§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ MR. E. R. COOK (West Ham, N.)in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he wished, in the first place, to state the reasons which had induced the Metropolitan Board of Works to introduce this Bill. It might be in the recollection of the House that in 1877 a Committee was appointed, at the instance of the then hon. Member who sat for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), to inquire into the working of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade. In their Report attention was drawn to the need which existed for supervision of the theatres and music-halls of the Metropolis, and a recommendation was made by that Committee that powers should be given to the Metropolitan Board of Works to examine the structures of those buildings, and that they should have power to insist upon such alterations as seemed good and necessary to them in the interest of the safety of the public and those who frequented those buildings. Those recommendations had been embodied in the Metropolitan Buildings Act, 1878, and had since been carried out by the Metropolitan Board of Works. Under the powers given in that Act, the Board had examined and taken careful plans of the theatres and music-halls of London. They had examined 41 theatres, with the result that two of them had been found so unsafe for public use that when the Board made their requisitions these theatres had been voluntarily closed by the owners. Two had been closed on account of the representations made by 1133 the Board to the Lord Chamberlain, 10 had been practically reconstructed, and 27 altered in accordance with the requirements of the Board. These 41 theatres between them had only 42 staircases, being only one staircase to each of them, and the works carried out included the formation of new staircases and the total or partial reconstruction of others to the number of 42, and the formation of new exits and the total or partial reconstruction of others to the number of 57. The Board had in addition, under the powers given to them, examined 39 music-halls, 25 of which had been altered in accordance with the requisitions of the Board, and in the case of 14 alterations were now in progress. In the 25 music-halls in which alterations had been completed there had been only 36 staircases and 31 exits. The nature of the alterations required by the Board in the interests of the public had been as follows:—In the first place, it was required that the stage should as far as possible be separated from the auditorium, so that in the event of the inflammable scenery catching fire the audience might have time to get safely out before the fire reached that part of the building. The second point was the safety of the staircases, a great many of which had been simply deathtraps in a case of panic. Such staircases had been thoroughly reconstructed, and as far as possible it was provided that two streams of people should never meet upon the same staircase. The third point was the multiplication of exits, so that in the event of panic or fire the audience might clearly see their way out of the building. It was a necessity, also, that the doors should be free to open outwards. Another question was the widening of the gangways inside the house, so that when necessary people should get to the exits easily. He wished to point out that the requisitions which the Board had made had dealt with the structure only, and had dealt principally and almost entirely with the auditorium part of the house, and not with the working of the machinery about the stage. The Board of Works had been advised that when these alterations had been made, in accordance with their requisition, their powers ceased; and it was, at all events, a contested point whether they had power to go into the house to 1134 see whether the improvements were being maintained or continued. The Lord Chamberlain had had a great deal of anxiety as to theatres being kept in the efficient state in which the Board had placed them, and that anxiety had been accentuated by the disaster at the Ring Theatre in Vienna in 1881, where 900 persons had perished, and by that at the Victoria Hall in Sunderland, where 186 little children had been crushed to death or suffocated. The Lord Chamberlain had, therefore, communicated with the Metropolitan Board of Works, and asked them to certify to him that the theatres were in a proper state to be used by the public before he gave his annual licence. He would especially call attention to this fact, because it showed that the Board were not seeking additional powers on their own account. They had been urged to do so not only by the Lord Chamberlain, but also by the Home Office. The Bill was not brought forward by reason of any ambition on the part of the Metropolitan Board to obtain fresh powers. The Board had been asked by the responsible licensing authority to obtain these powers, and the result was the present Bill. The Lord Chamberlain desired to call in to his assistance and to have the advice of those who had inspected a theatre during its construction in order that they might see that all arrangements for the safety of the public were still in an efficient state. The safety of theatres depended not only on their being put in good condition once, but upon that good condition being maintained. That was the principle of the Bill. The Board was to have power to see that doors were kept available, that gangways were kept clear, and that exits were used, so that everything might be ready in case of accident, otherwise the panic or fire might occur when the gangways were blocked or the doors locked. He had been told that if managers were to make any profits, it was utterly impossible for these gangways to be kept free at Christmas time. The Board of Works now had the authority of the Home Office as well as of the Lord Chamberlain in seeking powers to enable them to provide that improvements initiated for the public benefit were carried out. The main feature of the Bill was to provide for continual supervision of the structure 1135 of theatres, and especially of the auditorium, and the mode of doing that was by requiring an inspection to be made by the Board and a certificate to be given before the Lord Chamberlain granted his licence. Thus they would have some assurance that these places were kept in a proper state, whilst the Lord Chamberlain would still be in a position to exercise the same control he did now. The Metropolitan Board had no wish whatever to interfere with the functions either of the Lord Chamberlain or of the Home Office; they simply desired to place their services at the disposal of both Departments, in order to insure that the precautions necessary in the interests of public safety were carried out. Clause 9 seemed to be the clause which provoked the greatest amount of opposition. By this the Board were to be empowered to authorize persons to inspect the buildings at any time. He could not understand why so much opposition should be made to this, because the clause in this particular simply repeated the language of other Acts of Parliaments under which the Board had in no way exceeded their powers or used them improperly. The Board simply desired to have the power to appoint an officer whose duty it should be to inspect the buildings, reporting to them. As far as he could make out, there was no objection to the merits of the Bill, with one exception only. The great objection seemed to be to the authority which was to carry out the provisions. Mr. Irving had distinctly said that he did not object to the Bill, but only to the authority which would carry it out.
§ It being a quarter of an hour before Six of the Clock, further Proceedings stood adjourned till Tomorrow.