COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 11 August 1885 vol 300 cc1745-840

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

said, he should gladly support the Bill, although he feared it would not do as much good as might be expected. Believing, as he did, that the need of the working classes in the matter of dwelling-houses was urgent, and would brook no further delay, he could not join with those who wished the matter postponed until such time as the local government question could be adequately dealt with. If this smaller measure were rejected it might, perhaps, be a very long time before a larger measure would be carried; whereas, if this Bill were passed, it would be easy to extend its provisions if they were found to work satisfactorily. It was, in his opinion, absolutely necessary that the dwellings for the working classes should be built upon plans that would afford reasonable remuneration to the builders, because it would be impossible to carry out the proposals of philanthropists if the dwellings were erected at a loss. Railways had been compelled by Act of Parliament to carry third-class passengers for a fixed sum in covered carriages; and the result had been that the revenue derived by Railway Companies from their third-class passengers was more than double that which they obtained from their first and second class traffic put together. The same principle would apply in building; and, therefore, he hoped that the sites of the prisons would be handed over to the Metropolitan Board of Works for the purpose of erecting dwellings for the working classes. The theory that had been put forward that the poorer classes had been displaced simply for Metropolitan purposes was an utterly erroneous one; because the construction of railways and the erection of the Royal Courts of Justice, by which thousands of poor people had been deprived of their homes, had been undertaken for the benefit of the community at large, and not merely for the benefit of the Metropolis, he wished, however, to point out that the chief obstacle to the erection of proper dwellings for the working classes in London was the House Tax, which prevented the construction of houses of more than two stories; and until they removed the House Duty they would not give Free Trade fair play in the matter of providing houses for the working classes. On the whole, he had great pleasure in supporting the Bill as a step in the right direction.

MR. J. G. HUBBARD

said, he gave the Bill his hearty support. There was no object better entitled to be assisted in every way by the State than the proper housing of the working classes. Parliament had already sanctioned the aid of the State being given for the construction of harbours of refuge, and for the purposes of education; and he could see nothing mischievous, or injudicious, or ill-timed in this proposal of the Government to throw the influence of its wealth and its credit in the direction of improving the dwellings of the working classes. The Government, it appeared, were willing to make loans at 3⅛ per cent. The clause carrying out this intention was, however, framed so as to give rise to a good deal of ambiguity and uncertainty, for it provided that 3⅛ per cent should be the minimum rate of interest, but that the Treasury should fix the rate at such a figure as to enable such loans to be made without loss to the Exchequer. He should strongly recommend the Government to strike these words out, which really meant nothing at all, but which would lead to much uncertainty. As to the Inhabited House Duty, he agreed with the hon. Alderman that it involved extreme hardships, and that there were great irregularities in the manner in which it was enforced. It was not chargeable on houses of less than £20 value. The law should be so altered that large blocks of houses let out in tenements at less than £20 a-year each should also be exempted from House Duty. This tax was really a very anomalous one. It amounted to 9d. in the pound, while the Income Tax was 8d. This was a duplication of taxation on property which he hoped would soon be removed when the whole system of taxation was reviewed. He hoped that the buildings erected under this Bill would be exempted from House Duty, for this would give some impetus to its provisions. He was of opinion that the provision with regard to the disused sites of Metropolitan prisons was an admirable one, as it would enable areas formerly used for housing criminals to be used for the erection of dwellings so arranged and constructed that they would tend to prevent people from becoming criminals. To the Bill generally he gave his heartiest support; for until this question of overcrowding was dealt with we should never get that social amelioration, domestic comfort, and decency without which that improvement in morals which they were all desirous to see was absolutely impossible.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

said, he disagreed with the President of the Local Government Board, who denied that the question of leaseholds had anything to do with this question of the housing of the working classes. In Vienna the average number of persons in each house was 60. In Paris it was 29, whereas in London it was 8. The smallness of the number in London was due, in his humble opinion, in no small degree, to the leasehold system prevailing in the Metropolis. If it had not been for that system, the houses of the Metropolis would probably have resembled those of Paris and Vienna, where the different classes of society were brought more together than here, a circumstance which was very favourable indeed to the advance of civilization. It had been urged in support of the provision with regard to the prison sites that there had been a great displacement of labourers in London on account of the erection of public buildings; but this might be said in respect to all large towns. On the other hand, London artizans had derived an immense advantage from the Underground Railway, which provided them with a very cheap and rapid mode of conveyance to the scene of their work. He could not see that London had any special claim for this State subvention which the Bill proposed to grant. There was in Lancashire a great deal of land belonging to the Crown and to the Duchy of Lancaster, and the inhabitants of the large towns in Lancashire would have just as strong a claim to obtain some of that land upon similar terms to those which this Bill proposed in respect to the prison sites. He pointed out that the Prime Minister in this Bill was unconsciously adhering to the theory of ransom, but with this difference—that the Government of the noble Lord proposed to pay ransom with the property of the State, whereas the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) proposed to pay ransom with their own property. He was sorry that this notion should prevail; and he was glad to think that on the Motion of the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Albert Grey) they would have an opportunity of expressing their opinions definitely on this subject. The Home Secretary referred to Clause 13, in regard to which, in its original form, and still more in the form in which he proposed to amend it, there were very grave objections. Last year the Police and Sanitary Committee had dealt with the condition in which unfurnished houses were let; and in the present Session they had sanctioned, in the case of several Bills applying to important Corporations, the introduction of clauses which provided that there should be no letting of any house for the purpose of human habitation without an entry by the officers of the Corporation and a certificate of the Sanitary Authority. Suppose the clause of the right hon. Gentleman should be passed, what was to be its operation? Did he believe that it would be operative? He could scarcely think it possible. What would be its operation in those towns possessing the power of granting a certificate? Was the Imperial law to govern, or was the certificate of the sanitary officer? He was of opinion that this proposal would introduce great difficulty. He protested strongly against the opinion that there could be made on the part of the working classes of London any claim whatever for this proposed subvention which could not be equally advanced on the part of the working classes of any or all of the great cities of the United Kingdom.

MR. WARTON

said that, in his opinion, the effect of the provision dealing with the condition of unfurnished houses would be to injure the value of house property. He thought they were in danger with such a provision as this of being beset by sanitary experts, who would bring forward their peculiar crotchets and remedies with respect to sewers and drains. Within the last few days he had presented 127 Petitions from building societies protesting against the Bill. He called attention to the immense amount of capital invested by working men out of their hard-won earnings in building societies. The last Return dealing with these investments, which came down to December, 1883, stated that the assets of building societies amounted to more than £51,000,000. He was inclined to think, however, that in round numbers there were £70,000,000 invested in such under takings as those with which the Bil professed to deal, and the working men through the building societies were doing by voluntary efforts what this Bill sought to make compulsory. The working men said that they had invested their savings in these societies and that they were ratepayers, and they protested against the Bill on the ground that it interfered with local action. The point to which they wished to call especial attention was that referring to the selling of the prison sites under the market value; and they said that if this was done the fact of the land being so obtained would conflict with and would be in opposition to their efforts which had been carried on for so many years. Taking a broad and general view of the Bill, he looked upon it as evidence that the Tory Party showed the real concern they had for the welfare of the industrial classes. He regarded the Bill principally as a proof to the working classes of this country that the Tory Party was quite as much if not much more anxious than the Liberal Party to do everything which would tend to the welfare of the working classes. It was an effort to carry out the policy inaugurated by the late Lord Beaconsfield—sanitus sanitatum—and he thought it could not be placed in better hands than those of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross), who was instrumental in the passing of the Artizans' Dwellings Act, which had been so great a boon to the working classes.

MR. BRYCE

said, that the improvements which were needed in order to bring the dwellings of the working classes into a satisfactory state were so numerous and varied, and must be the result of so many converging influences and agencies, that it was practically impossible for any one measure to deal with the question. He was glad that the Government had brought forward this Bill, even at the end of the Session, and that they should be now pushing it forward in order to become law. It was not a Bill easy to criticize. It was far from being a comprehensive measure; it was a straggling, rambling kind of Bill; it touched a great variety of topics, making a little improvement here and making a little excision there; but it was difficult to frame a Bill of this kind otherwise. He hoped hon. Members who wished to introduce Amendments would now be chary of doing so, because they might overweight the Bill and raise new questions which the House was not in a position adequately to discuss. He did not think it was possible to go on much longer without a considerable amendment of the Buildings Acts. They had not sufficiently provided for the erection of proper sanitary dwellings in London, and especially with reference to the providing of open spaces and recreation grounds in every district covered with houses of the poor. In regard to the provision dealing with the prison sites, he urged the Government to withdraw it. He could assure the Government that nothing would so much facilitate the passing of the Bill and disarm all antagonism to it as a concession on this point. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that that Bill was only an instalment, and that it would probably have to be supplemented next year. Therefore, there was no urgency for dealing now with that part of the measure, which really required more consideration than it could receive at that period of the Session. With regard to the centralizing portion of the Bill, he thought that the Amendment which the Home Secretary proposed to introduce would, on the whole, sufficiently meet that difficulty. In London the Local Authorities were not adequate for the discharge of the duties east upon them, many districts being so poor that there were few persons with the leisure, education, and experience which fitted them to perform public duties. They also wanted that public spirit which existed in the provincial towns, and they were not controlled in the same way by public opinion and the Press as was the case in other large industrial centres. Therefore, he admitted that there were reasons why Local Authorities in London required a stimulus from the Central Authority. At the same time, the establishment of a proper system of Municipal Government for London ought to be pressed forward at the earliest possible moment. Turning to the subject of the subvention from the State which it was now proposed to give, he understood that the Home Secretary was not able to give them an estimate of the amount of the subsidy which was to be received from the State in respect to those prison sites in London. It was said that the amount would be small; but, even if that were so, the principle involved was a large one. They were about to embark in a system of State subventions for the provision of dwellings for the working classes. They were told, indeed, that the present case was not to be drawn into a precedent; but everything of that kind was almost certain to be drawn into a precedent, and was all the more likely to be so under a new Democratic Parliament. He treated that proposal, therefore, as the introduction of the principle of State intervention to find dwellings for the working classes below cost price. Supposing the land on which the prison stood was worth £10,000 an acre, and it was sold under the Bill to the Metropolitan Board of Works for £8,000 an acre, that would be a subsidy on the part of the State to the amount of £2,000 per acre. How was the Metropolitan Board of Works to deal with the dwellings to be built on these sites? Was it to let them at the ordinary market price? If it did it would make a profit corresponding to the difference between paying £8,000 and £10,000 per acre. Was it intended that the Metropolitan Board should become a landlord making a profit? That was a very undesirable function for it to assume.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)

explained that he had never suggested that the dwellings erected on the prison sites should be let below the market value.

MR. BRYCE

said, then he did not see the advantage of selling the site below the market price unless they were to let the dwellings below the market price. On the other hand, if the dwellings were let below the proper market rate the influx of people into London would be encouraged, and the great evils arising from the undue pressure of population would be stimulated. In the next place, that would tend to lower the rate of wages, and, further, it would discourage and drive out of the market private enterprize. The owners of workmen's dwellings, and particularly the Companies which now provided them, would not be able to supply those dwellings at the price they had previously done, because they would find themselves undersold by the Metropolitan Board of Works, or by those to whom it gave the land. That disturbance of the market rate and that interference with private enterprize would tell most upon the best class of landlords. The bad class of landlords now made a large percentage upon their capital by admitting to their dwellings a far greater number of inmates than they ought to do. Companies such as that with which the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir Sydney Waterlow) was connected refused to do so; and, therefore, they did not obtain so large a percentage on their capital as that other class of landlords. The competition of the Metropolitan Board of Works would tell most against the better class of landlords who built proper sanitary dwellings. Under present conditions, as was shown by evidence that had been taken, perfectly good and healthy dwellings, containing no more than the proper number of inmates, could be provided, and yet be made to pay 5 or 6 per cent on the capital invested in them. He knew a case of a Company formed for the purpose of providing dwellings for the poor, and that Company was able to do so, and at the same time to pay a dividend of 4½ to 5 per cent. If that Company went on, and others like it were formed, this great problem was practically solved, because, in return for a dividend of 4½ per cent, almost an unlimited amount of capital could be commanded. But if the competition of the State came in and disturbed private enterprize, and lowered the dividend to 3½ per cent, no capital would be obtainable from private sources. He submitted that all these facts furnished very grave reasons why the House should pause in this case. There was, he contended, an abundant spirit of philanthropy in the country, which only required to be guided and directed wisely; but by passing this measure into law Parliament would paralyze the efforts of the philanthropist, and, in fact, prevent his taking action at all. They ought not to be discouraged, or to rush into violent remedies in this matter. All improvements in the condition of the poorer classes of the community must be gradual, and must result from the growth of better habits among the working classes themselves; they must depend upon moral as well as material improvements. He had had considerable experience in these matters for some 15 years, and he could assert that there was a steady and real progress going on towards a better state of things—a progress which was brought about by the agency of education, the growth of temperance, the repression of crime, and by the coming of the rich among the poor. Let them have laws on the subject and strengthen them, and see that they were strictly enforced, and after that let them take all such steps as might properly be taken to attract voluntary efforts into this good work; but they must not come forward and supersede the agencies now at work by substituting the action of the State for that of private enterprize.

MR. PELL

said, he desired to call the attention of the House to the Bill as it affected rural districts, where there was, at any rate, as much attention, if not more, paid to sanitary matters than in towns. First of all he would point out that the Bill was going to apply all the provisions of the Lodging House Acts from 1851 to 1867 in the rural districts; and he thought the House should carefully consider whether such application would not do an injustice to the poor rather than confer a benefit, and whether these objectionable provisions would not have the effect of rendering the whole of the Bill inoperative so far as country districts were concerned. He did not consider that the Bill touched the evil which the agricultural community complained of. Bad houses were generally found in the open villages, into which the people were crowded from the close parishes in which they were employed. If their homes were improved, still the men would be left with three or four miles to walk to their work. Again, if the provisions of this Bill were adopted for any parish, Boards of Guardians would be performing the duty of owner and occupier at the expense of the Union, which he considered was a power that ought not to be exercised at the cost of the whole area of the Union, thus allowing a landlord to escape from the expense of putting his property in a proper sanitary condition. This was a departure from the principle of all previous legislation on the subject. He regretted that a Bill of so much importance was being hurried through Parliament in the manner it was in the last hours of the Session, and by so scantily attended a House. It would be much better that the subject should stand over altogether for the next Parliament.

SIR SYDNEY WATERLOW

said, he thought those who took an interest in the question ought to be very grateful to the Government for having brought forward the Bill at this period, and attempting to do something to give effect to the valuable recommendations of the Royal Commission. Thinking that, he was of opinion that the sooner they got into Committee the better. He did not entirely approve of the provisions of the Bill; but he hoped that the Government would adopt Amendments which would have the effect of making the Bill a working and not a mere fancy measure. It seemed to him that there were two main principles in the Bill—one contained in Clause 3 and the other in Clause 13. With regard to Clause 3, he should like to know whether it was to be worked on the lines of the Artizans' Dwellings Act? When the Metropolitan Board of Works bought the sites of the prisons, were they to be compelled to sell them, ear-marked and set aside for working class dwellings? Whenever Corporations built they always built at an enormous expense, and to compel the Board to build would be putting them into a difficult position, for either their tenants would practically be the recipients of alms, or they would be charged the full maket value of the rents, and then they would receive no benefit. With respect to Clause 13, he thought that, subject to certain modifications to which he hoped Her Majesty's Government would not object, it might be made most valuable and beneficial.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, that the Bill had been brought in hurriedly, and by agreement, he believed, between the two Front Benches. He very much feared, however, that in the race for popularity the two Front Benches were disposed to sacrifice every economic principle in their desire to catch votes. It seemed to him that the Royal Commission, in presenting the Report they did, had been actuated by red-hot benevolent motives, and had not been so deliberate in their action as they might have been. He really thought it was too late in the Session to attempt to pass a Bill of this kind. It was next to impossible to transform every squalid dwelling into a comfortable one, and it was unwise to create expectations that could not be fulfilled. The failure of the existing legislation on this subject ought to teach them that. An immense amount of misery had been produced by the Artisans' Dwellings Acts. People had been cleared out of the houses without any place being provided for them; and he believed that similar results would follow from this well-meant legislation. When they set about benevolent legislation they might do the opposite of what was intended, and pass ill-conceived measures for the purpose of gaining popularity. In the administration of a really good Bill the municipal principle ought to prevail; but, on the present occasion, this appeared to be nearly altogether ignored. It was proposed that the Local Government Board or the Home Office should have the power of calling upon Local Authorities to pass bye-laws for the purpose of putting the Act into execution. But where were the people affected by these bye-laws to go during the demolition of their homes? Then many of the people who were to be called on to set in motion the machinery created by the Bill were themselves but very little better off than those for whom they were to be ordered to find dwellings. How could they compel ratepayers of that class to find money for the purposes of the measure? The 3rd clause provided that the prices of the prison sites at Coldbath Fields and Millbank should not be less than the sum paid by Her Majesty for them. But the difference between that and the market value now must be enormous. It would amount to a great State grant for Metropolitan improvement only. Then there was another question in relation to the Settled Land. Act. It appeared to be assumed that Parliament, by passing this Bill, might give a trustee power to spend the trust funds so as to gratify his own benevolence. No trustee, however, would do so without the sanction of the Court. It was opposed to the very conception of a trust; but that was the way this Bill proceeded. The Bill ought to have been referred to a Select Committee, instead of being forced through the House; and if it had been referred to such a Committee all those difficult points might be properly discussed.

MR. BUCHANAN

wished to say a few words on the subject of the applica- tion of the Bill to Scotland. The provisions of the Bill, as he understood, were taken from the Report of the Royal Commission with regard to England, and he believed most of them were contained in the Report with regard to Ireland; but the Home Secretary knew very well that the separate Report with regard to Scotland did not contain any of those provisions. Therefore, it should be borne in mind, by whatever Government was in power after the General Election, that in no sense had the Report of the Commission with regard to Scotland been carried out by simply extending the Bill to that country. About 10 days ago the Home Secretary, in reply to a Question by an Irish Member, stated that, in the opinion of the Government, the Bill ought to apply to Ireland and Scotland; but from that time up to yesterday they had heard nothing more about the matter. It was only this morning that they ascertained what part of the Bill the Home Secretary intended should be applied to Scotland. There were only five Scottish Members now in the House, and those who could speak with authority on these questions were unfortunately absent; therefore they were under very great difficulties in carrying out the intention of the Government to apply a portion of the Bill to Scotland. He understood it was the intention of the Home Secretary to apply Clauses 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Bill to Scotland. He thought these were distinct improvements, and he should be sorry to see the Bill pass without these clauses being applied to Scotland. With regard to Clauses 1 and 2, he was in some doubt whether they could be made applicable to Scotland or not; but if the opinion of the House was that they were good provisions to be inserted in the Bill, then he thought it would be better if they were also applied to Scotland. He understood, however, there would be considerable difficulty in doing so.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS),

interrupting, stated that since he had put the Amendments down on the Paper last night they had been carefully looked over by the Government draftsmen and the Lord Advocate, and he had put down a clause in place of Clause 17, which would simplify matters.

MR. BUCHANAN

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take care—for on the Government the exclusive responsibility would rest—that any further Amendments he might propose would be effectual to carry out the provisions of the Act in regard to Scotland, so that the Act might not be a dead letter, but a reality.

MR. ALBERT GREY

said, he must congratulate the Party opposite at having, at any rate in the last few days of an expiring Parliament with the November Elections in their minds, one stalwart and stout Member who was not afraid to criticize, denounce, and even divide against the Socialistic proposals of a so-called Conservative Government. The debate on this Bill had illustrated, in the most convincing manner, the great danger and mischief that might ensue in rushing such a measure through the House without proper consideration; because it contained proposals of great magnitude, embracing principles of enormous scope, and provisions which he would undertake to say had not been mastered and understood by any hon. Member who was not a Member of the Royal Commission. If the Bill had only been brought forward in the beginning of the Session, and the different stages had come on at proper intervals, so that the country might have given its mind to the proposals, it would have issued from the Committee of the House in a very different form and shape from that in which it was destined to pass. They had not had that valuable corrective in the shape of the criticisms of the daily Press. He regretted that the Government had asked the House to pass the Bill without more consideration; and he quite agreed with his hon. Friend opposite that if it could only be postponed to the next Parliament they would probably have a far better Bill, and one far more useful, and giving more permanent advantages to the country, than that which they were now about to pass. If his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) divided the House he should vote with him, as a protest against this hasty and mischievous procedure. He quite admitted that there were many clauses in the Bill which would be of great value; and he fully sympathized with the objects which it had in view. But he would point out that the 3rd clause of the Bill, which had been called the principal clause of the Bill, deliberately sanctioned the principle of the gift of the "unearned increment," not to the community at large, but to a small section of the community. Speaker after speaker had pointed out the dangers of an agitation which the Socialistic proposals of the Bill would open up. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) said that the 3rd clause was the best part of the Bill; and, no doubt, he would telegraph to Mr. Schnadhorst at Birmingham to arrange an agitation upon the the lines of its proposals. There would, no doubt, be meetings in all parts of the country in favour of the principle to be found in the Bill, which was not only to be applied to public lands, but also to private lands. He hoped hon. Gentlemen opposite would look closely to what they were doing in passing the 3rd clause as it stood. If they did pass it in its present state, it would sit like a nightmare on their souls for many and many a long day.

MR. GREGORY

said, he regretted that the Government had determined to proceed with this Bill at so late a period of the Session; but, at the same time, he did not think it would be worth while to go to a division upon it. The Bill incorporated something like 11 general Acts of Parliament, which were very long and complicated; and without some further indication of the meaning of those Acts, and of the manner in which they were incorporated, he doubted whether the Bill could ever be worked by any rural Sanitary Authority. The House might, if it liked, pass the Bill; but it would be inoperative until it was amended. The power to charge upon the district of a Central Authority the cost of a local improvement would prejudice many owners of property who had done their duty by taxing them for those who had not. It seemed to him that what they required in the rural districts was a power of inspection over existing cottages and buildings, and of compelling the repair and proper maintenance of them, either by the owner directly or by the Sanitary Authority, who should have a fixed charge upon the property for the money which they laid out for the purpose.

MR. THOMASSON

said, that, although the Bill was a small one, it was too big, and involved too novel and important principles to be proceeded with during the last days of an expiring Parliament. He concurred in all that had been said as to the undesirability of doing anything to discourage private enterprize. If the question were referred to the country at the approaching Election, the opinion of the working men of the North would be that they could provide themselves with dwellings, and did not wish them to be provided out of the taxes or the rates. The tendency of such legislation would be in the long run to discourage prudent habits, because the frugal would find themselves taxed for the improvident. It would be better to reduce the Bill to clauses on which all hon. Members were agreed.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 6: Majority 53.—(Div. List, No. 282.)

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Labouring Classes Lodging Houses.

Clause 1 (Adoption of Labouring Classes Lodging Houses Acts).

MR. JESSE COLLINGS moved, in page 2, the omission of the words— And that there is no probability that such accommodation will be provided without the execution of the said Acts, and that having regard to the liability which will be incurred by the rates, it is under all the circumstances prudent for the said authority to undertake the provision of the said accommodation under the powers of the said Acts. The object of the Amendment was to provide that where a rural Sanitary Authority in any district desired to adopt the Labouring Classes Lodging Houses Acts 1851 to 1867 it should not be necessary for the Inspector of the Local Government Board to certify that there was no probability of the accommodation for the housing of the poor being provided without the execution of the Acts, and that it was prudent for the Local Government Board, having regard to the liability which would be incurred by the rates, to make the provision.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, to omit from the words "labouring classes," in line 1, to the word "Acts," in line 6.—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, that his hon. Friend's opinions were well known, and it was also known that he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) personally agreed with him as to the working of the Earl of Shaftesbury's Act; but, looking at what had occurred last night, he entertained no hope that his hon. Friend would succeed in carrying the Amendment. His hon. Friend had informed him of the Amendments he intended to propose in this clause, and also that he intended to propose further Amendments in a subsequent clause, which he regarded as of more importance than the present Amendment. He would, under the circumstances, suggest to his hon. Friend that if he intended to take a division it should not be taken on the present clause. The proposal now before the Committee was one by which it was proposed to leave out certain limitations and restrictions which were in the nature of a compromise arrived at between persons of widely different opinions. If they were to strike out the limitations to the proposals contained in the Bill, he was satisfied that they would fail to obtain the assent of Parliament to the Bill in the present year. He would, therefore, appeal to his hon. Friend whether it was not wise, under the circumstances, to take what he could get rather than lose the Bill altogether?

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS moved to omit Sub-section (a)— Unless the Local Government Board state in publishing such certificate that an emergency renders it necessary to adopt the Acts immediately, such adoption in pursuance of the certificate shall not take place before the ordinary election of members of such authority which is held next after the date of the local inquiry. He said it would be apparent to anyone who had any knowledge of municipal action that this sub-section would be fatal to the working of the Bill. It suggested that after the Local Government Board had given its decision, unless there was something in the locality which made it urgent, or, in the words of the clause, "if any emergency renders it necessary," the adoption of the Acts should not take place until after the next Election. What would inevitably happen was that the proposed improvement would be made an election cry, and the Local Authority intrusted with the matter, being like Boards of Guardians elected on a property qualification, would come to the conclusion that the proposed improvement was unnecessary, and it would never be carried out on account of the agitation which the property holders would get up before the next Election. The result, therefore, would be that the certificate would be quashed.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, lines 10 to 15, to leave out Sub-section (a).—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)

Question proposed, "That Sub-section (a) stand part of the Clause."

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he would make the same appeal to his hon. Friend as he had made on the last Amendment, and which he had intended to cover the present proposition. His hon. Friend must remember that if he got rid of this limitation altogether, he would be going very much beyond the terms of the Earl of Shaftesbury's Act. For his own part, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would be quite willing to take that course; but what they were asking Parliament to do was to make the Earl of Shaftesbury's Act workable. If they struck out this sub-section, no doubt they would secure a greater probability of the general adoption of the Act; but it was quite possible that the Government would repudiate the adoption of these powers without giving an opportunity for public opinion to be asserted. He thought it would be wiser to proceed tentatively.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, he would like the Home Secretary to express an opinion upon the Amendment. Was it proposed that every improvement should undergo the test of an election; and, if so, did he expect that any improvement would survive that test?

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)

said, he thought it was only right that the ratepayers, before they had this charge thrown upon them by the adoption of Acts more or less novel, should be asked whether or not they desired that the Acts should be enforced. He had, therefore, no hesitation in answering the question of the hon. Member by saying that the clause, as it now stood in the Bill, would have the effect of throwing the question before the electors, and would afford a safeguard against the rash adoption of the Earl of Shaftesbury's Act.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. PELL

said, he proposed to move the omission from the clause, in page 2, of all the words from the beginning of Sub-section (3) down to the words in line 32, "may make an order to that effect." The words he proposed to leave out were these— Where the rural sanitary authority think it just that the burden of the expenses of the execution of the said Acts should be borne by some contributory place or places only in their district, instead of by the whole of their district, the authority may in their application to the Local Government Board request permission to limit the burden of such expenses to such contributory place or places, and thereupon the justice of such limitation shall be inquired into at the local inquiry, and the Local Government Board, if satisfied after the local inquiry that the circumstances of the contributory place or places and of the rest of the district render such limitation expedient, may make an order to that effect. He would have gone further, but he found that he came to a passage printed in red ink.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, the words printed in red ink were so given in order to indicate that they were not in the Bill as originlly introduced.

MR. PELL

said, his intention was, if the Amendment were agreed to, to move afterwards to leave out the words "and thereupon," which would have the effect of providing that— The expenses of the execution of the said Acts in the area mentioned in the order shall be borne by the contributory place or places named in the order instead of by the whole district. That was what he desired to carry out. In the debate which had just taken place on the Motion that the Speaker should leave the Chair he had stated that as the Bill was drawn the whole of the expenditure, including the purchase of land, the erection of buildings, the furniture, fittings, and appliances, would have to be borne by the whole district for the improvement of one portion of it. He did not think that the expense should be thrown upon the whole district upon unoffending persons. [Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS dissented.] He saw that the right hon. Gentleman shook his head; but he did not think there was a possibility of a mistake. The intention was to make it optional, where there was a mere local improvement, to charge the expense upon a large area, instead of it being charged upon the district which was benefited. The object of his Amendment was to introduce into the Bill the distinctions which were made in the Public Health Act of 1885, with respect to the incidence of the rate. Improvements would be made for the benefit of the owners of certain property and nobody else; and he did not see why local improvements should be effected by money raised from a much larger area. If the right hon. Gentleman would convince him or the Committee that this would not be the case he would be content. He contended that the clause invited those who had a temporary and transitory interest in the question to levy a permanent charge upon the locality, which would be paid hereafter by ratepayers who had had nothing to do with the state of things which led to the expenditure. The only security that would exist against waste and extravagance was that the cost should be levied on the area in which the work was required.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, by leaving out all the words in sub-section (3) down to the word "effect" in line 82."—(Mr. Pell.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

THE PRESIDENT (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)

said, his hon. Friend complained that the clause as it was drawn up imposed an undue burden upon the ratepayers of the district; but he believed that in the drafting of the Bill special care had been taken to fence round the provision in such a manner that the burden would not fall upon those who ought not to bear it. He agreed that it was desirable to guard against any injustice being inflicted, and that the interests of the ratepayers generally ought to be safeguarded as far as possible, especially when they were in no way responsible for the expenditure, and in no way benefited from it. His hon. Friend would recollect that the authority which was to call this power into operation was the Rural Sanitary Authority, and the danger to be apprehended was that the Rural Sanitary Authority might put their power into force in such a way as to im- pose undue rates upon a small district of the Union for the benefit of the whole Union. Take the case of a Union covering many square miles. In his opinion it would be extremely unjust to allow the Union to call these powers into operation, and to tax a small district only for a work that was to benefit the whole Union. Therefore the clause had been drawn on the presumption that the expense would fall on the whole Union, and he thought the Government were justified in so drawing it. If any case of injustice occurred all that was necessary was to appeal to the Local Government Board, and the injustice would be remedied. His hon. Friend seemed to suppose that the ratepayers would tamely submit to pay the cost of improvements which in no way benefited them. It was certainly not consistent with the knowledge of the Government that they would. It was quite clear that if the ratepayers of the whole Union thought they ought not to pay this charge all they would have to do was to make an appeal to the Local Government Board, and the injustice, if one were found to exist, would be remedied.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he might point out, as an additional argument to those of his right hon. Friend, that the Amendment, if adopted, would not secure the object which the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) had in view.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, there was another and a more important reason—namely, that it would be quite possible for the landlord, by abstaining from erecting houses on his own property, to force those who worked upon the land, and who were necessary for its proper cultivation, to go into the neighbouring villages. He knew cases in which the labourers had to go four or five miles to their work, and the villages in which they lived were in an overcrowded state. He thought it very necessary that the landowner should not escape the rate. It was only right that he should contribute towards remedying an evil which he had been the main cause of creating. This was a most important question; but, at the same time, he thought that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Poll) need not trouble himself about the operation of the clause, for he ven- tured to predict that it would never be put in force in five Unions in England as it now stood, and for this reason—that under the Act of 1871 it required two-thirds of the votes before it could be put in force at all.

MR. PELL

wished to say a word in reply to the remarks of the President of the Local Government Board. The principle of the Bill was not to do good to particular Unions, but to get rid of an existing evil; not for the benefit of the owners of the adjoining property, but for the benefit of overcrowded localities which suffered in consequence of the overcrowding. All that he had in his mind, in moving the Amendment, was to prevent persons from using other people's money in improving property in which they themselves had alone an interest. Under the provisions of the Bill this clause almost invited persons not to do their fair share, but to leave the work to be done by the community, and to call upon the ratepayers generally to pay for it. Where the funds necessary for carrying out the work ranged over a large area a reckless expenditure might be entered into, and a reckless expenditure was generally accompanied by extremely bad work.

SIR HARRY VERNEY

was understood to say that his experience went very much in the direction of that of the hon. Member. He very much regretted that, at the call of the ratepayers of a very small area, it was proposed to build cottages and pay for them out of the general rates. It was very dangerous indeed to give to Boards of Guardians any such power of raising money.

Question put, and agreed to.

On Motion of The SECRETARY of STATE (Sir R. Assheton Cross) the following Amendments made:—Page 2, line 32, leave out "expedient," and insert "just;" line 32, after "effect," add— And thereupon the expenses of the execution of the said Acts in the area mentioned in the order shall be borne by the contributory place or places named in the order instead of by the whole district. The provisions of this enactment with respect to the burden of the expenses shall apply upon every application for a fresh certificate.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS) moved, in page 2, line 40, after "authority," insert "or by the Commissioners of Sewers of the City of London."

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said Subsection 4 of the clause spoke about the Labouring Classes Lodging Houses Acts, 1851 to 1867, being adopted by the Metropolitan Board of Works and Sanitary Authorities. In what way was the power of taking land compulsorily created? As far as he could see, it was provided that no land should be taken except by agreement.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, the question would be dealt with later on.

Question put, and agreed to.

On Motion of The SECRETARY of STATE (Sir R. Assheton Cross) the following Amendments made:—Page 2, line 41, after "authority," insert "or Commissioners;" page 3, line 1, after "subject," insert "in the case of a rural sanitary authority;" and in line 6, after "1875," insert "or under the Acts conferring powers on such Commissioners of Sewers."

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

proposed to add, after the word "respectively," in page 3, line 6— (b.) All expenses incurred by such board or authority in the execution of the said Acts shall be defrayed—

1. (i.) in the case of the Metropolitan Board of "Works, out of the Dwelling House Improvement Fund, under the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Improvement Act, 1876;
2. (ii.) in the case of an urban sanitary authority, as part of the general expenses of their execution of the Public Health Act, 1875; and
3. (iii.) in the case of a rural sanitary authority, as special expenses incurred in the execution of the Public Health Act, 1875, and, save where the burden of such expenses is by order of the Local Government Board to be borne by one contributory place only, shall be deemed to be incurred for the common benefit of all the contributory places liable to bear such expenses: Provided that if on the application of the rural sanitary authority it is so declared at the time of the publication of the certificate by the Local Government Board, then the said expenses of the rural sanitary authority shall be defrayed as general expenses of the said authority in the execution of the Public Health Act, 1875, and if 1768 such expenses are not to be borne by the whole of the district, shall be charged to the contributory places which are to bear the same as an addition to the general expenses otherwise chargeable thereto;
4. (iv.) in the case of the City of London, out of the Dwelling House Improvement Fund under the Artizans and Labourers Dwellings Improvement Act, 1875;

(c.) all receipts under the said Acts shall be paid to the fund out of which such expenses are payable, and the accounts of such receipts and expenses shall be audited in like manner and with the like incidents and consequences respectively as the accounts of the general or special expenses above-mentioned; but separate accounts shall be kept of the receipts and expenditure for the purposes of the said Acts; (d.) such Board and Commissioners may borrow for the purpose of the execution of the said Acts, in like manner and subject to the like conditions as they may borrow for the purposes of the Artizans and Labourers Dwellings Improvement Act, 1875, and every such authority may borrow for the purpose of the execution of the said Acts, in like manner and subject to the like conditions as for the purpose of defraying the above-mentioned general or special expenses; (e.) in the application of the said Acts to the City of London, 'district' shall mean the City of London, and 'board' the Commissioners of Sewers of that city; and in the application of the said Acts to the Metropolis, 'district' shall mean the Metropolis exclusive of the City of London, and 'Board' the Metropolitan Board of Works; and in the application of the said Acts to a rural sanitary district, 'district' shall mean the said district, and 'board' the rural sanitary authority.

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. PELL

asked what was the meaning of the words— Such Board and every such authority may borrow for the purpose of the execution of the said Acts, in like manner, and subject to the like conditions, as for the purpose of defraying the above-mentioned general or special expenses. Was it intended that a Local Authority might, under this Act, or the Lodging Houses Acts, borrow money for general necessities?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, the terms were technical; there were what were known as general expenses and special expenses.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. TOMLINSON

proposed to add to the last Amendment— In any case where an urban sanitary authority is empowered by a local Act or Acts to bor- row money and to levy a rate or rates throughout the whole of their district for purposes similar to those or to some of those for which a general district rate is leviable, it shall be lawful for such sanitary authority to defray the expenses incurred in the execution of the said Acts by means of money to be borrowed, and a rate or rates to be levied, under such local Act or Acts.

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

THE SECRETAEY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

assented to the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 (Definition of purposes of Labouring Classes Lodging Houses Acts) agreed to.

Clause 3 (Provision respecting sites of certain metropolitan prisons).

MR. J. R. HOLLOND

regretted that the Amendment he had to move to this clause had not found its way in proper form to the Paper. What he desired to move was to leave out all the words after "Pentonville, Penitentiary," in line 30, to "and," in line 32. The next Amendment of his was to leave out all the words after "prison," in line 33, and insert— No sale of the said sites shall take place except with the authority of Parliament. If those alterations were made the clause would read— In the event of the removal from their present sites of Millbank penitentiary or Pentonville Penitentiary, and in the event of the removal from its present site of Coldbath Fields Prison, no sale of the said sites shall take place except with the authority of Parliament. His object in moving those Amendments was, on the one hand, that Parliament should retain control over the sites, so that they should not be disposed of without full discussion in the House, and that, on the other hand, they should not at that late period of the Session settle precisely in what manner those sites were to be disposed of. The difficulty of settling how to dispose of those sites was shown by the Amendments which stood on the Paper. There were various Amendments to the clause; some dealt with the erection of workmen's dwellings, some with the making of open spaces, some with the erection of schools upon the sites. If those Amendments were carried, would it, or would it not, be possible for the Metropolitan Board of Works to build a number of shops on the sites? If not, the ratepayers of London might be subjected to considerable loss.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, the primary object was the accommodation of the working classes. Everything that was auxiliary to that object would be allowed.

MR. J. R. HOLLOND

said, that further explanation was certainly required. They were dealing with about 40 acres of land, and they were asked to settle the destination of the sites in a somewhat hurried manner at the end of a Session, and it seemed to him without considering sufficiently whether it was wise, from a prison point of view, that the prisons should be removed. Sir Edmund Du Cane's evidence before the Committee went to show that, although the site of Millbank Penitentiary only cost £1,200, there had been spent on buildings something like £600,000. The Committee ought to know whether, in ease the site was disposed of as proposed, the Government were to be recouped in any way for the money they had spent. He sympathized with those who strongly objected on principle to the disposal of those sites in this way. It seemed to him that they might come to some sort of agreement whereby Parliament should retain control of the sites, and leave the settlement of the precise destination of the sites to another Session. It would be extremely easy to do that; it could be done by introducing next year a Bill dealing specially with those sites. The only thing that would happen would be that the destination of the sites would be left over for further, and he believed riper, determination.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 30, to leave out all the words after "Pentonville, Penitentiary," to "and," in line 32.—(Mr. Hollond.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. ALBERT GREY

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) would consider this Amendment favourably, because it seemed to him (Mr. A. Grey) a very fair compromise between the promoters of the Bill and those who objected to the 3rd clause on principle. The Amendment really postponed to another Parliament the settlement of the destination of the prison sites, which it was hoped would be cleared and devoted to some object which would bring about an amelioration in the condition of the working classes. There were many reasons why the clause should not be adopted. [Mr. JESSE COLLINGS: No!] The hon. Member for Ipswich said "No!" He could well understand why the hon. Gentleman supported the clause. He repeated that there were many reasons why they should reject the clause. If they adopted the clause as it now stood, they would be adopting a clause based upon a principle absolutely new to legislation, and they would give an opportunity to the ton. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) and his Friends to conduct an agitation which would not be very palatable to Gentlemen sitting on the Front Ministerial Bench. It seemed to him (Mr. A. Grey) that they had no right at the fag-end of a Session, when four-fifths of the Members were away, to invite the House of Commons to legislate in a way which he very much doubted it would legislate if there was a full House. But there was another reason why he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) to accept this Amendment. There were many Amendments to follow. Every one of those Amendments they meant to fight and to divide upon. If the right hon. Gentleman was going to insist upon this proposal simply because it had come down from the House of Lords—["The Royal Commission."] The Royal Commission! Members of the Royal Commission who had spoken upon the Bill had spoken most strongly against this proposal. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley), who was a Member of the Commission, made a most eloquent speech against this proposal; and he (Mr. A. Grey) believed that other Members of the Royal Commission who were in the House very much agreed with what the hon. Gentleman said. They would not quarrel, however, as to the source from which the proposal came. All he wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman was that, unless he could see his way to accept this very reasonable Amendment, he (Mr. A. Grey) and others meant to fight the clause inch by inch and line by line. They meant to divide upon every Amendment, and to make it as difficult as possible for the right hon. Gentleman to carry a clause containing a principle to which they objected so much. He had thought it right to make those remarks, though he did not wish it to be understood he used them in any menacing spirit. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give a favourable consideration to his remarks, and, if possible, promote the speedy passing of the Bill through the House by accepting the Amendment.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

thought the hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. Grey) had just given them full warning of obstruction to the clause. The clause, as now proposed, was recommended by the vast majority of the Members of the Royal Commission; it had come down from the House of Lords, and he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) desired to take the sense of the Committee upon it. He must remind hon. Gentlemen who proposed that the matter should stand over that what the promoters of the Bill wanted to do was to afford some speedy relief. If hon. Gentlemen would examine the Bill they would find that the advance of the money was confined to a certain date. The prisons in question were being emptied, and there was no reason why the land should remain idle any longer than could be helped. It was proposed not merely that the sites themselves should be devoted to working men's dwellings, but that it should be in the power of the Metropolitan Board of Works to exchange them for others. If hon. Members knew what was going on in London they would readily admit that time was really the essence of the matter. He was quite willing to abide by the decision of the Committee, and he hoped that decision would be arrived at without delay.

MR. HOPWOOD

asked if anyone doubted that if the House were full there would be an instructive and animated discussion upon this clause, with possibly a result disastrous to it? Did the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary remember the debates which took place annually in regard to the contributions made out of the public funds for the special advantage of the community of London? Every item of increase with regard to the Parks and the building of additional Offices—in fact, every attempt to spend money for the special benefit of the people of London—always received the very strongest opposition in the House. He had not a doubt that a clause like this would, if introduced at another period of the Session, either be rejected in toto or referred to a Select Committee.

MR. PICTON

said, it was evident that this clause was opposed to the convictions of a considerable number of the Members of the House. A good deal been said that evening about Socialism being involved in this clause. He did not object to Socialism of a proper kind, for he thought there was such a thing as equitable Socialism. But this clause did not represent Socialism at all; it represented patronage, and patronage of a sort which tended to provide for the moderately well-off at the expense of the extremely destitute. That he believed to be the real tendency of the clause, and he desired to say why he thought so. If the clause was carried out, and the land was sold for less than its market value, a number of houses could be provided at less rent than that paid for houses in many parts of London. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. A. J. Balfour) interpolated a remark while the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) was speaking that evening, to the effect that the houses were not to be let below their market value. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to mean by that that the houses would not be let for less than would pay a fair percentage upon the outlay. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: No!] He was sorry if he misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. He would continue his remarks, and perhaps, if he was wrong, the right hon. Gentleman would correct him. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the houses would not be let at a less rental, considering that the land would be bought at a less price than it could be got for in the open market. At any rate, it stood to reason that if the land was bought for less than it could be bought for in the open market the houses could be let at less than their full and proper value. The number of houses was nothing; the principle was everything; but, supposing there were 500 houses to be let at a lower rent than that at which houses could be ordinarily secured, manifestly it would be a great advantage to get hold of one of the houses or tenements. There must be a considerable competition for them. On what principle were they to be allotted? Would it be first come first served? He doubted it. The general rule in such cases was to make a selection. There would be a certain number of people who had good recommendations, who were sober, diligent, and thrifty, and they would be considered suitable tenants for such advantageous houses. Then here was a case of patronage at once. It was a valuable gift to a man to get into a tenement of this kind. At whose expense was this patronage to be exercised? The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had spoken about the intervention of the State, and of the windfalls of the State, which the State might, he said, very reasonably make over to a certain number of tenants. But what was the State? The State was not the Government, the State was certainly the whole of the inhabitants of this country; and, directly or indirectly, all men—even children were taxpayers, for some of them got less food than they otherwise would owing to the direct or indirect pressure of taxation—every man, woman, and child—had to contribute towards the expenses of the State. When, therefore, they spoke of the State sacrificing a windfall they spoke of the whole of the inhabitants of the country sacrificing a windfall; they spoke of the destitute and suffering sacrificing so much property which, directly or indirectly, might be used for their benefit. Therefore, he contended that this patronage was exercised at the expense of those who were worse off than the people who would be put into those houses. He put it forth as a general principle that the burden of taxation and of all public expenses tended to gravitate to the very lowest depths, and he believed there would be a gravitation of such a kind in this case. If, at the expense of the rates or of taxation, they gave a certain number of people accommodation for a price at which they could not obtain it in the open market, they would do it at the expense of someone. If there was a loss of money someone must bear it; and he thought, when they considered the operation of rates and taxes, they would find that just outside that area of well-constructed and healthy dwellings, dwellings that were let at a low rent to thrifty and respectable working people, there were destitute and suffering people who had to contribute through the extra rates and taxation for the better condition of those who were better able to provide for themselves than they were. He thought that that was the operation of the clause, and he, therefore, must earnestly contend against it. He appealed to Her Majesty's Government to consider the point seriously. They must have felt that there were deep convictions on this subject; they must see that many hon. Members regarded the clause as an exceedingly dangerous one. It had been a very painful thing for some of them to have to vote against a particular stage of the Bill; although they were anxious that better dwellings should be secured for the working classes, they had had to vote against a stage of the Bill because of this vicious principle embodied in it.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, that time was valuable, yet time ought not to count when there was an important principle involved. He would make a suggestion to see whether they could not come to a fair and equitable arrangement. The great difficulty seemed to arise from the fact that a price was put in the Bill; and, therefore, he would suggest that the clause should stop at line 36, leaving out— At such price, to be fixed by agreement or arbitration, as will enable the Board to appropriate the sites or parts so conveyed for the purposes of the Labouring Classes Lodging Houses Acts, 1851 to 1867, as amended by this Act: Provided that the price shall not be less than the price paid for the land when it was purchased on behalf of Her Majesty or of the county of Middlesex respectively, and then, in order to show what really was the meaning of the clause, adopt the Amendment which stood in his name— For the purpose of the erection thereon by the Board or other parties, for the use of the working classes, buildings disposed in streets, squares, or otherwise, with or without open spaces, with power for such Board, as to all or any part of such sites, to lease the same to other persons, to be used for the purposes aforesaid, of to exchange the same for other land to be applied for like purposes, or to convert by sale the same into money, to be invested in land to be applied for like purposes, so that the land taken by exchange or sale be situate within the Metropolis. They would thus get rid of the difficulty of putting the price in the Bill. He only threw that out as a suggestion; if it was not accepted, he was quite prepared to stand by the Bill as it stood, and, if necessary, to go on until they passed it.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by that that it shall not be lawful for the Treasury to sell the land at less than its market value?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, the clause would then run in this way— In the event of the removal from their present sites of Millbank Penitentiary, or Pentonville Penitentiary, it shall be lawful for Her Majesty, on the recommendation of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, and in the event of the removal from its present site of Coldbath Fields Prison, it shall be lawful for the justices of the peace for the county of Middlesex, if the justices think fit so to do, to sell and convey those respective sites or any part or parts thereof to the Metropolitan Board of Works, for the purpose of the erection thereon by the Board or other parties for the use of the working classes," and so on.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

said, it did not appear to him that the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) met in any way the opposition that was raised to this clause; and he wished in the most serious manner possible to remind Her Majesty's Government of the distinct pledge that was given to the House some weeks ago by the Leader of the House, to the effect that no contentious Business should be proceeded with during the remainder of the Session. He wished to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they considered this contentious Business or not? If they were to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary it would have this consequence—that he would deal with this matter probably at one bite; and those who intended to make this contentious matter, and very contentious matter, would be easily disposed of. That would be very disadvantageous, and would not lead to the enforcement of the pledge of Her Majesty's Government, a pledge which was being distinctly violated on this occasion.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

I protest against such words, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw them.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

said, he would say that the pledge of Her Majesty's Government had not been observed, and to that he must strictly adhere; but he wanted to say something more with regard to this proposal. This was a proposal giving a distinct advantage to London and to the ratepayers of London. [Mr. JESSE COLLINGS: No; London has created it.] The hon. Member for Ipswich said that London had created it; but he (Mr. Arnold) did not see that at all. Manchester and Liverpool and other places had contributed directly to the increase of value of these prison sites; and he stood there as a Representative of one of those constituencies, in order to claim on behalf of his constituents their share of that increment of value. How was it to be given to them? Was it to be given to them through prison sites or in some other direction? At all events, he distinctly objected, and he should be very glad to support his hon. Friend the Member for South Northumberland (Mr. A. Grey) in objecting, as long as he pleased, to the confiscation by Her Majesty's Government of his constituents' share of the increment of value. There was nothing in the present rates that were levied on the people of London which entitled them to that share. The people of many of the manufacturing towns were paying higher rates than those paid by the people of London. He had previously called attention to the peculiar advantages possessed by the working classes of London in regard to their moving from one part of the Metropolis to another. Now, the right hon. Gentleman had spoken with all the authority belonging to a Member of the Royal Commission as to what happened on that Commission. The right hon. Gentleman knew better than he did what happened on that Commission; but he believed that the right hon. Gentleman's statement, that the proposal to give this land at cost price was carried by a vast majority of the Members of the Commission, was one that was not strictly correct. At all events, this was the fact—that in the Report of the Royal Commission the only arguments in favour of this proposal were those of the noble Marquess the Prime Minister (the Marquess of Salis- bury). There was not an argument of any sort or kind in the general Report of the Commission which sustained the proposition—the extraordinary and reckless proposition—which was now before the Committee. He did hope that the interest of other places besides London would be regarded by hon. Members that night. It was only recently that he divided the Committee in respect of the subsidies given to London for their Parks and various institutions. People who lived outside London were tired of these subventions which were given to the Metropolis, and which were not defended by the late Government. Her Majesty's late Government had given them up, and he said that the time had arrived when this custom of giving advantage to London ought not to be continued. He had often before protested against it; he did so again on that occasion, and he called on Her Majesty's Government not to go forward with this contentious Bill.

MR. BRYCE

said, he thought that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department was one which might be fairly accepted by his hon. Friend; but, for his own part, he wished to hear more about that proposal, which he thought was surrounded by a certain amount of obscurity. The right hon. Gentleman knew that if the land were sold under the Acts which bore his name, and in order that workmen's dwellings should be erected on it, the land could not be sold at its full value. Therefore, he said that the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman—"Sell for the purpose of erection, &e."—would have the same effect, and would operate with the arbitrator in determining what the price should be. He and his hon. Friends thought that a fair market price ought to be given; and if the right hon. Gentleman would consent to the insertion of words which would state that a fair market price should be given for the land, and say, at the same time, that he would consent to that portion of the Amendment which provided that the matter should afterwards come before Parliament for its decision and confirmation, he thought they might accept the clause. He thought the Committee would in that way provide for future difficulties that might arise from the adoption of a proposal which carried on the face of it a certain amount of obscurity, and with regard to whose results they knew nothing.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, he could not follow his hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) in the views he had expressed on this proposal of Her Majesty's Government. His hon. Friend was opposed to subventions to the Metropolis which came out of the Consolidated Fund; but he would point out that this proposal came under a different category. With the permission of the Committee he would prove that point. Who was it that had made the increased value of sites in the Metropolis; was it Salford or Manchester? [Mr. ARTHUR ARNOLD: Yes; both.] But suppose those sites cost £10,000, and were now worth £30,000, what, he asked, had produced the increase of the value of the land? Why, the enterprize, the trade, and increased population of London. Well, then, what was proposed here was to give that increment of value by certain means back to the people of London. He was prepared to go so far as to say that it was not, perhaps, the best way of doing it; but he contended that, on the grounds he had shown, the proposal of Her Majesty's Government was altogether removed from the category of mere subventions. He should vote for the clause because he wanted to extend the principle; he wanted to say to the great landowners of Westminster—"You gave £10,000 for the property that is now worth ten times the amount; that increase of value has been created by the trade and population of London; and, therefore, we believe you should in some way contribute to the well-being of those who brought about that result." He could quote the Marquess of Salisbury in this matter. The noble Marquess said before the Commission on the subject of housing the working classes, on whose recommendation this proposal was based, that— It more closely resembled a provision for compensation than the offer of a gift; and, therefore, he (Mr. Jesse Collings) entreated his Radical Friends especially to vote with both hands for this clause. He had voted against subventions for keeping up Parks for London; but that was quite another matter. They were dealing now with an increased value created by the people of London, which it was proposed to give back to them—a process which he said they must continue to apply to other land that had increased in value through the same agency, and with respect to which, either by taxation or some plan a little more convenient than the present, they hoped to arrive at the same end. This was altogether a different matter from a subvention, even supposing that Salford and Manchester had anything to do with creating this increment of value. For these reasons he should vote for the clause, defending it altogether from the subvention theory. He would ask his hon. Friend the Member for South Northumberland (Mr. A. Grey) whether, under these circumstances, he was consistent in obstructing the Bill? His hon. Friend objected to the word "obstruction;" then he would say "opposing the Bill in a very lively manner." Finally, he again appealed to his hon. Friends to support the clause.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, he would make another suggestion which he hoped would enable the Committee to come to an agreement on the clause. He proposed to insert at the end words which would make the clause run thus— The price of such site shall be a fair market price fixed by agreement or arbitration.

MR. PELL

said, if the right hon. Gentleman intended to move that as an Amendment, he would point out that its effect would be to make the Metropolitan Board of Works hold the land until they realized a very much higher price than they gave for it—not its marketable value. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to say if he was correct in that view of the case.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, that he proposed to introduce an Amendment which would guard against the contingency suggested by his hon. Friend. He hoped the hon. Member would consent to withdraw the Amendment now before the Committee.

MR. HORACE DAVEY

said, the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department was not satisfactory to himself, nor did he think it would be to some of his hon. Friends. This was one of those clauses which were very often introduced in that House, which might mean one thing to one side and another thing to the other. What would be the effect given to this clause in the Law Courts of the country? In the first place, he should like to know whether the clause was really necessary or not? If not, its effect would be merely to give a permissive power enabling the Treasury and the Justices of Middlesex to sell to the Metropolitan Board of Works their prisons for a particular purpose; but, of course, the purpose for which a person bought property had nothing to do with the vendor. He should like to know whether, under the existing law, the Justices of the county of Middlesex or the Treasury, when these sites ceased to be required for prison purposes, were not entitled, and had not the power to sell them, either to the Metropolitan Board of Works or anyone else in the Kingdom at the market price. The second criticism he wished to make on the clause was this—and here he might say that he entirely agreed with the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell)—that it expressly proposed to convert the Metropolitan Board of Works into builders. He objected to the rates paid by the people of London being employed in speculative building. Either it was to be done at a profit without a fair return for the money or it was not. If at a profit, then he objected to the Metropolitan Board of Works making the people of London participators in these speculative transactions; if it was to be done at a loss, as he supposed was the real intention, then he objected to the ratepayers of the Metropolis being burdened with the obligation, or its being placed in the power of the Metropolitan Board of Works to impose that obligation of providing dwellings for the working classes at the expense of the rates. He hoped the Government would appreciate the argument of his hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings), who was extremely candid as to the view which he took of this clause, and as to the ground on which he and his Radical Friends meant to vote for it. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would appreciate the contention that they could not deal with State property or public property in this manner—by giving it away or by selling it at less than the real value for the purpose of benefiting certain classes of the community, without setting an example and creating a precedent for similar dealing with the unearned increment, or an increment added to the estates of private persons by the increasing wealth of the Metropolis. He felt strongly on this subject; and although he was not altogether in accord with the views of the hon. Member for Ipswich with regard to it, he did hope the Government would appreciate what it was they were really doing by this clause. The next criticism he desired to make on the clause was this—the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary proposed to add words to provide that the price given for the sites should be the fair market price. Yes: a fair market price, but on what conditions? If the land was to be sold to the Metropolitan Board of Works for a particular purpose it was idle and illusory to say that the price was to be the fair market price, because on the conditions laid down in the Bill it was impossible to get a fair market price for it. As he had said, he objected strongly to the clause, not only on behalf of the ratepayers of the Metropolis, but on behalf of the public generally. He regarded those sites as part of the public property of the country, and he said that the Government had no right to make a present to the people of London—for it really was a present—of that property, any more than they had the right to make to the people a present of public property in other parts of the Kingdom. He remembered that when it was a question of selling the foreshore at Southport they were told by the Government then in power that it was the duty of the Government to safeguard public property, and to take care if it was sold that it was sold at the highest price that could be obtained for it. Well, then, he said the same principle should be applied to London as to the other parts of the country. For those reasons he objected to the clause as it stood, and he also objected to it in the form in which it was proposed to be amended by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, because he believed it would have the effect of achieving the same end in a different way; and, moreover, it had the additional inconvenience about it—he should say this additional vice—that the right hon. Gentleman's proposed addition to the clause was capable of being interpreted in two different ways. It was just one of those clauses which, he was sorry to say, were often put into Bills in Committee of that House by way of compromise, when one party meant one thing and the other meant another, and which were among the most fertile sources of litigation. If the right hon. Gentleman would allow him to do so, he would like to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he had forgotten that most impressive speech which he made at an earlier period of this Parliament, when he complained that the spirit of economy had deserted those Benches? But he did not want to make this a personal argument; he did not think that the present Government were to be blamed for this class of legislation, which had become far too common before they took Office, and his object in making these observations on the clause was by way of protest against legislation of the kind.

THE PRESIDENT (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)

said, he did not intend to continue a discussion upon an abstract doctrine; but he must say a word or two with regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) and the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey). The Government had been taunted with having introduced in this clause a provision for the appropriation of what one school of economists called the unearned increment; but he wished to say that whatever faults might be imputed against the clause, that fault it did not possess. The object of the clause was to enable the State to make a certain use of its own property. Those who desired to see the appropriation of unearned increment wished the State to make use of somebody else's property. The two methods of procedure were divided by the whole difference which separated charity from spoliation.

SIR SYDNEY WATERLOW

said, he would not trouble the Committee with any remarks on the unearned increment farther than to say that he presumed that the unearned increment in the case of these prison sites belonged to the State; and he believed that the State might appropriate that increment for the benefit of the classes which they thought ought to have it, if in so doing they did the best for the community at large. He thought they would all agree to the proposition that the better the working classes were housed, the better it would be for the nation as a whole. But he wished to call attention to the practical working of the clause. They had heard a great deal about the unearned increment. He wished to remark that the moment it was known that the sites were to be utilized for the purpose of the Bill, the market value of the land would be brought down by one-fourth or one-third. He did not wish to say anything about that. If it was the intention to do away with the prisons, he did not think they could do better with the sites on which they stood than erect upon them dwellings for the working classes with good wide spaces between them. But he objected when the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said that the dwellings, when erected, were to make a fair return. ["Hear, hear!"] Well, he would pass from that point. If the persons to be benefited were to pay a fair market price for the dwellings, surely the vendors of the land ought to sell it for a fair market price, because it was to be utilized for a particular purpose, and that very fact would bring the price down. Again, he objected to the proposal that the land should be dealt with by agreement or arbitration. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross), who would, perhaps, remember that evidence was given by the surveyor to the Peabody Trustees—namely, that the ground let to the Trustees was let at 50 per cent less than it would have been worth under ordinary circumstances. If the right hon. Gentleman would put into this clause words that would leave the land open to public competition, so that the dealing might be fair, he should not object to it; but if it was to be left to be settled by agreement or arbitration, he was bound to say that he could not approve of that course at all; because, in that case, the people intended to be benefited would get no benefit to the same extent; whereas, if the matter were left to public competition, no one could find fault with the price realized. Supposing that the Metropolitan Board of Works bought in the manner contemplated in the Bill supposing it was at a very low price, they would have to spend money in pulling down and road making before they could let the premises; and he ventured to say that the highest price got for the dwellings would not do more than pay for the money laid out in this way. Then with regard to the argument that the Metropolitan Board of Works were to become speculative builders; no one knew better than the right hon. Gentleman that the Metropolitan Board of Works were very indisposed to become builders, and have the responsibility of letting the buildings erected; he knew also that the members of the Board were gentlemen of great influence, who knew what sort of influence would be brought to bear upon them. He said there was no safety in the clause, unless the Government proceeded by way of public competition, which would prevent any fault being found with what was done, and would enable the working classes to get what they wanted at a fair price. The time had gone by when they could shut their eyes to the fact that they must continue to provide dwellings for the working classes. Those classes were increasing year by year; and the Committee should remember that one of the witnesses examined before the Royal Commission had stated that although a great deal had been done in that direction there was still much overcrowding. In suggesting the addition of words which would leave the price to be paid to public competition, he felt sure that the right hon. Gentleman would give him credit for speaking in the public interest; and he trusted that his suggestion would be adopted, because then they would get rid of the idea that the fair market price would not be paid.

MR. A. R. D. ELLIOT

said, that the further they went with this discussion the more clearly it must appear to those who watched their proceedings that the best thing the Government could do would be to withdraw the clause altogether. That, he thought, was the ground which ought to be taken up by hon. Gentlemen on those Benches. He must say that the right hon. Gentleman had dealt rather easily with the argument put forward in the course of the discussion by his hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold), who said there had been an undertaking on the part of Her Majesty's Government not to proceed with any contentious Business. If these matters were not contentious he was at a loss to understand how the right hon. Gentleman would characterize the recent proceedings. He would like to call attention to a matter in which many Members from Scotland were interested—that was to say, the Bill dealing with the Scotch Universities. That Bill had been given up altogether because there was some opposition to one or two of its clauses, and the Government, in consequence, said it was clearly a contentious matter. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to apply in one case the rule he had applied in the other; he asked him to carry out the pledge that no contentious Business should be taken; and he thought that what had taken place that evening was quite enough to prove that this Bill was of a highly contentious character. Several hon. Members who were interested in this question had left town. Of course, they could not be blamed for going away at that time of the Session; if they were away it could not be helped, and it was absurd to expect that the Committee could have any fair and open discussion on matters of this kind on the 11th of August. If the right hon. Gentleman would amend the clause by putting in words to the effect that the land should be sold for the best price obtainable in the open market, the clause might be agreed to; but he thought it was useless to go on with it otherwise. He thought that the hon. Gentleman beside him was a little hard upon hon. Members on those Benches in saying that the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. A. Grey) was obstructing the clause. Why, any hon. Member would know who had watched their proceedings during the last three weeks that anything like obstruction was not only foreign to their intentions, but absolutely repugnant to their general notions of procedure. They had taken the Bill fairly, clause by clause; and he would like to ask right hon. Gentlemen opposite whether, if the Treasury Bench had been occupied by Liberals instead of Conservatives, it was probable that the Bill would have the slightest chance of being carried? Right hon. Gentlemen opposite had many advantages over their Predecessors; they had not to deal with obstruction in that House, and they could do what they pleased in "another place." He felt sure that having pointed out to right hon. Gentlemen opposite that their action that night had been almost contradictory of the solemn pledges given, they would agree with him in saying that they ought not to go any further with this contentious Bill.

MR. BROADHURST

said, he must support this clause. He had ventured to criticize some of its features; but he heartily supported it for the reason that it established the very sound doctrine that the increased value of the land in cases of this kind belonged to the people whose industry had made it more valuable, and on that account he and his hon. Friends could not consent for a moment to a modification of the clause in any form whatever. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill to conform to the recommendation of the Royal Commission by retaining the clause as it stood at present. He thought there might have been a better way out of this difficulty had the suggestion which he had had the honour of making been thoroughly adhered to and carried out. He said that, instead of selling these sites for the purpose of erecting on them dwellings for the working classes, it would be far better if they were at once made over for open spaces for the benefit of all the community. They could not possibly touch a spot in London where 10 or 20 acres of open space could not do an enormous amount of good to the whole of the inhabitants of London, by giving, as it were, large air holes for the circulation of purer atmosphere; and he thought that if steps were taken in that direction a great advantage to the people would result. He did not care for the change which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to make in the clause; on the contrary, he very much feared that it would detract considerably from the value of the intended gift; and if the right hon. Gentleman had a moment to spare he should be exceedingly glad to know the reason for the proposed change. There were one or two distinguished young Members on that side of the House who wished to maintain certain old-fashioned principles which they had adopted owing to their association with hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial Benches. He sincerely hoped that Members of the Liberal Party would hold fast to their proposals in this matter. He was very glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House in his place. That right hon. Gentleman had made a speech at Bristol on Saturday night which was in the nature of a very strong attack on the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) for his Socialistic tendencies; and he (Mr. Broadhurst) had been surprised to find on reading his speech that the right hon. Gentleman had not even read the Bill which was coming before the House, as the first Order of the Day on Monday, and which contained Socialism in a purer form than anything he remembered to have been recommended by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham. When the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House returned and learnt in the House of Commons on Monday afternoon that the Party which he led were the real initiators of this class of legislation he naturally became considerably alarmed, and he (Mr. Broadhurst) had no doubt that it was due to his well-known caution in matters of legislation, that this modification was proposed. He sincerely hoped that the Government would remain firm to its proposal; and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that in adhering to the clause as it stood in the Bill he would have no firmer supporter, nor any more laborious assistant, in carrying the clause than himself.

MR. GREGORY

said, he understood the object of the Government was to give the Metropolitan Board of Works the right of pre-emption of these lands for certain purposes—that was to say, the erection of workmen's dwellings when the disused prisons now standing upon them were removed—they contemplated that the Board should have this preference over all other purchasers provided they paid a fair market price. If that were the correct view of the intention of the Government, he thought it would be better to deal with the matter on Report.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, after the discussion which had taken place, he thought the Government should agree to postpone this question. He had certainly understood that the Government and the Opposition had agreed that no contentious measure should be taken during the remainder of the Session; but this Bill was of a highly contentious character, and had been under- stood to be so for some days past. But there was a further objection to proceeding, and it was that they were asked to go forward with this clause in entire ignorance of the real value of the land in question. He had heard that in the opinion of some persons one of the sites of 23 acres was worth £60,000 or £80,000; but that, in the opinion of another person, it was worth from £120,000 to £160,000; but the fact was the Committee knew nothing at all about the value of the land. If the actual value of the land was to be obtained, he said that the question before the Committee would be one of limited importance; but the point they were concerned about was whether they were to get the real value for the land, or that which the State might place upon it, or accept. He had been conversing with a gentleman very competent to speak on this matter, who said he was authorized by the prison authorities to say that the value of the site was of less value than was supposed. If, therefore, the clause, as he recommended that it should be, were postponed, there would be time to find out the value of the land, which, as he had said, might possibly be found to be less than was generally thought. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had offered to the Committee what he called a compromise—that was to say, to adopt the words "at a fair market price;" but it was to be accompanied with conditions which really raised the question in another form. If the sale of the land was to be subject to the condition alluded to, the whole question arose whether the land would be sold at a high or a low price. As he had said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would agree to the postponement of the clause; first, because the matter was really contentious; and, secondly, because there was no knowledge or general agreement as to the real value of the land.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he wished to say one or two words on this very important question. He had never disguised from his right hon. Friend that he particularly disliked the clause, which, he thought, was one that might better have been left out of the Bill. He ventured now to appeal to him, seeing that there were many other important provisions in the Bill, to consider whether he might not fairly follow the advice of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and either to postpone the clause or leave it out of the Bill altogether. He was one of those who thought that they had no right to dispose of public property in this way—at any rate, without knowing what the I value of that property was. This was the property more or less of the nation, and he said that, if it was the intention of the Government to make it a present to the people of London, they ought to know exactly what the value of the present was to be. He admitted the difficulty which London had to contend with in respect of dwellings for the working classes; he admitted, as had been pointed out by the hon. Baronet the Member for Gravesend (Sir Sydney Waterlow), that although much had been done, much remained to be done there, to contend with, and, if possible, remove, the condition of over-crowding in which many sections of the working classes lived; but he could not go the length of saying that they ought to sacrifice valuable sites, and so set a precedent which he should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would have considered many times before introducing into the Bill. He felt strongly on this point; but if Her Majesty's Government would accept the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Gravesend, he thought that, at any rate, the clause would be greatly improved. But the better course would be, in his opinion, to take time to consider whether the clause should remain in the Bill.

MR. FIRTH

said, he had a few short observations to make on this subject; and, in the first place, he would express the hope that Her Majesty's Government would not withdraw the clause. Having some knowledge of the people of London, he had a right to express his opinions on the question before the Committee. He could understand that there were differences of opinion among the people as to the use made of the property in question. It seemed to him that the position was very shortly stated. It was that the Government had, up to the present time, the control of the prisons in London; they now proposed to take the prisons out of London, to take the question of housing the working classes over, and to put it under the control of Parliament. If that were so he thought it ought to be clearly stated in the Bill that the matter was not to be left to the Metropolitan Board of Works, which he said no one acquainted with the character of the workmen of the country would wish to see constituted an authority in the matter. It seemed, however, to him that the Government, having exercised hitherto control over the London prisons, desired in future to exercise control over the dwellings of the working classes. He could not understand why, if the ground were suitable for the purpose of erecting warehouses or other places of business, the people of London should be compelled to pay a greater price for it. He hoped the Government would adhere to the clause, which he said was sound in principle.

SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEY

appealed to the Committee to pass the clause as it stood, without stopping a useful Bill to consider the price the land ought to be sold for. This measure was another effort and attempt to raise the moral condition of the people. In the case of the National Gallery and other kindred Institutions, the Committee was aware that large sums were spent out of the Consolidated Fund. Everyone was agreed on the principle of the measure; and he asked whether, for the paltry sum of £100,000, they were prepared to have this site let to the highest bidder, the consequence of which would be that warehouses would be erected on it, and it would be lost to the locality for all purposes of social and moral benefit for ever? The Royal Commission had considered this question very fully in framing their Report as to sites for Workmen's Dwellings, and the principle of the Bill had been decided upon; and now the small thought had arisen in the minds of some hon. Members that they ought to endeavour to get the highest possible price for the land, to increase the Consolidated Fund even at the risk of letting the poor go unhoused. He said that the supporters of a Government which had been engaged on this question for two years, and had, during the last three Sessions, been engaged in passing Acts of Parliament with the object of bettering the condition of the working classes, and who had spent millions and millions on education, ought to unite in pushing forward the Bill. But instead of that they came down with questions as to what these prison sites were worth in the locality. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had given estimates of value, which varied from each other, although one of them appeared to rest more or less upon official judgment; but he (Sir Gabriel Goldney) replied that this was not a question to be adjusted according to the strict principles of State economy; and he contended that the proposal of Her Majesty's Government ought graciously to be accepted by the Committee as the best means of settling a considerable portion of a question which had troubled the people of London for many years.

MR. CHEETHAM

said, he had placed on the Paper an Amendment which was against the principle of subvention in this matter. The hon. and learned Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth) had contended that the people of London were entitled to this subvention, and he had been supported in that contention by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chippenham (Sir Gabriel Goldney). All he could say was that, if this view was held generally, he was afraid that it afforded very little security for the National Trusts. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman had framed words which would cover the object he intended to secure; and if that point were made perfectly clear he would not think it necessary to move his Amendment. But he was obliged to say that he joined hon. Members on those Benches in their appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to postpone the clause.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

said, there seemed to be a sort of general feeling that London was going to take something by this clause, and that, therefore, it must be met with the most decided opposition. It was said that the prisons occupied land purchased by the State for that purpose, and that now there was an opportunity of using it for the benefit of the working classes of London. The Government proposed by this Bill that the sites should be used for the erection thereon of lodgings for those classes. Hon. Members would know how difficult it was to obtain sites in London suitable for such a purpose; and he appealed to hon. Gentlemen who had raised the present question to agree to the arrangement set forth in the clause. He was sure this was looked forward to by the inhabitants of London, and was considered one of the important features of the Bill. When the Law Courts were built, they were built not for the Metropolis, but for the whole of the country. They stood on land that was purchased compulsorily by Act of Parliament for the whole of the country—on land which had been covered with numerous courts and alleys of houses in which had been crowded a largo population of the poorest and most needy character, nearly every room having been occupied by a separate family. Those poor people were turned out on a simple notice to quit, without the slightest care, attention, compensation, or provision for their future lodging. He contended that at that moment Parliament had an opportunity of causing the land of the prisons to be occupied by the working classes, as some compensation for those who were driven out of their homes when the Law Courts were built. Why should hon. Members come forward now and say—"Let us have the utmost farthing that these sites will sell for in the market. We say you ought to pay the amount into the Exchequer; and even though under the scheme you propose the charge which would be put upon our several towns would not be more than one-eighth of a penny, we make our demand on principle, and say you ought not to use these sites for the benefit of the working classes of the Metropolis?" He contended that they were discussing a trifle and endeavouring to make it a politico-economic debating ground, and that hon. Members were opposing the clause, not because they did not agree with what it would effect, but because it was against the principle of increased increment of property belonging to those who earned it. When they saw how readily large sums of money were voted for war expenses in all parts of the world, he was convinced the industrial classes would believe that the Committee neglected their interests, or did not entertain them in a proper manner, if, from a petty feeling as to the disposal of these sites, it refused to pass the clause. He had been very much struck by the cheers with which the statement that the sites should be used for the purposes of open spaces and recreation grounds was received. If that were done, nothing would be paid into the National Exchequer. Hon. Members did not ask that the full value should be paid for the land if it were given up to the purposes of recreation. He really did hope that the clause would pass without fur- ther discussion, and that hon. Members would not put themselves in opposition to the wishes of the mass of the people of this great Metropolis.

MR. HOPWOOD

thought hon. Members were entitled to an answer to the question whether this was or was not contentious Business? If the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave them an answer, he was sure he would give them a candid one, even if it were against himself. He (Mr. Hopwood) himself could not help thinking that there could be no doubt at all in the matter, and that it was most assuredly contentious Business. Yet the Ministry had promised that nothing with even the flavour of contentious Business should be brought on during the rest of the Session. As he understood it, a compromise had been offered—that the sites should be sold "for a fair market price, to be settled by agreement or arbitration," or words to that effect. If the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would put these words at the end of the clause, leaving out all the words after the word "Works," in line 37, so that the clause would read— To sell and convey those respective sites or any part or parts thereof to the Metropolitan Board of Works at a price to be fixed by agreement or arbitration, he could then frame a separate clause describing the Trust on which the Board of Works would hold the sites, and that, no doubt, would be accepted as a fair termination of the dispute. In this way the question of the sale of the land would be separated from the purpose to which it was to be applied. The question of fair market price would be loft untrammelled, and the sites could be allocated to the purpose intended by the noble Proposer of the clause (the Marquess of Salisbury)—that was to say, to the setting up on them of some form of working men's dwellings. He (Mr. Hopwood) could very well understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary felt bound to defend the clause. There was no doubt it had been a matter of warm contention between the Prime Minister and Lord Bramwell in "another place," and it was very natural that the Home Secretary should feel that in loyalty to his Chief he was bound to stand by the Bill; but, on the other hand, he (Mr. Hopwood) felt con- vinced that if the right hon. Gentleman's Chief were here, and had heard this discussion, he would at once relieve the right hon. Gentleman of any supposed obligation, and allow them to go on with the Bill, treating this as contentious Business, and expunging it from the Bill, or adopting the suggestion which he (Mr. Hopwood) had just made.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Hopwood) has made a direct appeal to me, and, of course, I am very glad to answer the question he has asked. He has asked me whether or not in my opinion this is contentious matter? If the epithet of contentious could be properly applied to ordinary matter of debate, on which the House is not seriously divided, although some hon. Gentlemen may not hold the views of the great majority, then, I admit, all our proceedings of the last three weeks ought not to have taken place; but if, on the other hand, contentious Business means matter on which the House is fairly divided, and which a large section of the House is unwilling to consider, there is nothing to prevent our proceeding further with the clause. I would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that the discussion on this subject hag really governed to a great extent the debate on this Bill, and that we have already had a division which has shown us that there are nearly 60 Members on one side, and only six on the other. I do not think that under these circumstances we have had sufficient proof that there is any real contention in the House in regard to that which is the subject of the debate. What I would suggest is this—that hon. Members who feel strongly on this matter cannot do better than put their opinions to the test of a division as soon as may be, in order that we may see what is the view of the Committee. My right hon. Friend has made a proposal to amend the clause which, as I understand, has been accepted as a reasonable settlement by more than one of those who, in previous discussions, spoke very strongly against the clause itself. If that is so, it certainly seems that the real opposition to the clause is very much less than was suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood). In any case, let us try what it is. Her Majesty's Government would not care to press this clause on what may fairly be described as an unwilling House; but, on the other hand, if a great majority are in favour of passing it, I cannot see anything to prevent its adoption.

MR. J. R. HOLLOND

said, he was not insensible of the effort the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had made to meet hon. Members in this matter; but he thought it must be clear to the right hon. Gentleman from what had taken place that that effort had not been entirely successful. There were a number of Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House who held such strong objection to the clause that he did not think he should be justified in withdrawing it.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 69; Noes 20: Majority 49.—(Div. List, No. 283.)

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, he had a small Amendment to move, in line 32, to add, after the word "Treasury," the words "and subject to such conditions as they may think reasonable."

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 32, after the word "Treasury," to insert the words "and subject to such conditions as they may think reasonable."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. BRYCE

said, he wished to move to omit from lines 34 and 35 the words "if the Justices think fit so to do." He made this proposal for the reason that the Treasury in these matters would, of course, be the Executive Government. If the Executive Government should "think fit so to do," the Treasury would "think fit so to do;" and the Committee was, therefore, giving directions to the Government what was to be done. Well, the Government was amenable to Parliament, but the Justices of the county of Middlesex were not. He did not see why, if they took this step, they should leave the veto in the hands of the Justices. If the Act was to be complied with by the Treasury, he thought it should also be complied with by the Justices of Middlesex, so that the will of Parliament should be carried out, It should not be left to those irresponsible persons to say whether the Act should be carried out or not.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, lines 34 and 35, leave out the words "if the Justices think fit so to do."—(Mr. Bryce.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, he could not consent to the omission of those words, because only in 1877 Parliament had given the Justices a direct Parliamentary title to deal with those prisons.

MR. BRYCE

said, he could not see any reason for refusing the Amendment; but, of course, if there was a strong feeling in the Committee against it, he would not press it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CHEETHAM

said, he had proposed to move, in line 35, after "convey," to insert "at a fair market price." So much had been said on that subject that he would not enter further on the question; and if he understood rightly the offer of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross), he proposed to include in the clause words to the same effect?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

Yes; I would move the Amendment I have put upon the Paper, with the addition of the words "as approved by the Secretary of State," after "Metropolis," in the last line, so that the Amendment will read— For the purpose of the erection thereon by the Board or other parties, for the use of the working classes, buildings disposed in streets, squares, or otherwise, with or without open spaces, with power for such Board, as to all or any part of such sites, to lease the same to other persons, to be used for the purposes aforesaid, or to exchange the same for other land to be applied for like purposes, or to convert by sale the same into money, to be invested in land to be applied for like purposes, so that the land taken by exchange or sale be situate within the Metropolis as approved by the Secretary of State. The price for such sites shall be.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to add the words "fair market price?"

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

Yes; at the end.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 37, to leave out the word "at," and insert the words proposed.—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'at' stand part of the Clause."

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

The words— Or to exchange the same for other land to be applied for like purposes, or to convert by sale the same into money, to be invested in land to be applied for like purposes, so that the land taken by exchange or sale be situate within the Metropolis as approved by the Secretary of State, are surely unnecessary. If a fair market value is to be taken, I do not see what object there can be in giving the Metropolitan Board this power of exchange or of converting into money.

SIR SYDNEY WATERLOW

said, he wished to propose an Amendment to the Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Member wish to add words?

SIR SYDNEY WATERLOW

I wish to propose an Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN

But does the hon. Member propose to add to the original Amendment? If he does, we must get the words of the original Amendment in the Bill first.

SIR SYDNEY WATERLOW

said, he wished to propose an alteration to the first part of the Amendment, so that it would read "for the purpose of the erection thereon by the Board by public competition." He had already fully explained his reasons for urging the acceptance of these words. He was surprised the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had not said one word as to the statement he (Sir Sydney Waterlow) had made about the Board by agreement letting large plots of land in the Metropolis at a price that had been distinctly, on the highest authority, stated to be far below what it would fetch if put up to public competiton. He wished to avoid that in the case of these prison sites. When the price was fixed by public competition no one could find fault.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, after the word "Board," to insert the words "by public competition."—(Sir Sydney Waterlow.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. FIRTH

said, he should like to put a question to the Home Secretary with regard to his proposal that the price should be the fair market value.

THE CHAIRMAN

We are now on another Amendment.

MR. BRYCE

said, he wished to call attention to a point which arose under an earlier portion of the Amendment. The Amendment contained the words "with or without open spaces."

MR. WARTON

That will come later on.

THE CHAIRMAN

The Amendment before the Committee is to insert, after the word "Board," the words "by public competition."

MR. BRYCE

said, he hoped the Government would not accept this Amendment, or that the hon. Baronet would withdraw it. It would tend to narrow the purposes to which the land could be put. They must consider the interests of the working classes for whose benefit this land was to be acquired.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

did not think this Amendment, even if agreed to, could have much effect owing to the words which went before. The Board could take the land for other purposes if they pleased.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, he desired to move to omit from the second line of the Amendment the words "for the use of," in order to insert the words "suitable for." He moved the Amendment, because he feared that the retention of the words "for the use of" might lead to trouble.

Amendment proposed, to amend the said proposed Amendment, in line 2, by leaving out the words "for the use of," in order to insert the words "suitable for."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, it was evident the hon. Member had not read the Report of the Committee.

MR. TOMLINSON

did not see what that had to do with his point at all. His point was that these words would con- stitute a trust with the precise letter of which it might not always be possible to comply. The words "suitable for" might obviate a great deal of difficulty.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. BRYCE

said, that if the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was satisfied with the words of the clause as they now stood, he (Mr. Bryce) would not trouble the Committee with an Amendment; but he certainly thought that the words "with open spaces to a suitable extent" would be better than "with or without open spaces."

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

I am satisfied with the words as they are.

MR. BRYCE

They are not sufficient. We should make ample provision for the keeping of open spaces.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

I would propose to leave out the words "or without," in order to insert the word "suitable."

MR. BRYCE

Agreed.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, in line 3, to omit the words "or without," in order to insert the word "suitable."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, he wished to move something before that, in line 4, after the word "Board," to insert the words "or other parties."

Amendment negatived.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

said, that in line 7 of the Amendment there was an extraordinary statement, which showed that the Queen's English was not always plain English. The Amendment said, "or to convert by sale the same into money." He proposed to leave out the words "by sale."

Amendment agreed to.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, that in order to make the clause clear, he should move, after "Metropolis," to add the words "having regard to the object for which they have to be used."

MR. FIRTH

wished to know whether the "fair market value" would be restricted to the purchase of sites for the purpose of erecting labourers' dwellings, or whether it was to be a fair market value for any purpose?

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

took it that there was no doubt as to the purpose.

MR. HORACE DAVEY

said, this illustrated the observation which he ventured to make some time ago. He had the greatest doubt in his mind as to what it meant; but he had not the slightest doubt that the Courts would hold that it meant the market value irrespective of the purpose.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

Strike out the words altogether.

MR. BRYCE

said, he did not move his Amendment in consequence of the Amendment which had been carried.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he did not understand. Had the right hon. Gentleman struck out these words or not?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, yes; he had struck them out.

MR. BRYCE

rose to Order. The Chairman had called upon him to move his Amendment, and he supposed that this matter was past and gone.

MR. FIRTH

begged to move the words.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, he would be glad to put back the words.

MR. BRYCE

asked, as a point of Order, whether the Chairman had not called upon him for his subsequent Amendment, and he (Mr. Bryce) said he should not move it? He begged to ask also, if that were so, whether it was not conclusive that the point was passed?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he did not think the Rule applied in this case. There was some confusion at that point, and he thought the words might be put back.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

May I ask where we are?

THE CHAIRMAN

It is proposed to amend the Amendment—after the word "Metropolis," to insert the words "having regard to the object for which they have to be used."

MR. ALBERT GREY,

on the point of Order, desired to know if the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had not risen in his place to move an Amendment in line 43, clearly showing that this point had been settled?

MR. JESSE COLLINGS,

on the point of Order, said, he had risen to put another point before line 43; but he was told that they had not come to that, and, therefore, he had not put it. These words had been put in to make the clause clear, and, therefore, he trusted that his hon. Friend would not endeavour by a side wind to interfere with it.

MR. PICTON

wished to make an appeal to the Home Secretary. He thought that they were all agreed that there was a strong feeling as to this clause, and as to the evil principle involved in selling land at its market value. At all events, what they understood that the right hon. Gentleman had conceded was that the land was not to be sold below its value. Now, the right hon. Gentleman had moved the addition of words which made it entirely different from what was understood, and which would have the effect of reducing the value of the land. It was a complete abandonment of the concession made, and he did ask that the clause should be restored to its original shape.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

remarked, that he had offered a compromise which was first accepted and then rejected, and, on a division, those who refused it were beaten. The words he now proposed to add would only make clear the principle he had held all through—that it was to be a fair market price for land for the erection of labourers' dwellings.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

reminded the right hon. Gentleman that at the time he seemed to think it was a very important Amendment he was making; but with the words which he was now adding it was really no concession at all.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

On the Motion of the SECRETARY of STATE (Sir R. Assheton Cross), the following Amendment made:—Page 4, line 43, after "respectively," insert— And that the sale may be made on condition of the cesser or transfer of any liability in respect of the maintenance of any road or embankment.

MR. CHEETHAM,

on behalf of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley), begged to move the Amend- ment standing in his hon. Friend's name, which was as follows:—Page 3, line 43, at end, add— Provided also, That, in the event of the above sites or any part of them being applied to the purposes of the Labouring Classes' Lodging Houses Act, such portions as, in the opinion of the Education Department, may be necessary for the purpose of erecting schools for the population so brought on to the above sites shall be reserved for the School Board for London, and the said School Board shall be empowered to buy such portions from the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury at a price not exceeding their fair market value.

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. TOMLINSON,

as an Amendment to the Amendment, wished to introduce, after the word "London," the words "or any public elementary school."

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 32: Majority 34.—(Div. List, No. 284.)

Question proposed, "That the words, as amended, be added to the Clause."

MR. JESSE COLLLNGS

begged leave to move that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. The Government, under the guise of a Bill for Housing the Poor, had supported a proposal which would virtually have the effect of subsidizing denominational schools.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, the hon. Member would see that was not so. If he had thought about the schools at all, he should have objected to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley). Having put in the School Board of London, he saw no reason why they should not put in the other public schools. The site for such a school would not be in any sense a gift, because the land would have to be purchased at the fair market value, and he saw no reason for making any difference.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, he quite understood operating for the benefit of the ratepayers, or of a body supported by the rates; but it was quite another matter to assist private institutions.

MR. ONSLOW

I rise to Order. The Question before the Committee is that you, Sir, do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he disliked the Amendment very much; but he would not advise the hon. Member (Mr. Jesse Collings) to persist in his Motion for reporting Progress.

MR. BROADHURST

said, he thought the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich had moved to report Progress on the ground that the London School Board was a Public Body, but that the other schools who would be admitted to the advantages of the clause were not. [Cries of "Question!" and "Order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN

I must call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that the Question before the Committee is that I do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. BROADHUEST

I am aware of that fact, Sir; but I understand it is always in Order to give reasons why we should report Progress. Of course, if you rule that no reasons are be given, I will sit down.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must not discuss the merits or demerits of any previous proposal.

MR. BROADHURST

said, he would not do so. The reason for moving to report Progress was that the Bill had entirely changed its character by the Amendment which had just been supported by the Government. Though the Government Tellers had not acted in the division, yet nearly every Member of the Government had supported the Amendment, and the Bill had entirely changed its character and no longer had any claim to the title which had been given it. He thought the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich should divide the Committee.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he would make an appeal to the hon. Gentleman not to divide. He had found that the words of the Amendment would not make sense, and on that ground more than on any other he opposed the proposal. If hon. Gentlemen would come up to the Table and look at the words of the Amendment they would see that they would not read. They would give power to the London School Board to take land for denominational schools, so far as he could see—a thing which the London School Board could not do.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 22; Noes 82: Majority 60.—(Div. List, No. 285.)

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

I would suggest that the difficulty should be met by abandoning the whole Amendment. These words would be mere nonsense.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

I agree. Nothing is further from my intention than to introduce any religious element in this Bill, or to raise a question as between the school board and voluntary schools. I would propose to leave out the whole Amendment.

Question, "That the words, as amended, be added to the Clause," put, and negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

MR. ALBERT GREY

said, he wished to propose that the clause be struck out of the Bill. [A laugh.] The right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) laughed; but they must remember that they had been discussing the Bill for three hours under an entire misconception as to what were the principles of the Government with regard to it. The measure raised some important principles, and the House was bound not to pass it without understanding what it meant. Unless the Government withdrew the whole clause, as they had withdrawn the Amendment dealing with school boards and denominational schools, the effect of the provision there was no doubt would be to transfer the property of the State at a sum far below its market value to a small section of the community. There was no doubt about that whatsoever. What loss the State would sustain was uncertain, but it had been estimated at a large sum—amounting to £400,000 or £500,000. Now he, as the Representative of the electors of a large constituency in the North of England, objected to the loss that they as members of the State would sustain in consenting to the State parting with their property at a sum so much below its real value. There was one argument which he would especially present to the attention of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The effect of this Bill was to give Parliamentary sanction to the giving away of the unearned increment in the case of State property to a small section of the community. ["Oh, oh!"] An hon. Friend below grumbled at the phrase, "small section of the community;" but the clause would not affect the whole of the people of England. They were going to sell the prison at Millbank at a sum below its value. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. A. J. Balfour) yesterday afternoon made use of the argument that the people of London had suffered injury through losses sustained under various Act of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the Acts which had legalized the construction of the Midland Railway Terminus and a similar group of works. But, after all, what argument was that? Because the people of St. Pancras had suffered, the people living in the neighbourhood of Millbank Prison were to get housing below its market value! Such an argument as that would not hold water. If a certain section of the community were entitled to receive unearned increment because the Government could put its finger upon certain Acts of Parliament which had done injury to the people of London where were they to stop? It would be just as good an argument to say that because a certain number of people in the country had largely suffered owing to the policy of Protection being done away with 40 years ago, therefore unearned increment attaching to the State property should go to them. It would not be a difficult thing to prove that most people had suffered in consequence of most Acts of Parliament; but the fact of their having so suffered was no reason why Parliament should now come forward and make them a present of property which belonged to the whole State. The principle on which he based his objection to the clause was that it was practically by Act of Parliament giving over the unearned increment to a portion of the community. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said that that was not the case; but he was a Member of great dialectical subtlety—he could cavil on the ninth part of a hair with great in- genuity, but the electorate had not the same ingenuity as the right hon. Gentleman. All they could see was that by this Bill, brought in by the Marquess of Salisbury, and introduced into this House by a Conservative Government, the unearned increment was taken and devoted to a certain portion of the community because it was contended that that increment bad resulted from that community. That was a principle that his hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Ceilings) intended to push. The hon. Member was, he believed, about to agitate the country on that principle, and to point to the example of the Marquess of Salisbury and the House of Lords, and say—?"What the Marquess of Salisbury declares is right, we also declare is right, and we ask you to push the principle a little further." Whether hon. Members liked it or not, they would have to face an agitation on that principle if they passed this Bill—they would have an Act of Parliament at which the finger of the agitator—it might be an ignorant agitator—would be pointed, and pointed with effect. Those agitators would point to this Act of Parliament, and would call upon the electors to support similar proposals. If the Committee wished to prevent that agitation the best thing it could do would be to drop this clause out of the Bill altogether. If the Government did that, he was sure that the effect would be to sustain and speed the passage of the Bill through the House.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

said, he had much pleasure in seconding the proposal of the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. A. Grey) to strike this clause out of the Bill, and he did so especially on the first ground that the hon. Member had put forward. The question seemed to stand thus. Take Pentonville and Coldbath Fields; they had been bought with the money of the whole country—of Londoners, of the inhabitants of Northumberland, of Staffordshire, Warwickshire, and all other parts of England—tho property was the property of the whole country. What was it that was proposed to be done with it? A certain course of things had brought into the neighbourhood of the land upon which those prisons stood a great number of inhabitants. Those inhabitants had been living there, benefiting the whole of the property of Lon- don; therefore, anything done for their benefit ought to be paid for out of the rates by the ratepayers of London. Those people had increased the value of the property of those very ratepayers. The persons who ought to support those poor people were those who had had their property increased in value by those poor people coming amongst them. What was it the Committee were going to do? Why, they were going to take, by this clause, the property of the people of England, and dispose of it for the purpose of easing the rates of the ratepayers of London. That was manifestly unfair and unjust. As to the other statements of the hon. Member, he (Mr. Staveley Hill) contended that on every principle of justice this clause had no right to be in the Bill. They had no right to take the property of the people of England and sell it for the purpose of easing the rates of the ratepayers of London, who ought to pay any extraordinary charge for the maintenance of those people who had enhanced the value of their property.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he had already alluded to this clause in what he had said with regard to this Bill yesterday; but it must be remembered that the State was unable to make an equitable use of its property. ["No, no!"] Yes; unless they gave statutory powers, the State would not be able to make an equitable use of this property. They would be obliged to exact the utmost farthing. Under the 12th clause of the Bill, it would be seen that they were giving private owners the same power which it was proposed by this clause to give to the State. These provisions said that, having regard to the circumstances of particular localities—such as the crowded parts of Finsbury, the like of which was not to be seen anywhere else in the United Kingdom—the State should be able to do—so said the 3rd clause—what they were enabling private owners to do by other parts of the Bill. They had had it in evidence on the Commission that the Duke of Westminster was altering his settlements—that in making new ones he had put into them terms similar to those which had been introduced into Section 12 of this Bill. Unless such a power was given to the State, the State would be unable to do anything of the kind, and would be obliged to exact the utmost farthing of its right. That was a case for the clause which had not yet been made in this discussion.

MR. STOREY

said, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) must have been very hard pushed for an argument when he resorted to the one which he had just addressed to the Committee. Under the 12th clause, he said, they allowed the owners of settled estates to do this very thing; but the owners of settled estates only dealt with their own property. They did not deal with his (Mr. Storey's) property; and he maintained that what they were now doing under the 3rd clause was to take public property—that was, his property, for one, for he had an interest in it as well as the rest of the public—and give it to the people of London. He wished the Committee exactly to understand, just once for all, what his views on this matter were, and he desired to state them now, so that it might not be necessary for him to trouble the Committee with them again. He did not object to these sites being acquired for building houses for the working classes of the country—on the contrary, he should very much desire that these sites should be so applied—and he did not object to the people of London obtaining the benefit of them, if they were purchased through their constituted authorities out of the rates. If the Bill authorized the State to sell to the Municipality of London, or allowed a competition in which the Metropolitan Board of Works, as representing the ratepayers of London, might take a part in acquiring these sites at a fair value, he should not have objected to its being allowed to do so. This was a matter that concerned London, and was one for the ratepayers of London to consider; but what were they now proposing to do? They were proposing to take the property which belonged to the people in the North quite as much as to the people in the South, and to appropriate it for the erection of dwellings for the benefit of the South. He was not going to give the Government the somewhat Jesuitical advice that some of his Radical Friends had given, for some of them had advised the Government to proceed in this course, believing it to be the first step on a steep and slippery declivity down which, when they had once commenced the descent, they would roll very quickly. He wanted to deal honestly with them, and he did not wish them to take that course, for he wished to tell them that, if they did, he knew very well what would follow. In his own town of Sunderland, they were as badly off in this respect as the people in London. They had spent £90,000 out of their own pockets to obtain decent dwellings for working men and artizans. They had no public property in Sunderland; but if Parliament took the property of the State and applied it to the benefit of the people of London, depend upon it they would come with trumpet-tongue from Sunderland and say—"We have no public property in the North; you have public property in the South, by means of which you have benefited the people of the South; devote some of your public property to our benefit also." He was not very much surprised to see some Members of the Government adopting that course; but he saw on the Front Bench opposite some hon. Members who had in past times both written and spoken much more sensible and reasonable things on this subject than the Committee was hearing from them now. They used to take a much wiser and more Conservative view of matters; and he now counselled them not to take this step, which they seemed bent upon taking that night, because it was not merely Socialistic—that he could forgive—but it was unjust; and they had no right to apply a principle of injustice in dealing with public property.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

said, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had used an argument which was not quite correct, because this clause contained a provision stating that this property might be bought at cost price, and he was not aware of any settlement either of the Duke of Westminster or anyone else which contained, or was likely to contain, any such provision. The clause contained at the end the following Proviso:— Provided that the price shall not be less than the price paid for the land when it was purchased on behalf of Her Majesty or of the county of Middlesex respectively. That meant that the land was to be purchased at cost price. Some hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House were inclined to think that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had made a compromise that even- ing; but he (Mr. Arnold) called it a delusion. It was no concession whatever, and the clause would contain in the Proviso now in it all the objectionable features which had been mentioned on the second reading and on the Motion for going into Committee. He wished to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the remarks of the Leader of the House (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) himself, when at an earlier hour of the evening he had defined what contentious matter was. The right hon. Baronet had stated that if they regarded as contentious matter that which was subject of debate none of their proceedings of the past three months would have taken place. But the last three months were not in question. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Three weeks, I said.] He begged the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. He also had been alluding to a question of weeks. The right hon. Baronet had proceeded to define contentious matter as matter upon which the House was fairly divided. He would ask the right hon. Baronet whether, after the last division but one, which showed that the opponents of the clause numbered more than half its supporters, he did not regard the Committee as fairly divided in opinion? Without going into the question of division he (Mr. Arnold) would call the attention of the right hon. Baronet to the speeches which had been made in regard to this clause from both sides of the House. From that side of the House the majority of speeches—like those of the hon. Members for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), and West Staffordshire (Mr. Staveley Hill), had all been against the clause; whilst on the other side of the House, with the exception of the two Metropolitan Members—the right hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) and the hon. Alderman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence)—all the speeches had been against the clause, except those of his hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) and the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst), who had avowedly supported the clause because they thought that in the future they might be able to claim the increment of value not only upon the property of the State, but also upon the property of the Marquess of Salisbury in London. He warned his hon. Friends that that was a delusion. It was like the Amendment which came from the Benches opposite. There was no question whatever that the principle adopted in this clause did strengthen the contention of his hon. Friend as to the public having a right to share in the increment of value but the error his hon. Friend made was this. They supported the clause because they believed that through the whole increment of value being given to the population of London, therefore in the case of private owners they could equitably claim the whole of the increment of value. They were right in the contention that the clause did strengthen their expectation—it did confirm the public right to a share in the increment of value in the Metropolis and throughout the Kingdom. Take another case. A year or two ago Her Majesty's Government proposed to take a small strip of land in St. James's Park for the purpose of erecting on it the new War and Admiralty Offices. There was a very strong claim indeed on the part of the people of London to the possession of the land. The last penny, however, was demanded by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to be paid down for the few yards of ground taken from the St. James's Park for the site of that building. From the point of view of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, this was a fair transaction; but, in his opinion, it was one which it was impossible to defend. The proceedings of the Committee on the clause now under discussion surely proved that Her Majesty's Government had not observed the pledge they had given the House not to proceed with any contentious Business. The opinion of the Committee was certainly fairly divided upon the clause, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that when that was the case upon any question, after the Government had given a pledge not to proceed with contentious matter, that question ought to be allowed to drop. If the Government were well-advised in this matter, they would certainly not proceed further with the clause; for unless they consented to abandon it a very small amount of confidence would be felt in their promises upon either side of the House in the future.

MR. HORACE DAVEY

said, that earlier in the evening he had expressed the strong objection he felt to the clause, and he had no desire to repeat anything he had already said. He wished, however, to express his astonishment at the theory which had been started by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the nature and character of contentious Business. He should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have been satisfied by that time that the clause evidently amounted to contentious Business. The right hon. Gentleman said—"Let us have a division to test it;" but the right hon. Gentleman forgot that many right hon. and hon. Members had left the House for the country on the faith of what was understood to be a promise by the Government that no contentious Business would be taken. Had not the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer been so understood, he felt sure that many hon. Members who took an interest in the question would have made arrangements to be present during the discussion upon the clause. He would point out to the Government that less than one-fifth of the Members of the House were now present. Of course, under such circumstances, at the end of a Session, the Government had great advantages, because it had the votes of the Members of the Government itself, as well as those of hon. Gentlemen who supported it, on this matter. He had not heard any observations in reply to the remarks of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) and other hon. Gentlemen as to the strong opinions which were entertained against the clause. It had by no means been shown that the clause would operate for the benefit of the working classes, as it was intended to do. It proposed to give power to the Justices of Middlesex to sell land to the Metropolitan Board of Works at a reduced price, and the Metropolitan Board would be enabled either to build houses themselves or to grant land to other people for that purpose. Suppose they built houses themselves—and he should decidedly object to their doing so—what on earth was there in the clause to show what rents they should charge for them? The Metropolitan Board was left absolutely free to charge any rent they pleased, so that they would be able to impose competitive or rack-rents upon the working classes. Suppose, on the other hand, they granted leases. Such leases would, he presumed, be granted to builders who would undertake to build houses for the working classes; and the builders—although, no doubt, they would be benevolent persons—would not be actuated in the matter entirely by philanthropic motives. They would invest their money in the houses they put up with a view to profit; and what was to prevent them letting the houses, when erected, to the artizans of the Metropolis at any rents they pleased? There might be something in the clause which would prevent them, but he had certainly not been able to discover any provision of that character. Perhaps, if such a safeguard existed, the Home Secretary would tell the Committee where to find it? As far as he could discover, there was really nothing in the clause which, in the least degree, restricted the Metropolitan Board, or the builders, from letting the houses, when they were erected, at competitive rents. Under these circumstances, the great boon and advantage which the clause proposed to confer on the working classes would not reach their hands, or tend to reduce the rents they would have to pay; but would operate either to the benefit of the ratepayers of the Metropolis, or, if the Metropolitan Board granted leases, as would probably be the case, to men who built with a view of making a profit, it would result in enabling them to obtain the leases at lower rates, and to charge competitive rents to those who became the inhabitants of the houses. The effect would, therefore, probably be that the builders, and not the working classes, would obtain the benefits which were sought to be conferred upon the latter.

MR. BUCHANAN

said, that although he had in the division which had already taken place voted with the hon. Members who had initiated the discussion, he had not yet addressed the Committee, and he wished now to state why he was strongly opposed to this clause. As to the question of what was and what was not contentious Business, he thought that contentious matter might be regarded as matter which involved a disputed principle; and certainly the clause involved a principle of a highly contentious character. The question of principle now at issue was whether Parliament ought, or ought not, to make a large grant in aid, out of the public funds, to the ratepayers of the Metropolis. It was proposed to make such a grant at the most dangerous moment that could have been selected—that was to say, on the eve of a General Election which would involve a large increase—in the representation of the Metropolis. Considering that there were some 60 seats in the Metropolis, under the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill, and that all of them were to be contested, it was impossible to shut one's eyes to the consequences which must ensue from the adoption of such a clause as that under discussion. The Committee had seen the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Alderman Lawrence) acting together on this question in a way in which he did not think they had ever acted together on a Metropolitan question before. The clause involved a question of public morality, and the Government were settting a bad precedent, which might result in grave danger to the nation at large.

MR. CAUSTON

remarked, that he had taken no part in the discussion of the various Amendments which had been brought forward; but he could not allow the debate upon this clause to close without joining in the appeal which had been made to the Government in regard to it. He could quite understand that, from the point of view of the London ratepayers, it would be highly desirable that they should have national property handed over to one of their Governing Bodies without any expense whatever. But the property under discussion belonged as much to his constituents as it did to those who lived in London or in other towns, and he could not see his way to support a clause which did an act of injustice to those whose interests in this property were equal with those of the ratepayers of London. In fact, he protested against his constituents being taxed for the benefit of the Metropolitan ratepayers.

MR. TOMLINSON

thought the Committee ought not to be allowed to go to a division upon the clause under any misapprehension. As he understood the section, as modified in Committee, it did not really give to the working classes of London what had been called a great boon. The proposal, as it now stood, was that the land might be acquired by the Metropolitan Board at a fair market value, having regard to the fact that it was to be used for building houses. He did not know the relative values of land intended as a site for houses and land meant to be used as a site for factories in the Metropolis; but in the manufacturing districts land was usually sold at a lower price for factories than for houses. When, therefore, hon. Members talked about giving an unearned increment to the people of London, they ought to be careful that they were not exaggerating what the clause was intended to do. The reason on which the propriety of restricting the purpose to which the land was to be applied was based was that in past times Parliament had authorized the appropriation of large portions of land occupied by the houses of the working classes to public objects, and that, consequently, it owed something to those classes. If, therefore, the clause had the limited effect which he believed it had, it would not, he thought, go beyond what was fair. At the same time, he could not but feel that the clause did seem to involve some contentious matter.

MR. BRYCE

said, he had no desire to continue the discussion respecting the merits or demerits of the clause, but wished to make one more appeal to the Government upon the subject. He really did put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the course of the debate upon the clause did not conclusively show that the matter it involved was contentious Business, such as the right hon. Gentleman stated six weeks ago would not be proceeded with? There was evidently a great deal of disagreement in the Committee, and a large number of Members entertained the most serious objections to the proposals which the section contained. Surely the Government must remember that those hon. Members who had gone into the country had done so on the faith of the promise which had been made that no sort of contentious Business would be brought forward, and in the belief that the pledge the Government had given would be loyally adhered to. Were not Ministers taking an unfair advantage of the absence of those hon. Members to press a clause of this kind? He was sure the Government did not wish to violate the pledge they had given; but, in point of fact, they would violate that pledge if they continued to press the clause. Let them not rely upon the fact that they had obtained a large majority in the division upon the Motion to go into Committee on the Bill. The arguments of the opponents of the clause had been addressed to empty Benches, and when the division was called the supporters of the Government flocked into the House and voted as directed by their Whips. That was not the kind of majority that was contemplated by the Constitution in a matter of this kind. There ought to be a substantial majority of the Members of the House upon a question which, like this, involved a far-reaching principle, and not a majority consisting of Members who did not enter the House until the division bells were rung. He appealed to the Government to consider what would be their moral position in the appreciation of those hon. Members who had gone into the country, and what such Members would think of a Ministry which passed a clause of this kind under such circumstances and in such a thin House. If the Government gave way on this point, he could assure them that the rest of the Bill would pass with little or no trouble, because this was the only clause to which any serious objection was entertained.

MR. PELL

said, that before the debate concluded he desired to draw attention to the differences in the proposals made by the Government. Ministers were content to sell Government property at a price below its real value in the interests of the poor. They said the question was one of such paramount importance to the poor that they were willing to sacrifice a great principle and to sell State property under its proper value. But when those who had charge of the Bill came to deal with similar property belonging to the county, they set aside the principle which guided them in regard to State property, and they protected the ratepayers of Middlesex by saying that the land should not be devoted to the purpose intended unless the Justices of the Peace of the county of Middlesex should think fit. They threw overboard the paramount interest of the poor—that interest which, he believed, had guided them in a wrong direotion—they cast it aside when they came to deal with county property. They said—"We will not do what we have some suspicion is not quite right unless the Justices of the Peace agree with us in doing it." It was evident that whoever counselled the drafting of the Bill had in their minds a very grave doubt whether they were doing right. They thought that public opinion would carry them through in dealing with State property; but they were afraid to face the Justices of Middlesex, who, no doubt, would be harassed by the ratepayers of the county if they agreed to part with their property on any other than the best possible terms. If the clause were passed, what would be its effect in other cases? In the very centre of the principal town of the county which he represented (South Leicestershire) was a large portion of property owned by the county. The Castle of Leicester, which had great historical associations, and a very large tract of ground, including that covered by the Militia buildings, belonged to the county. At some not very distant time he knew it was contemplated to part with this land. If the present clause were passed, in what position would the magistrates of the county of Leicester be if the borough of Leicester, quoting this 3rd clause as a precedent, interfered with the sale of county property in the interests of the labouring classes of Leicester, and insisted that a valuation should be put upon it in order that every opportunity might be given for the erection of artizans' dwellings? If the Committee passed this clause, it would, as a consequence, reduce the selling value of every acre of land in the Kingdom belonging to counties. If, under these circumstances, the clause did not involve contentious matter, he did not know what would, and he could not see why the Government should not cut the proposal out of the Bill. It was not universal philanthropy, but London philanthropy, that animated the supporters of the clause. Why confine all this goodness to London? The reason was that the Government had got hold of State property in London, and they thought they could deal with it in a manner to render themselves acceptable to the electors of the Metropolis. The arguments which had been used in the course of the debate were, he thought, sufficiently strong to show that there was great doubt whether, on the whole, such a use of this land as was proposed would be the most beneficial to the poor. An hon. Member had said that it would be better to leave the prison sites as open spaces, He (Mr. Pell) did not understand that the hon. Gentleman meant they should be given by the Treasury for such a purpose; but that a price might be paid for them. Depend upon it, a great open space would be one of the most desirable things to have in the midst of a crowded population, and he did not know that the authorities would be doing the best they could for the people in building over the prison sites. Those being his views on the question, he hoped the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Albert Grey) would divide the Committee, and that the Government would hesitate still more before they consented to facilitate the progress of this clause.

MR. DILLWYN

trusted that the Government would yield to the appeal which had been made to them in regard to this clause, although he did not agree with every word which had been said against it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had given a very decided pledge that no contentious Business should be taken at the end of the Session, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to say whether he could now doubt that this was a contentious clause. He knew the right bon. Gentleman had listened to the debate with great attention, and that he must have heard many speakers condemning it on one ground or another, especially on the very strong ground that many Members who had left town would have opposed the clause if they had not thought it would have been regarded as contentious, and, therefore, would not have been pressed.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that when he last spoke on the subject he had ventured to point out what appeared to him to be the difference between non-contentious and contentious Business, and he bad appealed to the result of the division in which six voted on one side against something like 60 on the other. Since that time there bad been another division, in which he was bound to admit that the minority of six had increased to 20.

An hon. MEMBER: No; 30.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

No; that was on another point.

An hon. MEMBER: It was the same principle.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the division to which he referred showed that 20 Members opposed the clause. Well, he did not think that quite bore out the contention of the hon. M ember for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), that there was a large number of Members who were opposed to the clause. Twenty was not a large number. What he would suggest to the Committee was this—that they might now fairly come to a division upon the clause, and if the result of that division was to show an increasing number against the clause the Government would not proceed with it.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 29: Majority 46.—(Div. List, No. 286.)

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

begged to move that the Chairman do now report Progress, in order to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity for stating what course he proposed to take, as there bad been an increased vote on the Opposition side of the House.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Arthur Arnold.)

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he did not think it would be right to discuss the subject now. He quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman that the minority was increasing, and, therefore, what he proposed to do was to leave the clause as it stood for the present, and to amend the words relating to the value on Report.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment of Artisans' Dwellings Acts, 1868 to 1882.

Clause 4 (Amendment of 31 & 32 Vic. c. 130, and 42 & 43 Vic. c. 64. 45 & 46 Vic. c 54.)

MR. J. R. HOLLOND moved to omit "Sub-section (2.)" When the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross) was speaking on this sub-section yesterday, he spoke of it as if it applied only to Vestries in the Metropolis. He (Mr. Hollond) could not help thinking that when this sub-section was drawn the draftsman had in his mind the difficulty experienced in inducing Vestries to carry out Torrens's Acts. If that was so, there was nothing whatever in the sub-section which limited it to the Metropolis.

Amendment proposed, to leave out Sub-section (2.)—(Mr. Hollond.)

Question proposed, "That the subsection stand part of the Clause."

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

assented to the Amendment.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he did not think he could offer any objection to this sub-section being omitted.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment of Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Improvement Acts.

Clause 5 (Amendment of 38 & 39 Vic. c. 36, s. 8, and schedule; 42 & 43 Vic. c. 63; 45 & 46 Vic. c. 54, schedule).

On Motion of The SECRETARY of STATE (Sir R. Assheton Cross), the following Amendment made:—Page 5, line 25, leave out "in England," and insert "in the United Kingdom."

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

proposed to insert, as separate paragraphs, after line 25— (2.) In either of the following cases:

1. (a.) Where an officer of health has reported to any local authority in the metropolis, exclusive of the City of London, either in pursuance of 'The Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Act, 1868,' that any premises are in a condition or state dangerous to health, so as to be unfit for human habitation, or in pursuance of section eight of 'The Artizans' Dwellings Act, 1832,' that the pulling down of any obstructive buildings would be expedient, and such authority resolve that the case of such premises or buildings is of such general importance to the Metropolis that it should be dealt with by a scheme under the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Improvement Acts, 1875 to 1882; or
2. (b.) Where any such official representation as mentioned in section three of 'The Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Improvement Act, 1875,' has been made to the Metropolitan Board of Works in relation to any houses, courts, or alleys within a certain area, and the Metropolitan Board of Works resolve that the case of such houses, courts, or alleys, is not of general importance to the Metropolis, and should be dealt with under the Artisans' Dwellings Acts 1868 to 1882: 1822 such local authority or board may submit such resolution to one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, and thereupon the Secretary of State may appoint an arbitrator, and direct him to hold a local inquiry, and such arbitrator shall hold such inquiry, and report to the Secretary of State as to whether, having regard to the size of the area, to the number of houses to be dealt with, to the position, structure, and sanitary condition of such houses, and of the neighbourhood thereof, and to the provisions of section three of 'The Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Improvement Act, 1875,' the case is either wholly or partially of any and what importance to the Metropolis at large, with power to such arbitrator to report that in the event of the case being dealt with under the Artizans' Dwellings Acts, 1868 to 1882, the Metropolitan Board of Works ought to make a contribution in respect of the expense of dealing with the case. The Secretary of State, after considering the report of the arbitrator, may, according as to him seems just, decide that the case shall be dealt with either under the Artizans' Dwellings Acts, 1868 to 1882, or under the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Improvement Acts, 1875 to 1882, and the officer of health or other proper officer shall forth with make the report or official representation necessary for proceedings in accordance with such decision."

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

entirely approved of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, but desired to ask a question with reference to it. According to his speech on the second reading, the right hon. Gentleman thought that the Metropolitan Board should be subject to the High Court of Justice—that was to say, that the High Court of Justice should have power by mandamus to carry out the schemes of the Artizans' Dwellings Act. What he wished to know was whether the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman now proposed would have that effect—whether it would be competent for the Home Secretary or any individual to apply to the High Court of Justice to call upon the Metropolitan Board or other Local Authority to carry out the schemes under the Artizans' Dwellings Act?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, that when he spoke the other night, he had in his mind another Amendment to the clause, in which there was to be a special application to the High Court.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, the practice in such cases was, as the right hon. Gentleman knew, for the Secretary of State to send down an Inspector to report upon the matter. Let him mention the sort of case which might arise. Sup- pose that in a parish or district certain houses were a discredit to the neighbourhood in which they were, and should be pulled down. If the parish authorities made a scheme, it was brought before the confirming authority, and the Metropolitan Board of Works were expected to do the work. If the Metropolitan Board of Works refused to do it, the parish complaining applied to the Secretary of State, who sent down an Inspector to report. The Report might possibly be to the effect that the work was so small that it ought to be done by the Local Authority. He presumed the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was moving this Amendment so that he might compel the one or the other to do the work?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, that supposing a scheme was sent up to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and they said it ought to be carried out by the Vestry, then the Secretary of State had power to send down a gentleman to report as to what was best to be done. Upon that Report the Secretary of State would decide who ought to undertake the work. An Order would be issued in the ordinary way, and the Metropolitan Board of Works would not then be able to say it was too small, and ought to be done by the Vestry.

MR. J. R. HOLLOND

presumed the Secretary of State might suggest to the Metropolitan Board of Works that they might make a contribution?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

Yes.

Question put, and agreed to.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS) moved to leave out the 2nd sub-section (2), in line 26.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment at to Interest on Public Works Loans.

Clause 6 (Rates of loan by Public Works Loan Commissioners) agreed to.

Amendment of General Sanitary Law, &c.

Clause 7 (General duty of Local Authority to enforce the law) agreed to.

Clause 8 (Amendment of 38 & 39 Vic. c. 55, s. 90) agreed to.

Clause 9 (Bye-laws for hop and fruit pickers) struck out.

Clause 10 (Tents and vans used for human habitation.

On Motion of The SECRETARY of STATE (Sir R. Assheton Cross), the following Amendments made:—Page 7, line 24, after "vans," insert "sheds."

Page 7, line 28, at end of line, insert as fresh paragraphs— (3.) Where any person duly authorised by a sanitary authority or by a justice of the peace has reasonable cause to suppose either that there is any contravention of the provisions of this Act or any bye-law made under this Act in any tent, van, shed, or similar structure used for human habitation, or that there is in any such tent, van, shed, or structure any person suffering from a dangerous infectious disorder, he may on producing (if demanded) either a copy of his authorisation purporting to be certified by the clerk or a member of the sanitary authority or some other sufficient evidence of his being authorised as aforesaid, enter by day such tent, van, shed, or structure, and examine the same and every part thereof in order to ascertain whether in such tent, van, shed, or structure there is any contravention of any such bye-law or a person suffering from a dangerous infectious disorder. (4.) For the purposes of this section 'day' means the period between six o'clock in the morning and the succeeding nine o'clock in the evening. (5.) If such person is obstructed in the performance of his duty under this section, the person so obstructing shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding forty shillings. (6.) This section shall apply to the Metropolis, with the substitution of section nineteen of 'The Sanitary Act, 1866,' for section ninety-one of 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' and of nuisance authority, under the Nuisance Removal Acts, for sanitary authority.

Line 29, after "van," insert "shed."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11 (Application of certain provisions as to bye-laws and local inquiries) agreed to.

Clause 12 (Amendment of 45 & 46 Vic. c. 38, as regards the erection of buildings for working classes) agreed to.

Clause 13 (Condition to be implied on letting unfurnished house).

MR. HORACE DAVEY

proposed to leave out the Preamble of the clause. He did not see the necessity of the Preamble; besides, in his opinion, it amounted to an erroneous statement of the law, and he did not like to cryatalize on the Statute Book so doubtful a statement of law. In proposing his Amendment he did not mean to differ from the principle which he understood was intended to be embodied in the clause— namely, that when a house was let for habitation it was implied by law that the house was fit for the purpose for which it was let. He did not dispute that principle; and he was quite ready to agree to the passing of a clause to that effect. He did not know whether the Home Secretary had done him the honour to look at the clause be had put on the Paper; but if he had, he would find that that clause carried out the principle in view directly, instead of indirectly, as this clause did. He thought it would be better to leave out the clause altogether, and frame a new one which directly asserted the principle, and made unfitness, as this clause did not, a ground for rescinding the contract, rather than for recovering of damages.

Amendment proposed, In page 8, line 30, to leave out from the word "Whereas," to the word "that," in line 31.— (Mr. Horace Davey.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. HOPWOOD

said, his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Horace Davey) had made some very pertinent remarks upon this clause; and he thought the Home Secretary would do well to agree to the Amendment. The Preamble added no strength at all to the clause. He presumed the intention of Parliament was that a house must be structurally defective before this clause could be put in force. It was not intended that the clause should apply because a house was small, or had a slate off; but that it was in such a condition as to be likely to breed disease amongst those who occupied it, especially from unseen and unknown causes. Would it not be well that the clause should read something in this way— Wherever the Sanitary Authority or inmates discovered there was something structurally wrong they should have the right of action, if necessary, against the landlord in order to remedy it. If that was the idea of the right hon. Gentleman it could be shown in very simple terms, and without disturbing the law of the land.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, he was not responsible for the drafting of this clause, and he had no objection to the Preamble being struck out; but he could not consent to the whole of the clause being struck out. The Bill had been before the House for some time, and he thanked the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) for having been the only Member who had ventured to improve the Bill by drawing up a new clause in substitution of one he proposed to omit. If other hon. Members had done the same, greater progress might have been made with the measure. He himself had thought there were certain modifications of this clause necessary. He did not himself object to applying the principle of the clause to all houses; but he thought that in this particular Bill it was better to confine themselves to small houses. Then the clause might be so modified as to provide that in any contract made after the passing of the Act, for the letting for habitation by the working classes of any house, there should be an implied condition that the house, at such time of letting, was in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation. The clause would then run— In any contract made after the passing of this Act for letting for habitation by persons of the working classes a house or part of a house, there shall be implied a condition that at the time of letting the house is an all respects reasonably fit for such human habitation. He had no objection to accept the clause as he had modified it, striking out, as proposed, the Preamble.

Question put, and negatived.

Question, "That the words from "that," in line 31, to "that," in line 33, be left out of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

proposed to insert, after "contract," in page 8, line 34, "made after the passing of this Act."

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. HORACE DAVEY

suggested it would be better to say "in any lease or contract for letting."

MR. STAVELEY HILL

thought it would be sufficient to say "in any demise of a furnished or unfurnished house."

Amendment agreed to.

On Motion of The SECRETARY of STATE (Sir E. Assheton Cross) the following Amendments made:—Page 8, line 34, after "habitation," insert "by persons of the working classes; "line 34, leave out "an unfurnished," insert "a;" line 35, leave out "an unfurnished," insert "a."

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

suggested that after "is," in line 36, the words "at the date of the contract "be inserted.

SIR SYDNEY WATERLOW

thought it would be better to say "at the time of the letting."

SIR HENRY JAMES

was of opinion that the words used should be "at the commencement of the holding."

Question, "That the words 'at the commencement of the holding 'be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. STOREY

thought it would be as well to strike out the rest of the clause. He did not know what "reasonably" meant.

SIR HENRY JAMES

wished to point out what was merely a clerical error. The word "is" ought to be "shall be."

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, that "reasonably fit for human habitation" seemed to him to be the proper words.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the Amendment now before the Committee was to leave out the word "such."

Question, "That the word 'such 'stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Question, "That the word 'human' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, that after the word "habitation" he would like to put the following Amendment:— Provided the term 'reasonably fit for human habitation' shall be held to include a sufficient and convenient supply of water to the house in respect of which the water rates have to be paid by the landlord. He moved that because the condition of drains would have to be considered in the matter of whether it was fit for habita- tion, and without a supply of water it could not be. They knew that if there was one thing they found more often than another, in regard to labourers' dwellings, it was the absence of a supply of water; and he thought that a clause such as this to compel owners of property to give a good supply of water would tend more than anything else towards healthy habitations.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

considered that the object which the hon. Member had in view was fully carried out by the clause as it stood at present.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, that if it was the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman that the words of the clause did cover this point, then he was satisfied.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, that, having got down so far, he thought they might leave out the rest of the clause for the purpose of putting in these words, which were on the Notice Paper— In this section the expression 'letting for habitation by members of the working classes' means the letting for habitation of a house or part of a house at a rent not exceeding in England the sum named as the limit for the composition of rates by section three of 'The Poor Rate Assessment or Collection Act, 1869,' and in Ireland four pounds. Therefore, he moved to leave out to the end of the clause.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

SIR ROBERT FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)

said, he had undertaken to move an Amendment for the hon. Member for Mid Surrey (Sir Whittaker Ellis); but as those words were to be struck out there was no necessity for him to move it.

MR. ONSLOW

remarked that the Home Secretary had said that this was a Bill for the purely working classes. If that were so, there could be no harm whatever in letting these words remain in the clause.

MR. HORACE DAVEY

said, the reason for leaving them out was because they did not determine the remedy. They did not say that the tenant should terminate the demise, or do anything else.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

did not think it mattered very much, because he thought that any tenant who found himself in that position would very soon terminate the demise.

Amendment agreed to.

SIR SYDNEY WATERLOW

said, he would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell them why he had not put in the words "twenty pounds." They had put in "four pounds" in the case of Ireland, but they had not put in the exact amount in regard to England. Unless the right hon. Gentleman had some good reason for not doing so, he thought they should put in "twenty pounds." There was no reason why they should be compelled to go to another Act of Parliament to see what the amount was.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

said, that he wished to show where the proposal came from; and, therefore, he had inserted the words as they were in the Amendment.

MR. INCE

did not see why they could not put in the actual amount. There was nothing so needlessly inconvenient to practitioners as the practice of sending them from statute to statute in order to ascertain the real effect of an enactment.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

thought that after the words "Act, 1869," they might insert the words "namely, twenty pounds."

Amendment proposed, to insert after "1869" the words "namely, twenty pounds."

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

LORD BURGHLEY

did not think that his Amendment was wanted now.

Supplemental.

Clause 14 (Definitions).

On Motion of The SECRETARY of STATE (Sir R. Assheton Cross) the following Amendment made:—Page 9, line 8, after "authority," insert "and contributory place."

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, he had an Amendment in line 14. He begged to move to leave out the words "half an" and insert "one." The object of the Amendment was to provide that the expression "cottage" might include a garden of "one "acre instead of "half an" acre. He laid great stress upon that, because it would make all the difference to those people whom it was intended to benefit, and who might do much better if they had an additional half acre. They might do better with one acre; but as the clause now stood they would not be able to have more than half an acre.

Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 14, to leave out the words "half an," and insert the word "one,"— (Mr. Jesse Collings,) instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

thought there was something to say in favour of the views of his hon. Friend upon the strength of the evidence that was taken before the Royal Commission; but still, under the circumstances under which the half acre was arrived at by the Commission as a compromise, he felt precluded from supporting the Amendment.

MR. BROADHURST

hoped the Committee would not listen to the compromise, and would accept the Amendment. What they wanted to do was to keep the people in the rural districts rather than let them gradually flock into the small towns, and that would be best done by allowing them to have industrial dwellings on these small plots of land. The Amendment struck at the root of the evil, because it proposed to keep a great number of people out of the towns; and, therefore, they would not be obliged to provide for them in the cities by legislation hereafter.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

considered that, as a matter of economic cultivation, a cottager would be better able to pursue husbandry if he had one acre than if he had half-an-acre; and, therefore, he thought the Amendment should be accepted.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)

said, that no man could support himself on one acre.

MR. BROADHURST

remarked that it would go a long way.

THE PRESIDENT (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)

said, that evidence showed that oven five acres could not support a man who had no other work. It ought to be borne in mind also that what they were asked to give was to be paid for out of the rates; and for those reasons he thought the compromise, which had not been arrived at without very careful consideration, should be accepted.

MR. BROADHURST

stated that within a short time he had been on a plot of land of less than two acres, the rent of which was £12 a-year, although it was situated next to land which was only fetching £1 5s. an acre. Although it had no pig-sties attached, on this small plot of land—without pigs—a man was earning a very good living, with the assistance of a little filling up in the winter months.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

thought that half-an-acre was the proper figure. He had a great deal of experience, and he knew that a man could not cultivate more than half-an-acre.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

did not believe that a man could cultivate one acre sufficiently to keep himself, if he had other work, unless he had the assistance of sons or other relatives. He was willing to give those people everything that they could give them; but he was certain that they could not work more than half-an-acre.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, it was very amusing to hear hon. Members opposite say what they would be very glad to give these people; but that was not the question at all. It was not the question whether they should be compelled to have an acre, but whether they should have the option of having it. There were many cases in which the possession of one acre would be worth twice or three times as much as half-an-acre, because the man had labour to work it. The President of the Local Government Board had talked about this land being given out of the rates; but he did not understand that they were going to give this to the man. The man would have to pay for what he had. The only question was whether the principle of compulsory acquisition which this Bill contained should be extended from half-an-acre to an acre. He attached great value to the alteration, and should divide the Committee on it.

MR. STOREY

said, his sympathies were with his hon. Friend below him, but his judgment was against him. This was not a Bill for providing allotments.

MR. BROADHURST

It is.

MR. STOREY

It is not.

MR. BROADHURST

It is.

MR. STOREY

said, it was a Bill for providing decent habitations for working people, and to it there had been added this proposal that the labouring men should also have half-an-acre of land. He did not object to that at all; but he would ask hon. Gentlemen just to remember this—that they must take some account of the means of these poor men. The cottages which were to be built out of the rates would not be built more cheaply than other cottages; these people would have to pay rent for them, and if they had more land given they would have more rent to pay. He thought the Committee ought to be content with the original proposal of the Bill.

MR. BROADHURST

said, he did not wish to have an unintentional, no doubt, though a very false interpretation given to his statement by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot). What he had stated was that for a plot of land of less than two acres the labourers were paying £12 a-year ground rent, whilst farmers in adjoining fields were paying 25s. per acre or less, and that even under these circumstances the labourers did very well, being able to employ themselves profitably during bad times of the year. He had not said that these labourers were making large profits and keeping their families comfortably. He knew an experienced labourer who had stated to him that although his rent was extremely high, if he were permitted to build a pig-sty and erect a stable for a pony the rent would be reasonable, and he would be able to make a good living without additional employment. This man lived three miles from any city or town. With regard to the statement of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) that this was not a Bill for providing allotments, he wished to point out that the measure certainly had that object. Allotments were at the root of the question of the housing of the working classes in the rural districts, as it had been proved before the Royal Commission over and over again, by most competent witnesses—from the Earl of Shaftesbury downwards. It was proved that where good allotments were attached to cottages, the labourers could much getter afford to pay a large rent than they could afford to pay a small one where there were no allotments attached. Therefore, he contended that his hon. Friend was quite within the four corners of the Bill—indeed, that he was improving the Bill in the direction in which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had admitted it could be made of much value. There was no doubt whatever that this Committee would be doing the wisest possible thing in accepting the Amendment of his hon. Friend, inasmuch as the provision would not be compulsory.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, he would point out to hon. Members who had not read the evidence that nearly the whole—at any rate, he might say for safety, two-thirds—of the rural evidence was taken up with the proofs of the advantages of these allotments not only on the part of the labourers, but also on the part of such men as the Rev. Mr. Stubbs and other clergymen, who had stated that allotments alone would solve the question of rent—that though it was practically impossible for these labourers to pay anything like a large rent for their cottages, yet it was easy for them to pay a higher rent for a cottage with an allotment attached to it. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) had read the evidence, he would have avoided falling into two blunders—namely, one in supposing that this Bill was not a Bill for allotments, and the other in believing that labourers would think themselves well-off with half-an-acre of land. He (Mr. Jesse Collings) thought the labourers would be very much disappointed if they got no more than half-an-acre. As to the compromise which his hon. Friend said had been arrived at, the division had been taken at a time when it was not expected to come on. There had been a misunderstanding in the matter, and some Gentlemen had not been present. Some who were not present would undoubtedly have objected to the compromise if they had been present. He mentioned that to show that the compromise was, at all events, not universal. He would recommend that they should not say in the clause that a labourer should be obliged to have half-an-acre, but that he might be allowed to take "not more than an acre."

SIR SYDNEY WATERLOW

said, he agreed with the proposed Amendment. Where a man was in constant work he could not cultivate more than one-eighth of an acre; but there were large numbers of working men, such as plumbers and painters, who had not constant employment all the year round, or who had to job about the country and did not get continuous work. To such men these allotments would be invaluable in enabling them to make use of time which would otherwise be lost. He thought they ought to meet the wishes of these people. He had had 44 men at a time each holding an eighth of an acre. When a man was in constant work he would take an eighth. Some would take a quarter; but when a man had really precarious work he wanted a larger plot of land to enable him to cultivate it with advantage. The men who worked upon plots of land in this way were amongst the most deserving men in the country.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

said, the hon. Baronet who had just sat down seemed to have forgotten that each of these men of whom he spoke believed each year that he was going to have constant work; and, no doubt, the hon. Baronet's experience would bear out his— that when work was least slack workmen took gardens most readily. It was when they had plenty of work that they entered upon gardening with the most zeal.

SIR SYDNEY WATERLOW

said, that he could not agree with his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Staveley Hill).

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 1G: Majority 35.—(Div. List, No. 287.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary why he kept in the Proviso at the end of the clause— Provided that the estimated annual value of such garden shall not exceed one pound? They had just heard from an hon. Member that a labourer might have to pay £6 for an acre, or £12 for two acres. It seemed to him that it would be only reasonable to take that Proviso out of the clause.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, the point suggested by the hon. and gallant Baronet was a very important one. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would go downinto——

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. and gallant Baronet move anything?

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

Yes; I move to strike out the word "one."

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. and gallant Baronet cannot amend the clause. The Question is, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, he thought the hon. and gallant Baronet was in Order.

THE CHAIRMAN

No; the Question has been put that Clause 14 stand part of the Bill. The hon. and gallant Baronet can move the Amendment on Report.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

THE SECRETARY THE STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

We now come to the Amendments to Clause G which were postponed.

MR. DAWSON

said, he begged to move the first Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray), the object of which was to make the rates of interest charged in this Bill retrospective. There were a great many people in Ireland to whom this clause ought to apply who had borrowed money, but had not yet drawn the whole of it, and who had drawn money, but had not yet returned it. If this Amendment were not adopted many Artizans' Dwellings Companies would be placed at a great disadvantage, for they might have borrowed money at 3½ or 4 per cent. No reference in the clause was made to the Acts of 1879 and 1881 which affected Ireland, and under which money had been borrowed at 3½ and 4 per cent. The favourable clauses for borrowing money in the present Bill should be extended to these Acts, and to money borrowed and not yet returned, and money granted and not yet taken. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would see that this was a fair demand to make, particularly when they bore in mind what a hard struggle it was for many existing Artizans' Dwellings Companies to continue their laudable work.

Amendment proposed, In Clause 6, page 5, line 32, after the word "advanced," to insert the words "or to be advanced."—(Mr. Dawson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he could not agree to the Amendment. It appeared to be an attempt to upset bargains already entered into in order that a lower interest might be paid for borrowed money. That was a retrospective principle that he could not accept. When he had been asked whether or not it was intended to make this clause retrospective, he had replied that it was not so intended. He hoped the hon. Member would not press the proposal.

Amendment negatived.

Remaining Clauses agreed to.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

I now move my new clause with reference to the application of the Act to Ireland— In the application of this Act to Ireland, the following provisions shall take effect:—

1. "(1.) 'The Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878,' shall be substituted for 'The Public Health. Act, 1875,' and in particular the references in this Act to sections ten, ninety, ninety-one, and one hundred and seventy-five to one hundred and seventy-eight, both inclusive, of 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' shall be respectively taken to be references to sections eight, one hundred, one hundred and seven, and two hundred and two to two hundred and four, both inclusive, of 'The Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878,' and the reference to sections two hundred and ninety-three to two hundred and ninety-six, both inclusive, of "The Public Health Act, 1875,' shall be taken to be a reference to sections two hundred and nine, two hundred and ten, two hundred and twelve, and two hundred and thirteen of 'The Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878;'
2. "(2.) The provisions of this Act which relate exclusively to the adoption by rural sanitary authorities of the Labouring Classes Lodging Houses Acts, 1851 to 1867, shall not apply to Ireland;
3. "(3.) The Local (Government Board for Ireland shall be substituted for the Local Government Board;
1837
4. "(4.) The Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland shall be substituted for the Public Works Loan Commissioners;
5. "(5.) This Act, so far as it amends 'The Labouring Classes Lodging Houses and Dwellings (Ireland) Act, 1866,' shall be construed with that Act, and that Act shall be included amongst the Labouring Classes Lodging Houses Acts, 1851 to 1867, as they are referred to under that description in this Act. So much of subsection four of section twenty-one of the said Act of 1866 as provides that no bye-laws made under that Act shall be of any legal force until the same shall have received the approval of the Chief Secretary or Under Secretary for Ireland, shall be amended by substituting therein the Local Government Board for Ireland in lieu of the Chief or Under Secretary;
6. "(6.) Nothing contained in this Act shall prevent the adoption by any town commissioners, not being an urban sanitary authority, or by any such company, society, association, or private persons as are therein referred to, of 'The Labouring Classes Lodging Houses and Dwellings (Ireland) Act, 1866, by whom that Act might have been adopted if this Act had not been passed."

New Clause (Application of Act to Ireland,)—(Sir R. Assheton Cross,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

MR. DAWSON

said, that, in the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray), he begged to move the following new Clauses:— It shall not be lawful for any private dwelling house constructed for the use of a single family, and so occupied or last occupied at the time of the passing of this Act, to be occupied by more than one family, without a certificate from the sanitary authority of the district that due provision has been made in such house for the separation of the sexes, for suitable sanitary accommodation, and for sufficient light and air; and such certificate shall state the number of rooms in every such house permitted to be occupied, the number of cubic feet in each room, and the number of persons who may occupy each room. It shall not be lawful for any building constructed as a coach-house, out-house, or stable, and occupied or last occupied as such at the time of the passing of this Act, to be occupied by any family, unless under the regulations laid down in the foregoing section. He wished to explain that in some towns in Ireland there were large houses which had been turned into tenement houses, having, years ago, been occupied by the better classes. This was especially the case in Dublin, Limerick, and Cork. He maintained that these clauses were necessary, under the circumstances, in order to see that the people did not go into houses which were inadequate for com- fort and decency and sanitary purposes He wished to prevent tenement houses of the kind he had mentioned being relet without its being shown that they possessed proper sanitary conditions as to cubic space, light, ventilation, air, &c. A great deal of money had been lost in building new houses when available houses were at hand—houses which, with a little expense, could be made extremely valuable for artizans' dwellings. The clause would operate in such cases. He did not mean it to be retrospective; but he desired that in the future no houses of this character should be let as tenement houses without a certificate from the Sanitary Authority that they had been made habitable. With regard to the second part of the proposal, it was common in Ireland to let coach-houses and stables as dwelling-houses, and they were very often let in a very unsanitary condition. He thought none of those places should be so let until a certificate had been obtained.

New Clause (Occupation of tenement houses,)—(Mr. Dawson,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be road a second time."

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

thought that everything the hon. Gentleman wished to be done could be done by the present law. There were tenement regulations under the present law which provided for what the hon. Gentleman wished. In regard to towns where there were no tenement regulations, all that was necessary was that the Local Authorities should adopt the regulations. The Commission did not receive any evidence in Ireland in respect to the point raised by the last four lines of the hon. Gentleman's clause.

MR. DAWSON

said, that what his hon. Friend (Mr. Gray) wanted to secure was that a house should not be occupied by more than one family until it had been certified as having complied with certain and proper regulations.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

thought the last four lines of the clause should come in a public Health Bill.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. MONCKTON

said, the Amendment which stood in his name provided that the appointment and removal of the Sanitary Inspector should be subject to the approval of the Local Government Board. It was very desirable, considering the important functions this officer would have to exercise under this Bill, that there should be some guarantee of his fitness for the post he was to occupy. If the appointment was subject to the approval of the Local Government Board, they would have, at least, an additional guarantee that the officer was qualified to discharge the duties required of him. He thought it was also very desirable, as he stated yesterday on the second reading of the Bill, that this officer should be altogether independent of the Local Authority, and free from the consequences of interfering with any property belonging to the Local Authority. He should be extremely glad if the Government could see their way to accept his clause.

New Clause—

(Appointment of Inspector.) The appointment and removal of the Sanitary Inspector charged with the execution of any of the provisions of this Act shall be subject to the approval of the Local Government Board,"— (Mr. Monckton,) —brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)

said, that at present in districts outside the Metropolis, where the Government paid part of the salaries of Inspectors, there was control over the appointments. In the Metropolis, however, no such control existed; but then there was no subvention from the public funds. Without such subvention it would be manifestly wrong to insist upon control. He thought, however, that the object his hon. Friend had in view could be met by the Consolidated Bill for London.

Question put, and negatived.

Schedule.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)

proposed to leave out from "repealed," in page 10, line 2, to end of line.

Amendment agreed to.

Other Amendments made.

Schedules, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.