[BILL 69.] SECOND READING. (Hansard, 19 February 1886)

§ MR. DIXON-HARTLAND
I beg to move the second reading of this Bill. I have, on more than one occasion, pointed out the danger that exists in the Metropolis from the state of the theatres at the present time. I have mentioned, also, the various conflicting jurisdictions that exist in regard to theatres. There are no less than six different authorities who have jurisdiction over places of amusement in the Metropolis. At the present moment there are no less than 472 places of amusement in London; and these are attended nightly by about 300,000, or an average of 1,500,000 during the week. A great number of these seekers after pleasure go there without the slightest idea of the danger to which they are exposed. The want of exits is a notorious fact in regard to these places. I appeal to anyone in this House to say whether they get out of any theatre in London under 10 or 12 minutes; and in the case of a panic the block would be so great that there would be great difficulty in getting out at all. The danger from panic in these places is very great also; and it is one that ought to be seen to. The Home Secretary opposed the Bill the last time it was brought forward because the Metropolitan Board of Works had sufficient jurisdiction; but the Metropolitan Board of Works have themselves brought forward a Bill now, showing that they have not sufficient authority. I contend that the control of the theatres should be placed under a Central Authority, and that that authority should be the Home Secretary. There was no doubt that the Metropolitan Board of Works was not the proper authority. I received a letter to-day from a manager of one of the large theatres in London, telling me of an application which had been made to him for a free admission to a box from a member of the Metropolitan Board of Works. On his refusing to comply with the request, the gentleman wrote back and asked the manager whether he knew that he was a member of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and that his theatre would be looked after if the order were not sent. 838 The Metropolitan Board is certainly not the proper authority. One of the curious anomalies of the conflict of jurisdiction, again, is that on Ash Wednesday, although the theatres are all closed on the Middlesex side of the water, they are all allowed to be open on the Surrey side. This Bill is based upon the recommendation of the Select Committee of 1866, and on the Reports of Captain Shaw. At this late hour I will not go further, but will ask for the second reading to-night, as Amendments can be introduced in Committee.

§ MR. T. H. BOLTON
I beg to second the Motion for the second reading of this Bill. There is a very strong opinion among the theatrical managers of the Metropolis in favour of the Home Secretary becoming the chief authority in dealing with the Metropolitan theatres rather than the Metropolitan Board of Works, if the control is to be taken from those who at present possess the authority. I could give some very conclusive reasons — some very strong and striking facts—to show the desirability of the adoption of this course; but I am anxious not to detain the House at this late hour. I support the Bill of the hon. Member, however, on the understanding that after going into Committee it will be put into a more practical shape as to its details than it is at the present time.

§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASUEY (Mr. H. H. FOWLER)
Practically the same Bill as the one now before the House was opposed last year by the Home Secretary, on the ground that the Metropolitan Board of Works have full authority in this matter, and that the responsibility ought to rest upon those who are responsible for the government of London. It was said that the Board has not such full authority; but, however that is, the hon. Member was right in saying that the Metropolitan Board has introduced a Bill this Session dealing with all the matters to which he has alluded. By placing the theatres under the control of the Home Secretary we should be saddling the Imperial funds with expenses which ought to be borne by the ratepayers of London. Why should the taxpayers of the country 839 —of Edinburgh and Glasgow, for instance—be called upon to provide for the inspection of the theatres in London? The Home Secretary and the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works are absent from the House; and in their absence I would suggest that the best course to take is to adjourn this discussion to the same day on which the Bill of the Metropolitan Board will come on, and then we can hear what the Home Secretary and the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board have to say on behalf of their respective Departments. I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.

§ MR. DIXON-HARTLAND
Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any facilities will be given by the Government for bringing on this Bill when the other measure comes up for second reading? I am told that the other Bill is so hopelessly placed on the list that it is impossible for it to come on on the day it is down for. In the meantime, disastrous fires at our theatres may take place.