions should be mitigated. The Metropolitan Board had now, in consequence, been able to clear a part of the land, and two blocks of buildings were being erected; and as soon as they were finished, which he thought would be about the month of October if this Bill were passed, the Board would be able to proceed with their improvements, and it was hoped that in the course of a year and a-half, or two years, these two great improvements, which were most necessary for, and would be most useful to, the Metropolis, would be entirely and in every shape completed. Clause 40 repealed the 33rd section of the Act of 1877, so far as it imposed obligations upon the Board with respect to providing accommodation for such of the labouring classes as would be displaced by 829 the making of the new street between Southwark Bridge Road and Blackman Street, in the Borough; and, in regard to that matter, he might say that the Metropolitan Board were, if possible, in still greater difficulties than they were in respect of the Western improvements, because almost all of the habitations it was proposed to remove were inhabited by artizans, and, he was sorry to say, many of them by the lower class of artizans. The Board were most anxious to carry out that improvement; but the 33rd section of the Act of 1877 was a difficulty in the way of carrying it out, which stared them in the face. They had, therefore, felt it incumbent upon them to postpone the improvements in which this difficulty arose, and to proceed with the other improvements which were pressing upon them, but in regard to which there was not the same difficulty. Out of 12 improvements comprised in the Act of 1877 nine were now entirely completed, and there were only three in which the formation of the streets had not been commenced—namely, the Western improvements and the improvement between Southwark Bridge Road and Blackman Street. The proposal which the Metropolitan Board now made to repeal the 33rd section of the Act of 1877 was opposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir Sydney Waterlow), and he really could not for the life of him make out why his hon. Friend did oppose it, because, if his hon. Friend succeeded in persuading the House of Commons to reject the Bill, what would he do? He would prevent a number of improvements of a most magnificent character, as far as the Metropolis was concerned, from being carried out. But his hon. Friend would do even more than that. He would pre-vent what he wanted himself—namely, the widening of certain streets. He had no wish to bandy words with the hon. Baronet, and he would, therefore, only say that his hon. Friend was entirely mistaken in the view he took. His hon. Friend had made speeches and published letters on various occasions, and he (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) wished to tell his hon. Friend in the most friendly spirit that if he (Sir Sydney Waterlow) thought the Metropolitan Board had not entirely and faithfully fulfilled their duties, the best thing he could do was to go to the Courts of Law and ascertain what their 830 opinion was in the matter. He only made this remark in a friendly spirit, and having made it he would say no more on the subject except this, that one of the great difficulties now experienced in regard to these improvements was that, in 1882, Parliament, in spite of the strenuous opposition of the Metropolitan Board, passed a Bill giving the whole, or nearly the whole, of the ground they had authorized the Metropolitan Board to take in connection with the Southwark Bridge Road to the South-Eastern Railway Company. The land reserved for artizans' dwellings in the Southwark Street improvements extended over one and a - half acres of land; but Parliament passed a Bill permitting the Railway Company to take out of this about an acre, leaving the Metropolitan Board with all their liabilities so far as rehousing the labouring classes, who were displaced, was concerned. All they had left to the Metropolitan Board for this purpose was about half-an-acre, and that half-an-acre did not consist of a plot of land altogether, but was cut into little bits. If any hon. Member would take a map in his hand, he (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) would defy him to point out how the Metropolitan Board were to discharge their obligations. He believed that he would be able to show in a very few minutes that it was now altogether impossible to house the working classes in the manner the Metropolitan Board intended to have done originally before the Act of 1882 was passed. The Metropolitan Board were taunted with not complying with the spirit of the Act they had thus obtained; but he contended that they were doing more. In the Bill which he asked the House to read a second time they had inserted clauses empowering them to appropriate land purchased elsewhere for the purpose of housing these poor people if they could not do it on their own land; and if the pieces of land left to them were not sufficient for that purpose they were seeking power to place themselves in the hands of the Home Secretary, and whatever the right hon. Gentleman required them to do would be done. All he could say was that hitherto the Metropolitan Board had found the Home Secretary on both sides, whoever he might happen to be, very stringent in these matters, and whatever laws the Home Secretary laid 831 down the Metropolitan Board would do their best to carry out. He only wanted to assure the House that, so far, the Metropolitan Board had done as much and even more than anybody else for the artizan. There was no philanthropic Company in the United Kingdom who had done as much, notwithstanding the great difficulties which had been placed in their way, and he certainly thought those who had interposed the difficulties might have used their talents to a better purpose. But the Metropolitan Board also contemplated another improvement—namely, the acquisition of lands in and near Elm Street in connection with the Gray's Inn Lane improvement, an improvement authorized by the Act of 1877. In regard to that improvement the late Home Secretary made certain recommendations which the Metropolitan Board had entirely adopted, and they wanted now to extend the Gray's Inn Road improvement, and if this Bill passed they would do everything in their power to make a satisfactory extension. He might add that in about a fortnight's time the improvement, so far as it had yet been authorized, could be thrown open to the public; but the Metropolitan Board were anxious to extend it and to make it still more useful. They only asked now for a little delay and for further powers, in order to enable them to do their duty in a thoroughly satisfactory manner. The 42nd clause of the Bill gave the Board power to enlarge and improve Plumstead Common by the addition of certain waste lands in the parish of Plumstead. There were in that House many advocates of open spaces for the enjoyment and recreation of the public, and the only object of this clause was to carry out that object, and by adding a considerable extent of waste land to the existing common to render it more valuable and useful to the people of Plumstead and the public generally. Probably the next improvement in importance to the Western improvements was that which was included in Part V. of the Bill, and which related to the vesting of Hackney Commons in the Metropolitan Board. The Board had experienced the greatest difficulty at Hackney; they had found that there were lammas rights and a variety of other rights, and they had spent a large sum of the public money in en- 832 deavouring to make the commons useful and acceptable to the public in spite of certain persons with other rights, which the Board had not been able to prevent them from exercising. What they wanted to do now was to vest the Hackney Commons in the Metropolitan Board, or in somebody else if that Board was destroyed, so that anybody who had a grievance to complain of or a claim to make should be able to go before a properly constituted authority and ask for compensation. It was believed that if a power of this kind were conferred upon an independent Body, in a very short time every grievance would be disposed of, and the common-land would be entirely devoted to the public interest. There was another clause in the Bill—the 43rd—which gave to the Metropolitan Board power to enlarge and improve Hampstead Heath by the addition of certain lands in the parish of St. John, Hampstead. This land was surrounded by land belonging to the Metropolitan Board, or, rather, to the public, and the Board were anxious to be able to purchase it in order that it might be dedicated to the public. He trusted the House would not refuse to give the Metropolitan Board the power they now asked for. He had dealt very shortly and succinctly with the principal provisions of the Bill, and he had very few general observations to make. He hoped the House would not think he had taken up too much of its time in explaining the clauses of the Bill and in asking the House to assent to the second reading of it, so that it might be allowed to go before a Committee in the usual way. As would be seen, it was an omnibus Bill containing various important powers, and he was astonished that his hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir Sydney Waterlow) should oppose it on account of one single clause which it contained, and which his hon. Friend did not happen to approve of. He could only repeat that his hon. Friend was entirely mistaken in the view he took, and he very much regretted that his hon. Friend should endeavour to destroy the Bill by rejecting it upon the second reading owing to a simple misapprehension. The measure was one of the greatest public importance, and he begged to move that it be read a second time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir James M'Garel-Hogg.)
§ SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWsaid, he regretted that he could not agree with the observations of the hon. Baronet who had proposed the second reading of the Bill. No man in that House appreciated the great public usefulness which had resulted from the work his hon. Friend had performed, and the work of the Board over which his hon. Friend presided, more than he did; but he could not forget that the Metropolitan Board, in proposing this Bill, were seeking to override and to set aside the provisions of Public and Private Acts of Parliament which had been passed during the last 20 years, and that they were trying to persuade Parliament to set aside the policy which it had clearly set forth in those Acts—a policy which, he ventured to think, the public, at the present moment, were not prepared to set aside. It was a policy which was clearly set out in the Artizans' Dwellings Act of 1875, and in all the Provisional Orders which had passed the House of Commons under that Act, as well as in all Private Railway Acts which had been passed since that date. That policy clearly declared this—that whenever any public body or private individuals sought to take and destroy houses occupied by the labouring classes they should provide accommodation in lieu of the dwellings so destroyed to the extent, and for the number provided in the provisions of the several Bills. Now, he ventured to think that the public at present were not prepared to reverse that policy. The hon. Baronet had said truly that the Bill was an Omnibus Bill. It consisted of six parts, but he did not intend to trouble the House with any observations except in regard to Parts II. and III. He fully admitted the force of what his hon. Friend had said, that the Bill ought to go before a Committee to have the provisions it contained fairly inquired into; and if the House thought lit, he should be quite prepared to withdraw the Motion of which he had given Notice against the second reading of the Bill, reserving to himself the right of giving a vote in favour of either or both of the other Resolutions which were to be proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley), and 834 the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers), after the Bill should have been read a second time. By Part II. of the Bill the Metropolitan Board of Works proposed to make two new streets—one in St. Pancras and the other in Poplar. He wished to call attention particularly to the one which was proposed to be made in Poplar. It was to be made upon a site which the Metropolitan Board obtained under a Provisional Order Act in 1879; and his right hon. Friend opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) knew very well that that Provisional Order carried with it, and had incorporated in it, the Artizans' Dwellings Act of 1875. By that Act it was necessary that, unless provision was made for the erection of artizans' dwellings elsewhere, the space when cleared was to be utilized mainly, if not entirely, in that way. Now, this area was nearly four acres in extent. Not 12 months ago—namely, in May, 1883, the Metropolitan Board made a Return, in answer to a Motion by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross), which stated that out of an area of 150,000 feet 3,600 were to be devoted to a new street. That was not the new street now asked for; but it was the street included in the Bill of 1879. The Metropolitan Board now only asked for a cross corner of the land, and took a much smaller area, without utilizing the whole plot. Clause 22 of the Bill said—
Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Board may enter upon, take, and use all or any of the lands shown on the deposited plans and described in the deposited book of reference and any casement, right, or privilege in, over, or affecting such lands which they may require for the purposes of or in connection with the improvements, and for providing space for the erection of houses and buildings adjoining or near thereto, and the Board may appropriate for the purposes of the Poplar improvements any lands which they may have acquired under the Metropolis (Little Coram Street, Bloomsbury, Well Street, Poplar, and Great Peter Street, Westminster) Improvements Provisional Orders Confirmation Act, 1879, and thereupon the Board shall, as to such last-mentioned lands, be discharged from any obligation imposed upon them in relation thereto by the last-mentioned Act and the Order thereto confirmed.It would thus be seen that the Board did not intend to obtain land of equivalent area, or, indeed, to buy land at all. His hon. Friend the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board said they intended to do it; and, if so, why did they not insert a provision to that effect in the Bill? 835 They were asking Parliament to relieve them of their existing obligations; and he hoped the House, in agreeing to the second reading of the Bill, would take care that they were not relieved unless they made ample provision for rehousing the artizans whom they displaced. He now came to Part III. of the Bill, which consisted of only two clauses, with four or five sub-divisions. By Clause 39—the first clause of Part III.—the Board asked for an extension of two years for the serving of notices for the compulsory purchase of land in connection with the new street proposed to be constructed from Southwark Bridge Road to Great Dover Street, opposite to St. George's Church in the Borough. The Board obtained power to construct that street in 1877, seven years ago, and no doubt public opinion supported them. Parliament sanctioned the formation of the street, knowing that it would pass through one of the most degraded, immoral, and criminal districts to be found in London. Seven years had now expired; but the houses and the district remained exactly as they were; nothing whatever had been done. They had been told, and would probably be told, at still greater length, that the Metropolitan Board could not proceed with its improvement, because, after they obtained authority to carry it out, the South-Eastern Railway Company came to Parliament and obtained permission to make a short line of railway passing over a considerable portion of the land proposed to be taken for the new street, and running, in fact, along one side of the proposed street very nearly throughout the whole of its length. The Bill of the South-Eastern Railway Company went to a Private Bill Committee, where it was carefully examined, and the best surveying evidence brought to bear upon it. The Committee inserted a clause in the Bill which provided that the railway should be constructed on such a level as not to interfere with the making of a new street, and providing, further, that if any differences arose between the Railway Company and the Metropolitan Board they were to be settled by the Board of Trade, with the proviso that no decision of the Board of Trade should be inconsistent with the making of the railway or the making of the new street. It was, therefore, manifest that a Private Bill Committee, 836 after a long and protracted Sitting, came to the conclusion, on the best possible evidence, that the street and the railway might both of them be made in the interests of the people. Then, why did not the Metropolitan Board proceed to make the street? The Bill of the Railway Company was passed in 1882; and now, two years after the decision of the Committee had been given, they asked for two years more to enable them to perform the obligation they had undertaken. This brought him to the 2nd clause of Part III.—namely, Clause 40, to which he hoped the House would listen, because it was an attempt to override Section 33 of the Act of 1877. Clause 40 said—From and after the passing of this Act, Section 33 of the Act of 1877, so far as it imposes obligations upon the Board with respect to providing accommodation for such of the labouring classes as would he displaced by reason of the making of the new street between Southwark Bridge Road and Blackman Street, Borough, by the said Act authorized, shall be and the same is hereby repealed,excepting so far as one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State might direct. [Sir JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: Hear, hear!] His hon. Friend said "Hear, hear!" and he (Sir Sydney Waterlow) fully endorsed that cry. He wished to make an appeal to his hon. Friend. His hon. Friend was well aware that when the question of the extent to which the Board should be relieved was before Parliament as recently as the year 1882, this very point was discussed in reference to the Artizans' Dwellings Amendment Act of that year, and Parliament declined to assent to the proposal then made that they should be entirely relieved, and decided that the discretion of the Home Secretary should only extend to a number not exceeding one-half of those for whom accommodation was required. No one could doubt that the interests of the labouring classes would be perfectly safe in the hands of the present Home Secretary; but they never knew how long the right hon. and learned Gentleman might retain his Office, and, seeing that Parliament had so recently considered the question, why should the policy and principle of the Act of 1882 bearing upon the subject be now upset? Was it not a much harder case upon the labouring classes than upon the Metropolitan Board? Between the two parties—the Metro- 837 politan Board and the Railway Company, the houses of the labouring classes were to be taken and nothing whatever to be substituted. He contended that that was an intolerable policy and principle, and he asked the House not to allow the Bill to go to a Committee, unless they gave an Instruction to that Committee to see that accommodation was provided for the labouring classes, and that the accommodation which now existed should not be taken away, except to the extent which was assented to in the principle laid down by the Act of 1882. He had now tried, tersely and briefly, and without having any interest in the subject except that of one who had for many years studied this question, to explain the whole case to the House. And, in conclusion, he was fully prepared to withdraw his Motion for the rejection of the Bill; but he would reserve his right to vote for the Instruction to the Committee which the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) had placed upon the Paper.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was glad that the hon. Baronet did not intend to divide the House against the second reading of the Bill, and that he was going to reserve his further action until the Instruction, which was to be moved after the second reading, was brought forward. At the same time, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) did not think it was altogether desirable that one or two things the hon. Baronet had said should pass entirely without comment. The hon. Baronet said that the Bill involved a reversal of the general policy adopted by Parliament; but he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was of opinion that, on the contrary, it would bring the particular circumstances mentioned in the Bill in accord with the policy of Parliament. It was a matter that was carefully considered by a Committee which sat in 1881 and 1882, and was presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross). That Committee unanimously recommended a relaxation of the law if it was intended to make it more workable. Therefore this Bill, instead of reversing the policy of Parliament, would bring it into accord with the general law. While reserving any discussion upon the details of the Bill until they came to the Instruction about to be moved by the hon. Gentleman the 838 Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) he had considered it desirable to make this statement in answer to the observations of the hon. Baronet who had just spoken.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill read a second time, and committed.
MR. LYULPH STANLEY, in moving—
That it be an Instruction to the Committee not to permit any diminution in the accommodation now required by Law to he provided for persons of the labouring class, in connection with any of the schemes included in this Bill.said, that his remarks would apply to only two parts of the Bill. He was very glad that his hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir Sydney Waterlow) had not moved the rejection of the Bill, because he thought it desirable that the measure should go to a Committee, where all matters of detail in connection with it might be fairly considered. His remarks applied to the Poplar improvement and the Southwark Bridge Road improvement. So far as the Poplar improvement was concerned, the powers were acquired in 1879; but the Metropolitan Board of Works had only cleared the land within the last 12 months. The land was now cleared, and the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, in his speech, assured the House that it was the desire of the Board to rehouse the whole of the 1,030 people who, according to the official figures, had been cleared off from that site. He would only say, in regard to that declaration, that he fully concurred with the remark made by his hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend that if the Metropolitan Board had such a wish, why on earth did they not put it in the Bill? In the Bill itself they proposed something quite different. They proposed, in concert with the Local District Board, to run a new street, and they took power in their Bill to take any land they pleased fronting the new street, and to deal with it in the open market, selling it, if they chose, free from all restrictions, for artizans' dwellings. It might be that on this large site they might be able, to the satisfaction of the Home Office and to the satisfaction of the sanitary authorities, to put up dwellings for upwards of 1,000 persons, and, at the same time, to retain a certain amount of reserve frontage for sale in the open 839 market in connection with the new street. If that were so the law would allow them to do it, and his Instruction would not prevent them. All his Instruction asked was that the Metropolitan Board of Works should be bound to do that which the law now said they should do, and which the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board said they were willing to do—namely, to rehouse the whole of the 1,030 people who would be displaced in consequence of carrying out this street improvement. He now passed on to the other scheme, the Southwark Bridge Road improvement. The Southwark Bridge Road improvement was before Parliament in 1877. In that year the Metropolitan Board of Works obtained power to make this street improvement with an obligation to rehouse the people they displaced, He thought it was rather singular that, although so many years had elapsed, nothing as yet had been done. The action of the Railway Company was now alleged as the excuse for not carrying out the provisions of the Act; but the Railway Company only obtained their powers in 1882, five years after the Metropolitan Board of Works got theirs. Surely five years were time enough, and more than enough, to enable the Board to set to work in making this new street, and erecting the buildings in which the working people were to be rehoused. To judge from the language of the hon. Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg), the Metropolitan Board of Works only considered a scheme complete when all the houses were pulled down and all the people thrown into the streets. That was the hon. Member's idea of a complete scheme. He would only tell the House, in regard to two of the schemes to which the term "complete" had been applied—namely, the widening of Great College Street and clearances in the City and in White-chapel, that all of the houses had been pulled down, and in each case only one of them had been rebuilt, that one being a public-house. They had been told that the Metropolitan Board of Works went before the Committee which sat in 1882, and was presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), and that they asked for a certain amount of relief with respect to these restrictions. In 840 this particular case of the Southwark Bridge Road improvements they made no application. Indeed, they had applied for relief from Parliament on only three points; first of all, in regard to the West End improvements, in which some relief was recommended, which relief, however, when tested by another Committee, was countermanded to a certain extent; they also obtained relief in the case of the Gray's Inn Lane improvement; and, with reference to the Southwark Bridge Road improvements, what was it that the Metropolitan Board asked for? Through their Surveyor, Mr. Goddard, when their application came before Parliament, they said they were ready and willing to rehouse every one of the 1,600 people who were displaced by the carrying out of that improvement, and all they asked for was permission to build blocks upon the land, which was cleared, devoting the ground floor of the new dwellings to the use of shopkeepers, and taking one or two plots at the back of the square for dwellings for the artizan classes. Having so arranged and obtained that power, they could not come to Parliament and ask not only that what they did not ask for in 1882 should be granted, but what Parliament had deliberately refused to grant in connection with the Artizans' Dwellings Act Amendment Bill. As a matter of fact, what they requested Parliament to concede to them now was liberty to rehouse the displaced artizans or not, as they pleased, at the discretion of the Home Secretary. The Metropolitan Board had been very careful, in their contest with the Railway Company, to obtain clauses for their own protection; but they did not appear to have thought it worth while to obtain clauses for the protection of those whom they were specially bound to protect—namely, the artizans whom they and the Railway Company were proposing to displace, and whom it was their duty to rehouse. It might be said that the Railway Company would have the same obligation as the Metropolitan Board were under to rehouse the poor; but if this Instruction were agreed to, both the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Railway Company would be absolutely protected from any injustice. What was the clause of the Act of 1877 of which the Board complained so much? That clause only 841 provided that when the Metropolitan Board of Works themselves served the notices, and proceeded to take the houses, they should satisfy the Home Secretary that they had provided equivalent accommodation for the persons who were settled on the land at the time of the passing of the Act of 1877. What they now said was, that the Railway Company were going to take these houses; but if the Railway Company served the notices and took the land, then the Metropolitan Board of Works would not be bound either to serve notices or to rehouse the poor who were displaced; and, therefore, the making of this railway could in no way impose any liability upon the Metropolitan Board of Works. The Chairman of the Metropolitan Board told the House that the area in this clause was only one and a quarter acres; but it was considerably more. The hon. Member said the railway proposed to take one acre, and the houses situated upon the area. If that were so, the Metropolitan Board would be free from any obligations to rehouse the people who would be displaced from the ground. As to the question of responsibility, the Metropolitan Board were amply protected by the law as it stood, because they had taken care to secure the insertion of a clause in the South-Eastern Railway Act by which it was provided that if either party gave the notices, or in any other way dealt with the land, in the event of any difference arising, the whole question should be decided by the Board of Trade after hearing both parties. Therefore, the Metropolitan Board would be amply protected against any responsibility they might incur in regard to serving the notices for carrying out the provisions of the Act. There was, therefore, no reason why the House should not agree to this Instruction. The Metropolitan Board asked in this Bill to be absolutely relieved from any obligation to rehouse the poor.
§ SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGNo, no.
MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, "Yes." As far as the law went, the Board only asked that they should be left to negotiate with unfettered discretion.
MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, the Metropolitan Board proposed that they should be left to settle the matter with the Home Secretary. Now, as far as 842 the South-Eastern Railway Company were concerned, it was very likely that they would never make this railway at all. They had had their powers for two years, and, as far as he could learn, the whole matter was flagging very much, and no steps had yet been taken to make the railway. If the powers of the South-Eastern Railway Company were to expire, what would be the result? The Railway Company would be relieved of their obligations altogether, and if the present Bill were passed, without the Instruction he suggested, the Metropolitan Board would step in; and if they could only persuade the present, or any future Home Secretary, they would be able to use this land as a source of profit to themselves; and while making this street improvement as cheaply as possible, they would get rid of their liability to rehouse the poor already imposed upon them by Parliament. He might have shown that there were other instances, but he was unwilling to delay the House. He trusted the House would consent to the proposed Instruction, which would not interfere with the reasonable discretion imposed by Parliament on the Home Secretary, and which would impose no liabilities on the Metropolitan Board which they ought not fairly to bear, and which were perfectly compatible with the proper improvement of the Metropolis. He begged to move the Instruction which stood in his name.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee not to permit any diminution in the accommodation now required by Law to he provided for persons of the labouring class, in connection with any of the schemes included in this Bill."—(Mr. Lyulph Stanley.)
§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, he was sorry that he felt compelled to oppose his hon. Friend and Colleague (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) in what he now proposed to the House; but he did so because he was of opinion that if this proposal were carried it would be exceedingly unfair to the Metropolitan Board of Works. He thought the House would concur with him in that view, and, in a few words, he would explain how the matter stood. The Metropolitan Board of Works were compelled, under the 33rd clause of the Metropolitan Streets Improvements Act, to provide in this particular place certain accommodation for the poor displaced by 843 the improvement. It might be asked why the Metropolitan Board of Works had not carried out the improvement they were authorized to make? In justice to the Board it ought to be stated that since the Act passed the South-Eastern Railway Company had interfered with the proposal by obtaining a Bill empowering them to make a railway through a portion of the property in question. The 33rd section of the Act had also been found to be unworkable, and he thought he should be borne out in that view by his right hon. Friend opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross), whose Committee considered the question a few years ago, and found that section to be unworkable. There had been two Acts of Parliament passed since which referred to two different portions of the scheme under the Metropolitan Streets Improvements Act, and which gave relaxation from the conditions originally laid down. Not only had that been done, but the Committee to which he had alluded actually passed a Resolution in favour of relaxation in any future schemes that might be brought before Parliament. Therefore, the Metropolitan Board were not, in regard to these improvement schemes, to be held bound, by the total number of persons displaced, to provide compensation; but they were virtually placed in a different position by the relaxation which had been given by Parliament in reference to the two schemes already considered and sanctioned. On this ground they could hardly, therefore, place the Metropolitan Board of Works in a position of such unfairness as that proposed by the present Instruction. The Metropolitan Board proposed to leave the decision of the matter to the Secretary of State, and he thought they might rely upon the Secretary of State not to go beyond the intentions of Parliament. The Report of the Committee recommended that, at least, not more than one-third of the persons displaced should be accommodated, and, supposing the Bill of the Metropolitan Board were passed by Parliament, the Home Secretary would be guided very much by the recommendation of that Committee in considering what provision should be made. It seemed to him, therefore, that it was unfair to call upon the Board of Works to carry out the conditions imposed upon them by their original Act, 844 and he was quite certain that the House would not agree to the Instruction which had been proposed by his hon. Friend and Colleague. He was also anxious to say that while he viewed the present proposal in that light he was not disposed to say that the Metropolitan Board of Works had in every instance done what was desirable and proper. He thought it would be found that there were some cases in which the Metropolitan Board had not discharged what was their real duty. That, however, was not the case in the present instance, and he believed that in regard to the Southwark Bridge Road scheme the Metropolitan Board intended to carry out as far as they could, the intentions of Parliament in the way of providing accommodation for the artizans and labourers whom they displaced. Before he sat down he wished to say that the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Home Office, with respect to the delay which had taken place in carrying out this particular scheme, had been very much hampered in their operations by the Company over which his hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir Sydney Waterlow) presided, and which was established for the benefit of the working classes. The delay had arisen in consequence of the fact that the plans of that Company, which had been submitted to the Home Secretary, had not been considered satisfactory. The Company proposed the erection of houses of six or seven stories, whereas the Homo Office were of opinion that there ought not to be more than four or five stories. That had caused the whole of the delay in this particular instance. Therefore, upon these grounds, and upon other grounds, he thought the House ought not to assent to the Instruction which had been moved. The Select Committee, on the general question, recommended that accommodation should be provided for the housing of at least one-third of the displaced population, and that the provision for the remainder should be at the discretion of the Home Secretary.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, there was one question which the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down would probably be able to answer. His (Sir R. Assheton Cross's) impression, in regard to the Report made by the Committee, was that in all cases that occurred in London the Committee recommended 845 that the amount of accommodation to be provided for the poorer classes, who were to be displaced, should extend to one-half, and it might amount to more than that, if the Secretary of State thought, on full consideration of the facts laid before him, that more than one-half was necessary for the accommodation of the persons displaced. As far as he read the present Bill, it did not contain those important words "not less than one-half." That was a very important fact, and although it was quite true that the Secretary of State might refer to the Reports of the Committee, and to other cases under other Acts of Parliament, and especially to the General Public Act, yet, on the other hand, he might not do so, and that was a point which ought not to be lost sight of. He understood, from the assent which had been given to his statement by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that it was actually the case that the Report of the Committee recommended a provision to be made for one-half of those displaced, at all events. In that case he would ask his hon. and gallant Friend behind him (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) whether he would be content if the Bill were allowed to go to a Committee, and that those words should be inserted in it in Committee; because he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) thought the House was bound to insist upon their insertion. The Bill proposed to carry out the Report of the Committee. But the Committee said—"At all events, there must be provision made for one-half of the persons whom the Bill turns out." Would his hon. Friend the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board assent to the insertion of those words in the Bill when it got into Committee? If he did so, then, of course, the Report of the Committee would be carried out; but, if not, the matter would be left entirely to the discretion of the Secretary of State, and that was not what the Committee had recommended.
§ MR. RITCHIEsaid, there was something very much stronger than even the Report of the Committee, and that was an Act of Parliament. An Act had been passed after the Committee made this Report; and, if he remembered rightly, an attempt was made at the time of the passing of that Act to give the Secretary of State entire discretion as to the number of people to be rehoused; 846 but Parliament would not consent, and limited the power of the Secretary of State to one-half. As a general principle, he strongly objected to the repeal of Public Acts of Parliament by Private Acts; but when it came to an Act of Parliament passed so recently as the year 1882, his objections were magnified ten-fold. It must also be remembered that the question of the housing of the poor was one in which the whole community was deeply interested. He understood the Instruction now proposed, if carried, would be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to insert in it words which would limit the power and the discretion of the Home Secretary in the same way as the Act of 1882. [Sir SYDNEY WATERLOW: No.] He understood that was the intention of his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley); and he would point out to his hon. Friend, in order to make it clear, the advisability of omitting from the Instruction the words "in connection with any of the schemes included in this Bill." The Instruction would then read—
That it be an Instruction to the Committee not to permit any diminution in the accommodation now required by Law to be provided for persons of the labouring class.If the words he suggested were omitted there could be no doubt as to the object of the Instruction; but otherwise it might be contended that the intention of the Instruction was that the accommodation to be provided was that specified in the original scheme.
§ MR. RITCHIEsaid, he thought the House would be most ill-advised if they did away with the protection now afforded by an Act of Parliament and substituted a discretionary power in the hands of the Home Secretary, which had been so expressly limited by the Act of 1882. He would, therefore, move, as an Amendment, that all the words after the word "class" to the end of the Instruction be omitted.
MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, it was suggested to him that instead of the words "now required by law" the words "now required by the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Act, 1882," should be substituted. He should be quite willing to accept that Amendment.
§ MR. SPEAKERDoes the hon. Gentleman withdraw the Motion he has already made?
§ MR. SPEAKERThe Question is that the Motion be, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEremarked that before the Motion was withdrawn he wished to say that he entirely agreed with everything that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South - West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross). The discussion which had been going on for the last minute or two, and which had been raised by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), had brought out the fact that his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) had no intention of maintaining the obligation upon the Metropolitan Board created by a former Act, but only that part of the obligation which was imposed upon them by the Act of 1882. They were all agreed that that obligation ought to be maintained, and all they had to settle was the right form of words in which to carry out the intentions of the House. He was not quite sure whether the form in which it was proposed to move the Instruction would meet the necessities of the case—namely—
That it be an Instruction to the Committee not to permit any diminution of the accommodation now required by Law to be provided for persons of the labouring class.He thought it would be better to point in some more direct way to the Act of 1882.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would suggest that the Motion should take the form of an Instruction to the Committee not to permit any diminution of the accommodation provided by the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Act, 1882, for persons of the labouring class.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee not to permit any diminution in the accommodation now required to be provided for persons of the labouring class by 'The Artizans' Dwellings Act, 1882.' "—(Mr. Lyulph Stanley.)
§ SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, he was very anxious to meet the wishes 848 of the House as far as possible. All that he could say was that he was placed in a very difficult position. The Railway Company had taken away from them two-thirds of the land over which the Metropolitan Board originally acquired powers; and how on earth the artizans, who ought to be put upon an acre and three-quarters, were to be housed upon three-quarters of an acre he really did not know. He, therefore, must enter his protest against the action of the House. At the same time, he had no intention of dividing the House against the Motion; he would only enter a protest, and he certainly did not think that what the House was ordering could possibly be carried out. If it could, all he would say was that the Metropolitan Board and himself would do all in their power to comply with the wishes of the House. They could not, however, do impossibilities, or cram a quart bottle into a pint pot, however much they might wish to do so.
§ SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWsaid, he was glad he had not divided the House against the second reading of the Bill, as the object he had in placing his Motion upon the Paper was now practically accomplished. He should like to say one word in answer to the statement just made by his hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg), who said the Metropolitan Board would not be able to comply with the wishes of the House. His hon. Friend seemed to forget that, under the Act of 1882, the Board had power to appropriate any land they thought was suitable for housing the labouring class, and the Home Secretary could approve of the appropriation of such land if he thought it would answer the purpose as well. Therefore, the House, in imposing upon the Metropolitan Board the obligation of the Act of 1882, were really doing that which was very easy for the Metropolitan Board of Works to carry out.
§
Question put, and agreed to.
Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee not to permit any diminution in the accommodation now required to be provided for persons of the labouring class by "The Artizans' Dwellings Act, 1882.
§ MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, the Instruction which he wished that the House should give to the Committee, after the second reading of the Bill, 849 was modest and narrow. It referred to only one part of the project which the Board of Works, acting through his hon. Friend opposite (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg), sought to secure with the approval of the House. It was not, however, so trivial as the hon. Gentleman suggested. Unless he had heard the hon. Gentleman wrongly, he had said in his opening remarks that the area of the Mint, in Southwark, was about an acre; but the Schedule of his Bill made its extent five acres. Which was right, the Chairman of the Board of Works, or the Bill before the House? Again, he entirely sympathized with the Board of Works in their difficulties. They had had—they told the House—to join prices for the sites which they were constrained to purchase, which were often three times as much as they could secure from purchasers under the clauses of the Act of which the late Home Secretary was the reputed author; although the right hon. Gentleman had lately told them in the public prints that the unofficial Home Secretary in this most unfortunate business was the late Mr. Cawley, sometime Member for Salford, who guided the hand of the late Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross), and so inflicted the heavy loss on the London ratepayers. Considering, therefore, the enormous costs which the law put upon occupiers in London, he did not wonder that the Board of Works hesitated before it incurred these charges. But the case of the Mint, the five acres of the Schedule, was peculiar. It was almost the worst district in London. It was a slum in which the lowest thieves and prostitutes congregated. It was unsafe for any respectable person to enter it by day or night, except under the protection of the police; and it ought to have been long since swept away. Nearly seven years ago the Board of Works took powers under an Act to purify this stew, and now they wished to postpone the operation; while he, by the Instruction which he proposed, wished to hasten the process by which this vile den, lying close to some of our most important thoroughfares, should be and would be transformed. He considered it to be his duty to find out the facts. He might say that two gentlemen of great practical good sense and benevolence, Mr. Hawkins of the London School Board, and Mr. Berry, a resident in St. George's parish, 850 aided by the efforts of his hon. and learned Colleague (Mr. Cohen) had done what they could for this miserable place. He had received a very important letter from a person on whom he could fully rely, and from which he would, with the permission of the House, read an extract. The writer was under an impression that the Board of Works might want time, being ignorant of the fact that the Board could give notices easily before the time prescribed in their present Act elapsed, and take three years before they finally completed the operation. The writer of the letter—Mr. Oliver—said—
There is considerable indignation at the long delay, especially among the ratepayers of St. George's, in which it (the district) is situated, a very large sum being lost annually by the unoccupied land. Again, there is another serious matter worth mentioning, if you have a chance to speak on the matter. A large sewer has been commenced, and has been awaiting completion nearly two years in consequence of this delay in making the street. It is finished on the Bermondsey side to St. George's Church, and on the St. Saviour's side to Mint Street, and complaint is being made by the inhabitants of the smell from it.The remainder of the letter was full of practical suggestions, in which the large discretion granted to the Board of Works was contrasted with the very limited discretion granted to the School Board. Now, he (Mr. Thorold Rogers) wished that the Board of Works should be constrained to commence this work before August by giving the notices. The place was a disgrace to London, to the Board of Works, to decency itself, and no one knew this better than the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg). He could find only one explanation for the delay. Two years ago the South-Eastern Railway obtained powers for constructing a railway over this site, the Committee taking care that their powers should not conflict with the duties of the Board of Works under the Act which the House was asked to amend, as to the condition of time which they were invited to prolong. The South-Eastern Railway was presided over by an exceedingly acute gentleman, who wanted to purchase the land when cleared, and the Board of Works wanted the railway to take it uncleared; and during this contest of rights a vile, loathsome, and dangerous nuisance was continued, and, at the instance of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, was to be 851 prolonged. He did not think that such a delay was in the interests of his constituency, of the Metropolis, or of the public at large, or in that of public decency; and he, therefore, begged to move the Instruction which stood in his name.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee not to extend the time for taking the land which is necessary for the formation of the New Street from Southwark Bridge Road to Great Dover Street."—(Mr. Thorold Rogers.)
§ SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid-he was sorry that it was necessary for him again to trouble the House. All he would say was, that as the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) expressed such great sympathy with him, he hoped he would prove it by withdrawing the Motion, and not troubling the House with a Division upon it; because, if he (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) got half-a-dozen Members to support him, he should certainly vote against it, as the Instruction proposed was altogether impracticable. He had thought that the hon. Member for Southwark knew everything; but it was now quite clear that there was one thing he knew nothing about, and that was the serving of notices, and the difficulties involved in freehold, leasehold, and copyhold property. If the hon. Member had had as much to do with such matters as he (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) had, he would not have risen in that House to deliver the speech he had just made. He (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) would certainly ask the House to follow him into the Lobby; because, if this Instruction were given to the Committee, the improvements to which it related would never be carried out at all; and he thought that the Instruction already given to the Committee was quite sufficient to hamper and embarrass the action of the Metropolitan Board. He would not take up the time of the House any longer; but he certainly gave the most strenuous opposition to the Instruction, and he asked the House to reject it.
§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, he had risen simply to say, on the part of the Government, that if his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark went to a Division they would feel called upon to oppose him. The Instruction would impose great difficulties upon the obligations of 852 the Metropolitan Board of Works in connection with this scheme; and he thought it would be better to leave them unfettered in the discharge of their duties. The proposal contained in the Bill was that there should be an extension of time for the completion of these improvements for two years; and those who opposed the extension could appear before the Committee, and use their best efforts to shorten that period. Upon these grounds, he should certainly vote against the Instruction.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had no wish to detain the House for more than a minute; but this was a matter which came before the Committee over which he had the honour to preside, and they went carefully into it. He was bound to say that he thought it would be a great hardship upon the Metropolitan Board of Works if this Instruction were to be sent up to the Committee. He knew that the Metropolitan Board had great difficulty in carrying out the obligations which Parliament had already imposed upon them; and he hoped the House would not consent to any steps that might further impede or embarrass them.
§ MR. SPEAKERDoes the hon. Member for Southwark press the Instruction?
§ MR. THOROLD ROGERSNo, Sir.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.