HC Deb 30 August 1909 vol 10 cc109-41

(1) It shall be the duty of every local authority within the meaning of this Section to cause to be made in every parish within the county or district an inspecton and survey of every dwelling-house, to which the limitation as respects rateable value of Section fourteen of this Act applies, and to cause to be registered in a book or register, in a form to be prescribed by the Local Government Board, particulars concerning every such dwelling-house, including—

  1. (a) situation and address;
  2. (b) rated occupier;
  3. (c) beneficial owner;
  4. (d) freeholder;
  5. (e) number and description of rooms and offices in each house;
  6. (f) number of occupants, sex, and approximate age at date of survey;
  7. (g) state of repair of the dwelling;
  8. (h) sanitary condition of the dwelling;
  9. (i) water supply;
  10. (j) rateable value; and
  11. 110
  12. (k) if let in lodgings, number of rooms and of lodgers, distinguishing sex and families.

(2) The first survey and register shall be commenced within twelve months and shall be completed within five years after the passing of this Act, and a new survey shall be made and the register revised within every five years thereafter; and a copy of such register in respect of every parish within the county or district shall be deposited with the clerk of the council and shall be open to inspection within reasonable hours by any ratepayer within the county or district.

(3)—(a) For the purpose of facilitating the survey and collection of the necessary particulars for the register, forms of return to be approved by the Local Government Board shall be served upon every owner or reputed owner requiring him to make such statement or return within one month from date of service as a person is required to make under the Income Tax Acts, and the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869.

(b) Such form of return shall include the particulars set out in Sub-section one of this Section, and shall contain a declaration to be made by the owner or his agent that the dwelling for which rent is being paid and received is reasonably fit for human habitation.

(4) All notices and forms of return under this Section shall be in writing or print, or partly in writing and partly in print; and shall be sufficiently authenticated if bearing the signature in facsimile of the clerk to the local authority; and shall be served—

  1. (i) by delivery of the same personally to the person required to be served, or if such person is absent abroad or cannot be found, to his agent, or, if no agent can be found, then by leaving the same on the premises; or
  2. (ii) by leaving the same at the usual or last-known place of abode of such person as aforesaid; or
  3. (iii) by post, by a prepaid letter, addressed to the usual or last-known place of abode of such person;
and if sent by post shall be deemed to have been served and received respectively at the time when the letter containing the same would be delivered in the ordinary course of post, and in proving such service or sending it shall be sufficient to prove that the letter containing the notice or form of return was properly addressed and prepaid and put into the post.

(5) If any person wilfully refuses or neglects to make any return lawfully required under this Act within the time limited by this Act in that behalf, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding five pounds.

If any person wilfully makes or causes to be made a false return or declaration he shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds.

If the occupier of any dwelling-house, when requested by or on behalf of the local authority to state the name and address of the owner thereof, refuses or wilfully omits to disclose or wilfully misstates the same, he shall (unless he shows cause to the satisfaction of the court for his refusal) be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds.

(6)—(a) For the purpose of carrying out the survey and compilation of the register—

  1. (i) a county council may make arrangements with the council of any county district, or parish within the county for the exercise by the council of that district or parish, as agents for the county council, of the powers conferred by this Section, on such terms and subject to such conditions as may be 112 agreed upon, provided always that the county council shall be responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the survey and register;
  2. (ii) every such council shall afford all reasonable facilities and the assistance of their officers and inspectors to the county council, and it shall be lawful for such officers and inspectors to receive special remuneration for their services from the county council.

(b) Where the register is compiled under the authority of the county council a copy of so much of it as relates to every parish within each county district shall be de posited with the clerk of the council.

(7) The expression "local authority" for the purposes of this Section shall mean for the administrative county of London the metropolitan borough councils, for every county borough and urban district having a population exceeding ten thousand according to the last census the council of such borough or district, and elsewhere the county council.


moved to omit Sub-section 1. The effect of the Sub-section is that, if the Bill passes, every local authority once in every five years must make an inspection and survey of every house in their district up to a certain rateable value, and must make a register containing the result of such inspections and surveys, giving a number of particulars provided for in this Section. There are many hon. Members of this House who have had experience of local government work. Speaking from the experience I have had, I think this Clause is not only useless, but actually mischievous. Let any hon. Member think what actually happens now. At the present time it is the duty of every local authority to make a periodical inspection of the houses in their district. Generally speaking, this is done by a staff of sanitary inspectors and the medical officer. The sanitary inspector, having made an inspection, notes down particulars of every house, and he reports every house not in a proper sanitary state. He probably makes a visit not once in every five years, but probably every week or even every day to certain houses until those particular houses are put into a proper sanitary condition. After having seen that the proper improvements are made, every year afterwards he makes a similar inspection of his district—not going into every house, because common-sense tells him that that is unnecessary—but he makes a proper survey of those houses where it is required. It is now proposed in addition that there shall be an inspection and a survey every five years of every one of these smaller houses. The inspection is to be made not in every case by the same officer upon whom the duty is now thrown, but in certain districts it is to be made by another officer altogether, namely, the officer of the county council. Consequently, you have two officers, one the district officer, upon whom devolves the statutory duty of making an inspection of the district from time to time, and the other the county officer, who has to make a survey of all the smaller houses every five years. In the first place, it is mischievous. It tends to divide the responsibility and to suggest to the person responsible that an inspection every five years is enough. In the second place, see how inquisitorial the whole thing is. The larger house is exempt from this particular investigation, but as to the smaller house, the officer has to go from house to house and ascertain all these things, namely, the situation and address, the rated occupier, the beneficial owner, the freeholder, the number and description of rooms and offices in each house, and actually the number of occupants, the sex, and the approximate age at the date of survey. What on earth is the use of all that for sanitary purposes? How can it serve any useful object that the public officer should go once in every five years and inquire the number of rooms, the number of people who live there, what is their sex, and what is their approximate age? Everyone knows that in these small houses the occupants change very frequently, and to have a register made of them giving the sex and the number of people and the other particulars asked for is of no use to enable the local authorities to perform its duty. This will involve a good deal of inquisition which people will very properly and naturally resent, more particularly when it is applied only to a certain class of house, and not to all the houses in the district. Apart from the inconvenience and annoyance, look at the expense. Take first the expense to individuals. It means a good deal of expense to them. A return is to be made by every owner, and it is pretty clear, as I read the Bill, that the owner includes a mortgagee. Take the case of a land society or a building society. The chairman of one of these societies wrote to me on the subject, pointing out that they had 7,562 properties, many of them on mortgage; and he asked if they would have to make a return in respect of all those houses. If so, he said they would require an army of inspectors. He thought the scheme quite unworkable. I give it as one instance of the effect of these proposals that the mortgagee of a house—who is not in possession, who if he inquires the ages and the sex of the occupants, will, very properly, be told to mind his own business—is required to make a return giving all these details; and, if he does not do so, he is liable to a penalty. Then, see the expense and trouble to which the authority itself will be put. I say, without fear of contradiction, that anybody who knows the facts will agree with me when I say that this inspection could not be made by the existing officers of local authorities. It seems to me that somebody will have to be employed, and probably specially appointed, to do this special work, and consequently a good deal of extra expense will be thrown upon the authorities concerned. I am speaking to hon. Members who are well acquainted with these things, and, therefore, I do not need to dwell very long on this point. I do, however, ask the right hon. Gentleman to say, after all this annoyance has been incurred, and when all this expense has been defrayed, what is the real use of the register which is obtained in this way? What use will it really be? It will not prevent the authority from having to make other and more frequent inspections; it will not interfere in the least with their duty to prosecute where there is want of sanitation. It will simply give them a register which will be pretty nearly waste paper; it will cause a good deal of annoyance and cost a good deal of money, and will be of no practical use to local authorities in carrying out their duty. I have only heard one argument in favour of this Clause. It is that this is done in Paris. I do not think it is, and I should like hon. Members to indicate to the Committee how they say the Parisian system is similar to this. In the second place, I should certainly be surprised if anybody holds out Paris as an example for our legislation in housing matters. Those hon. Members may know something of the better part of Paris, but some of us know something of the worst part. A great many of the tenement houses, in fact, are kept in the worst possible condition, full in some cases of disease and containing all the elements of crime. I do not say that of Paris as a whole, but I should be very sorry to see our cities compare in any way with Paris. I think they are better governed than most of the districts in that great city. I do not forget to take account of the fact that there is in Paris a body of men who give with great success a good deal of time and energy to the government of Paris, but I think our work in England compares favourably in housing with that done in Paris. I cannot help thinking this Clause is not the offspring of the brain of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Mr. Burns). But alter all, he is responsible. It is his Bill, and this is his Clause until he shows otherwise, and we must look to the right hon. Gentleman to give the Committee a decided lead as to the line it should take. I hope the Committee will not insist upon including the Clause in the Bill. I think it is a serious flaw on the Bill as a whole.


This Clause is not like the clause to which I ventured to refer some time ago, where an exceptionally large Standing Committee passed the Clause unanimously. There was in this case a great division of opinion. The voting was 20 in favour of the clause and 17 against it, and amongst the 17 was the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. I certainly hope, although I have no information on which to base that hope, that he is of the same mind as he was then, and that he will urge the Committee to delete the Clause. I find against the Clause an authority of great knowledge, great experience and great weight, namely, the Liverpool Corporation. At a meeting some few weeks ago they discussed this Clause, and by a strong vote opposed it. The Clause will, I am sure, cause great expense. There is at present in our great towns a system of inspection, not a quinquennial one as is mentioned here, but an inspection which is continually at work. It is, in fact, if we may borrow a phrase from the language of the Chartered Accountants, a kind of continuous audit. We know the great necessity for care when we are dealing with sanitary matters. We know the need there is that inspectors should be continually going round, that they should be continually making reports and causing action to be taken on the faith of those reports. What real benefit is to be gained by a quinquennial census as compared with this examination and inspection and report, which is going on everywhere day after day? I believe it will render very little service to the cause of public health, and that it will certainly cause very great expense. You have your continual inspec- tion, which answers every purpose. Why have a secondary and an inferior inspection every five years? I am quite sure it will cause great annoyance and very considerable vexation.

When we come to look at the details, it seems to me they are of such a character that it is quite unnecessary to have a return of them every five years. There is to be an account of occupiers. We have all those in the documents which are at present at the command of the Poor Law authority or of the corporation or of the local council, as the case may be. Then there is to be a description of the rooms. Those rooms vary from time to time. A room may be in one condition in the year 1909 and in another condition in the year 1914. This inspection which is to be made every five years is really useless, because the reports cannot at any given moment be up to date, and unless these reports are brought up to date I believe very little public benefit will be derived there from. Then some of the subjects on which reports, are to be made appear to me to be almost in the nature of matters of opinion. There is the state of buildings. My remark of a moment ago as to the lapse of time certainly applies to the state of repair. If a house is in good repair in 1909, are we quite sure it will be in good repair in 1914? A report made now is comparatively useless. Then comes the-sanitary condition of dwellings. The sanitary condition of dwellings varies almost from hour to hour. The same defect would apply to making a sewer or to sanitary arrangements. I do not think it is sufficient to say that it will be useless. It will be mischievous and even misleading. I really believe that instead of being a help and guidance it will be misleading and deceiving. We have been told that every Englishman's house is his fortress. You may carry that principle too far, but if you are continually investigating and annoying the occupants, in the name of this Act, I cannot see how you can expect friendly concessions from any side. I think the adoption will not be to the advantage of any salutary movement. On the contrary, it leads to vagueness, hindrance, impediment, and mischief.

9.0 P.M.


I must say I do not believe in the Section at all in any shape or form. I want to know with regard to this provision how you are going to carry it out? What right have you to trouble about beneficial owners? We have heard some- thing too about the freeholder, but, after all, what does the tenant know about the freeholder, and why should he be put under a penalty of £5 to give information on that point? He surely has enough to do to manage his own business, and he cannot have time to inquire as to who is the owner of the property. I take it I shall be supporting the Government if I vote against this proposal. There is another thing which ought to be called attention to and ought to be considered. At the present moment, not only Imperial taxes, but local rates, are going up everywhere by leaps and bounds, and we have already quite an army of inspectors, of all sorts and conditions, costing a large amount of money. Some people think they are not worth the money, because it very often happens that, for the sake of getting an increase of salary, these officials actually find work, in order to show that they have something to do. Otherwise, they would not be able to ask for the increase of salary. It is admitted, and it cannot be denied, that the examination is being efficiently done all over the country now, and why we want to appoint a lot of other officials, for the purpose of doing work which is already done and making a lot of unnecessary inquiries, I cannot understand. What real good can it do in regard to an insanitary house to know who is the free holder, or the beneficial owner, and a lot of other things in regard to the particulars which are required? It does no good whatever, and the economical path in the administration of rates and Imperial taxes seems to be forgotten altogether. Money is voted freely, I suppose on the ground that it does not matter how much money is spent, as long as somebody can be found to pay, but it is altogether wrong and is not doing any good to the country generally, either from the sanitary or any other point of view. I do not want to stop reform in any shape whatever, and I might have been satisfied with the Amendment of this Clause, but that I think it is a bad Clause altogether, and ought not to be agreed to by this Committee.


I rise to oppose this Clause on behalf of the great municipalities of this country. They certainly show no hesitation in their opposition to this Clause, and they have two reasons against it: One is, that they believe it to be absolutely useless; and the second is, that the cost will fall upon them. We in this House are returned on a list of voters, and; it is not considered desirable to go out on: an old register, and our register is revised every 12 months. There are many constituencies in this country that change one-third of their register in the 12 months, and yet the register of houses and the occupants of those houses, on a particular day, is to stand under the Bill for five years and is to be, it is thought, a useful book of reference in regard to the health and the sanitary conditions of that particular locality. I should have thought that in adopting the principle of a foreign country, those responsible for introducing this Clause, would have had the courage of their convictions and gone in, not only for workmen's dwellings, and for houses of a certain rent, but would have demanded a register of all houses in the locality. They have not done so, and yet it is known, certainly in some of our agricultural districts, that some of the large houses are the most insanitary and have the worst conveniences. Also, in our large towns, by the alteration of certain neighbourhoods, we have found that some of the large houses have become the worst and require the closest possible inspection, yet it is those houses, located in districts that have changed entirely in regard to their respectability—it is those houses which require the greatest possible attention, that are not under the Bill, and under these Clauses, no supervision is given to them, in any shape or form. I was interested in a pamphlet put into my hands this evening from those responsible for this Clause, in which they draw attention to and compare the Acts for the inspection of factories with the inspection of homes. They point out that we insist upon providing air space in factories, and ask why do not we do it in the homes? That is very sound, and I for one would not rise in my place in this House to object to it if they said they would form a body of inspectors and make them supervise the homes in this country; but they do nothing of the kind. They inflict upon municipalities this inspection, and that is one of the reasons why I so strongly object to it, and they do not provide the necessary funds. You will not find the municipalities object so strongly as they do to these continual measures being passed in this House, and not a single penny being provided for the working of them, if means are provided. It is the easiest thing in the world to point out how very beneficial many of the things are which have been done in this Parliament, by means of medical inspection and in other ways, when not a single penny has been found for carrying them out. There is the feeding of the children, very essential, very good, but no money found for it from Imperial funds, and yet it is an Imperial service, and not local work. What you are doing by this Clause is, you are asking for certain inspections to be made, and there is not a single word in the whole of the Bill to provide money to carry on the work. If those people are in earnest with reference to this Clause, let them boldly come forward and suggest that the nation itself should take a register in the towns and that it should pay its own inspectors and provide the means of doing it.

There are other reasons which enter into this necessary inspection in foreign countries, and let us be thankful for it, they do not obtain in this. We have not yet got conscription. When we have it it may be desirable that you should have recorded the name and the age of everybody living in the premises. That is one of the reasons which actuates foreign countries in having this close inspection, but it does not lead to any better results. The health of these foreign towns is not better, and they have not shown the same reduction in their death rate as has been shown in some of the best municipalities in our own country, and that decrease of death rate has arisen largely from the active and energetic work done by the medical officers of the local authority, using to the best the Acts of Parliament they have now. When you get your register what is the effect? There is nothing in this Bill which says that when you find an owner who is a member of your city council who is responsible for insanitary dwellings then he must be disqualified from attending; there is nothing in this Bill that gives power to a local authority, or instructs the local authority that they should take action under any information which may be conveyed to them. The reason given for this Bill is that there are certain localities and certain councils which have been lax in their administration. What do you do under this Clause to insist upon their being geared up and doing their work any better? If there had been some suggestion that you should do something with certain authorities which are backward in their inspection there might be some reason to support it, but the mere fact of asking them to compile a register and giving no authority that they should make use of a register when they have got it is absolutely useless. There is one part of the Clause in which they have asked the county council to make use of the servants of the small local authorities, that is, that the servant of the small authorities has got to become the servant of two masters. He may be serving on Monday or Tuesday the county council, and the rest of the week he is serving the local authority, or they may want him on certain days when the smaller authorities require his services. But is it not impossible that any of these inspectors appointed by one authority should become the servant of another? I can only suppose this has been inserted because they feared that by each authority being made responsible for this it would lead to a very heavy cost on the authority, and this is what they call doing it economically. But whatever you do in this way you are going to utilise the men who have accomplished great work, as the reduction of the death rate in all the great municipalities shows. You are asking that they in the future shall spend their time in looking after good houses when they would be far better employed in visiting and demolishing the bad houses in that town.


I am extremely glad for many reasons that we are going to have this Debate on the whole Clause, because I regard this as one of the principal clauses in this Bill, and I am very glad that we have the objections to it stated openly. The objections which have been raised fall principally under three heads. First of all, there is the question of the expense; then we are told the work is unnecessary, because it is done already; and, lastly, we are told it is useless. It is perfectly true that at present there is a duty upon all local authorities to inspect the whole of their district. There has been a duty cast upon them by the Act of 1890: "It shall be the duty of every local authority to cause to be made from time to time inspection of their district, with a view to ascertaining whether any dwelling-house therein is in a state so dangerous," and so on.

We who support this Clause say that either that inspection is made now, in which case the extra expense which is so much complained of will not be incurred, or, if it is not made, then this Clause will in itself be the best means of seeing that in future the inspection is carried out. After all, we are only asking that a duty which was laid upon local authorities by Parliament 20 years ago should be carried out in a businesslike and methodical manner. We hear a great deal about the inquisitorial nature of the inquiry which is going to be made, but every single argument that is being raised now against the inquisitorial character of this Clause was raised against the factory legislation introduced under the influence of Lord Shaftesbury. If it is important that a man should carry on his work in a healthy factory it is equally important that his wife and children should be living in rooms which are fit to live in, and, if they are not, the local authority and everyone who cares to inquire into the matter should be made aware of the fact. The arguments in favour of this Clause are infinitely stronger than any argument in favour of factory legislation, for the simple reason that in this Clause we are asking for help for those who are by the very nature of the case unable to help themselves. Take the case of a poor man living in a rural district, a man who does not dare to make complaints to his landlord or the agent who collects his rent. He cannot give up his house and take another, because there may be no other in the village, and he cannot leave his work, and yet he sees, day by day, his children falling into consumption and his wife becoming subject to rheumatism, and sees every sort of evil come into his family simply because he cannot get a decent house to live in. Are we, who know that these things exist under the present law, to say that because hon. Members think that these demands are inquisitorial we are not to have a reasonable inspection of the houses in which our working classes live?

Then we are told by many Members that they would not mind if it applied to the whole district. They say, "Why only inspect working-class houses in this way? This is an instance of class legislation." Personally I should not object at all to see the thing extended so as to include every house in the district, but if you are, on the ground of economy or what not, to make a distinction, surely it must be particularly in favour of the houses of those who cannot afford to build houses for themselves that we should ask that local authorities should exercise these powers. Then we are told that a great deal of the information asked for will not be required. Well and good. I am perfectly prepared, if my right hon. Friend says he does not want to know the name, we will say, of a freeholder, to assent to any reasonable Amendment; but what we are asked now to do is to reject the whole Clause, and we say if you do that you will be rejecting what is in many respects, certainly as regards rural districts, the most valuable and practical Clause in the Bill. We have been told that the register which is kept in Paris now is extremely expensive. It is a more elaborate register than we are asking for in this Bill, and so far from its being useless, it has been in force for 15 years; and the Paris municipality are now engaged in a great scheme of slum destruction and the reconstruction of certain parts of their area based upon the results of the register. It may be quite true that some parts of Paris are not very healthy or well managed, but at the same time Paris is in many ways a well-managed city, and, considering the economical nature of the French, I do not think they would have continued for 15 years making a register of houses in this way if they found the results were not worth the money spent upon the work. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the cost"] I have not the figures here. An hon. Member informs me that it is £2,500. We are told that the making of this register will be useless and that it will be a waste of time. For some time I have spent a considerable part of my time in connection with a small association called the Rural Housing Association, which makes it its duty to try to find out cases of bad housing and to bring them before the local authorities where inspection had not been made. Our experience has been that the mere publicity in cases of this sort has been in most cases sufficient to get a remedy effected. Once it became known that certain cottages were in a state unfit for human habitation, as a great many unfortunately now are, the local authorities took means to have the matter put right. In that association we act under great disadvantages, because being a private association it is difficult for us to get information. We are always liable to have it said that we are acting from personal or prejudiced motives, or that our information is not trustworthy. I can show that in a great many villages we have brought about very large improvements. Therefore, I think it is quite useless to say that the publicity which this register will ensure will not be of any use in bringing about a better state of things in our villages. On the contrary, I believe there is nothing which is more calculated to improve housing conditions than by making known publicly what is the condition of housing in many of our towns and villages.


The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Morrell) has taken very considerable interest in this matter for some time, and I am sure his speech, whether we agree with it or not, is one of great sincerity. But he begged the whole question. The assumption which underlay the whole of his speech was that this inspection was absolutely necessary because the state of things existing was so bad as to show that the work in the past has been disgracefully carried out throughout the country. I do not believe that statement can be corroborated. There are undoubtedly isolated instances where the state of things is bad. I hope they are becoming fewer every day, because the instinct for improved dwellings is as strong as the instinct for better conditions in other matters. It is no use asking the question whether we wish to see good housing. Everybody wants to see that. But we want to see it brought about without unnecessary red tape and machinery. The hon. Member asked why this should be called inquisitorial. One suggestion is that the inspector should walk into a lady's bedroom and find out how many are occupying that bedroom, and having found that out the inspector is to find out the approximate age of the lady.


The Bill does not say anything of the kind.


Perhaps the hon. Gentleman before interrupting me should have read what the Clause says. Paragraph (f) says that the register is to show the "number of occupants, sex, and approximate age at date of survey."


What I suggested was that it is not necessary that the inspector should enter the private bedrooms of the females of a house to get this information. That is what I say is not in the Bill.


If the hon. Member suggests that certain things might be done in a certain way, I think I am perfectly justified in pointing out what this may lead to. We have heard about slum destruction in Paris. Is Paris the only city where slums are being destroyed and where a great work is being done to improve the condition of the working classes? I maintain that by such a system as is here proposed you are interfering largely with the good work that is being done now. I believe a majority of, if not all, the medical officers of the country have careful records of the state of the property within their areas, and the fact that we insist on this survey being made will interfere with the nature of their inspection in those parts which most require inspection. If there is one reason more than another why I support this Clause, it is the strong protection it will give to the larger as against the smaller owners of property. It will be of the greatest assistance to the larger owners to have a register of this sort, for in many cases it will show where the bad and where the good houses are. It is in the smaller class of property that a man speculates. He may have a few cottages, and not be prepared to spend money on them. He simply treats the whole thing as an investment. These are the places where inspection is wanted. If I were to look at this from a selfish point of view I should welcome the Clause. The sanitary inspector is the greatest friend the good conscientious landlord can possibly have. Very often he points out defects which the landlord would not hear of from his own tenants, who are afraid to cause trouble by giving information on those points. It seems to me that the cost which will be involved in this is unnecessary, and that the officialism will upset the good work which is being done at present by the medical officers. That will outweigh altogether the advantages we will get out of it. Rural district councils, urban district councils, and the County Councils Association are all hostile to this Clause, and they have passed resolutions to that effect. I think that before this House sanctions a system which will cause great expense and annoyance to the people, and which will considerably clog the wheels of reform in a great many of our districts, it should pause to see whether the Clause is necessary or not.


I would like to say a few words upon this Clause from the point of view of one who supported it in Committee. I have done so owing to the fact that I have been convinced by actual practice that a clause of this kind is one of the most valuable that could be introduced. We should not forget that this Clause was strongly recommended by the Select Committee on Housing, that it was very strongly urged by the Royal Commission on Labour, over which the Duke of Devonshire presided, and that it has, I believe, the almost unanimous approval of every private association and every private individual who has studied the housing question and taken part in the work of pressing it upon the attention of this House. All of us, I am sure, will wish every pos- sible success to this Bill, and we shall hope that under it a number of houses will be erected by municipal authorities where they are badly wanted. But, even under the very best conditions, it is quite useless to suppose that the bulk of the population of this country, at any rate for many generations to come, will live in anything but privately owned houses. For my part I regard the improvement of the standard of existing dwelling-houses is quite as important, if not more important, than the provision of new houses. Take the ordinary country village or town, and you may find a small housing scheme of 10 or 12 houses owned by the local authority, but the great majority of the people will live in houses owned by private individuals. What I desire to say is that the standard of these private houses should be made as high as it possibly can be. A great deal of the argument about this Clause has been based on the assumption that inspection is thorough and systematic now, and does not require improvement. Like the hon. and learned Member who moved the rejection of this Clause, I have been myself a member of various local governing authorities, and I can only say that in my experience sanitary administration and inspection are neither systematic nor thorough. The great fault they possess is that they are spasmodic in their character. A man does not go to a village determined to make a sanitary inspection of that village. He goes into one house in that village. In nine cases out of ten it is because a neighbour has made a complaint. If this man went as a matter of course and took all the houses in a village below a certain rateable value, if you like, or if, where he thought something was wrong, he went into all of them and found out what was wrong, then perhaps you would not have any necessity for a clause of that kind. But under present circumstances that is not done; and I do contend that the effect of a clause like this, insuring a systematic house-to-house inspection and a register, will give a better and more regular inspection than you get at present.

As everybody knows, there are a number of cases in which people living in small houses—poor people—do not like to complain; and unless when some sanitary nuisance gets to the knowledge of the inspector, he does not come there, and he is not expected to find out what is the matter. I have heard it said in this Debate that the only effect of this inspection will be that you will have a mass of statistics, and that they will be no good to you afterwards. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] My hon. Friend who cheers that statement evidently thinks that a register is a book which, when it is made, is put upon a shelf in the office and left there and never taken down again. I would like to give my experience in this matter. In the county in which I have done some local government work there are 32 urban and rural districts. Owing to the great influence of our county medical officer of health—an officer whose employment I am glad to say has been made compulsory by this Bill—in eight of the 32 urban and rural districts they are now engaged gradually in making this house-to-house inspection, and registering the result of that inspection, and in one case the register is complete in every particular. I had the pleasure of showing that register to the President of the Local Government Board last year, and of showing it to the Committee who considered this Bill, and I can only regret that my right hon. Friend was not more convinced of the utility of such a very simple piece of administrative machinery, because when that register is made it is not put upon the shelf or locked away in a box. It is kept by the sanitary inspector as the record of all his district, and of the sanitary condition of that district. He goes into a number of houses in the village or small town, and he makes a complete and accurate record of their sanitary condition and the other particulars which are contained in this Clause. After a time he goes back. Probably meantime he has got his council to make a request for the various sanitary improvements. These are made, and when he goes back he finds probably that the work has been done, and so, gradually, you get a steady, systematic improvement of all the sanitary conditions of the population.

I heard one hon. Gentleman say: "What is the good of knowing how many people you have got in the house?" If the hon. Member had ever been a member of a rural district council I think he would know that it is a very good thing indeed to find out how many people there are in a house, because some of the worst possible cases of overcrowding come to light in the rural districts, owing to the deplorable scarcity of cottages for people to live in; and these things in a county should be found out before the evil which may result from them accrues. That is, the inspection should be preventive. I am perfectly certain that a large number of the evils that flow from bad sanitation and overcrowding could be stopped before they occur if only the rural sanitary authority, or whatever the authority might be, were really in possession of the facts of the case; and by that means I believe that a very great improvement could be secured in the sanitary condition of the town. With regard to the cost of the inspection, I know that in some rural districts and urban districts where it has been carried out it is costing very little more than the actual cost of the books in which the register is made. In the case of which I have spoken, the inspection was carried out in under 18 months by the sanitary officer himself, and by nobody else, and I believe that the period of five years allowed to every authority before the register is to be completed will enable the whole work to be carried out with very little more expense than is represented by the salaries of the existing staff. After all, if hon. Members are right when they say that the inspection is carried out so admirably at the present time, then surely it cannot cost very much to put the result of the inspection as it is completed down in a public book. Many of the details can be taken straight from the rate book. Under those circumstances, I cannot understand how it can be presumed that it, is going to cost a great deal. I most profoundly regret the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has not been converted on this matter. We believe this Clause is the most valuable in the Bill in regard to the housing, and I hope at the eleventh hour the right hon. Gentleman will see that it is a Clause worthy to be incorporated in a housing Bill, and if he still persists in not assenting to the principle, at any rate, of this Clause, I think he is missing one of the best chances a Minister has ever had for a very long time in connection with this matter.

Viscount MORPETH

The value of this Clause is not so much the register itself as the fact that it provides a sort of automatic test whether the work is really being done. The real fact is that a great number of people are still very indifferent to sanitary questions, and even in the better class of houses, where everything ought to be healthy, sanitary improvement would often be of the greatest value. This Clause was carried in Committee against the Government, and therefore I suppose it was only by its inherent merits that it succeeded. It had none of the artificial help that some Amendments get from the Government Whips. When I voted for it in Committee there were not so many Domesday books hanging over our heads as at the present time; and I further confess that it requires some strength of mind to adhere to the view I took then in support of this Domesday book, now that there are to be so many others of a more dangerous character. I prefer Paris to Frankfort, and I believe this Domesday book will at any rate be useful. It seems to me that this Committee forgets that during the life of this Parliament we have had one of the most important measures that has been passed, namely, that for the medical inspection of children. We are endeavouring to make the schools sanitary, and that, I think, will do more good than anything else that has been done within the walls of this House during this Parliament. The schools are to be made healthy; why not the homes? It is generally agreed that the homes are too often insanitary. It is already the duty of the medical officers to report on insanitary houses in their respective neighbourhoods. I imagine the medical officer can only know when a house is insanitary by practically going to all the houses, or, at any rate, going to houses coming within the category of those with which this Bill deals. In Clause 16 the Government themselves have put in words which make it the duty of every local authority within Part II. of the principal Act for inspection to be made of their district from time to time.

It was pointed out by the hon. Gentleman who spoke last that much useful work is already being done in the county of Wiltshire. Although I have some sympathy with what was said by the hon. Gentleman who spoke for the municipal associations in regard to the opinion of the municipal authorities, yet I cannot but think there has been some exaggeration of the cost. Even if the cost were appreciable, in a matter which regards the health I believe we shall do well to pay it. It is far better and safer for the people of this country to see that their houses are healthy than to consider the small amount that will be spent in inspection of houses, and I think some sacrifice should be made even if it is going to cost money and going to cause some trouble to the local authorities. If you take this Sub-section as it stands, it is perhaps over-elaborate, and I myself have put down some Amendments to remove the over-elaboration and make it somewhat more simple. But if we take the main points of the Sub-section, one point of itself, I say, justifies the Clause, and that is the question of the water supply. Anybody who is acquainted with country villages or country districts knows that the evil in connection with the water supply is a crying one. It is one which ought to have been dealt with long ago, and which at the present time the local authorities are making some real attempt to deal with by way of providing the villages as fast as they practicably can—though I admit the speed is not great—with water supplies. It would be invaluable to have this register. We know that many cottages of this country are in need of a water supply. So far from the register being a dead letter, which would be put on a dusty bookshelf, I believe it will be impossible to have a register of this kind which would be accessible to people in the neighbourhoods where these things are wrong, and which would show them in their glaring nakedness, without some remedy being provided. It is for the reason that this register would be valuable to the local authorities and to the Department in London that I welcome it in the cause of the health of the country.


I am very much interested in the question we are discussing to-night. In my opinion, the housing of the people under proper conditions is the most important matter that could possibly be dealt with either in this or any other Parliament in the world. Here we are discussing what appears to be merely the quinquennial survey and register. In the preceding Clause we have provided for inspection—in fact, we have almost over-inspection; we have provided liberally for inspection, and at the very moment we are passing an Act which will have untold effect for good. I tremble myself lest we, by overloading the Clause, go a long way to prejudice the carrying of it out throughout the country. I do not see any useful purpose that will be served. We know the condition of the houses. We have known it for a great many years, apart altogether from registration and from inspection. We know it from the death rate, from the reports of the medical officers, and so on. In dealing with this problem of providing better housing accommodation for the people, and for the better use of our powers, we are dealing much more effectively with the matter in the direction of producing better conditions than any amount of reports and registers. I do not see that we would further our object by keeping those reports and registers. I do not object to them on the ground of expense if they served any useful purpose, as I do not believe we could possibily spend too much money on this object if by spending money we could get nearer the ideals we have in view. If we allow this Act to be worked on the lines laid down and if we give it time I venture to say that long before the first quinquennial period, and before the first Report is handed in, we shall see a great change coming over the whole of the country, and we shall see improved conditions. Working on those lines, I believe we may discard at this present moment reports and registers which merely put on record information of which we are already in possession. Such reports cannot make more hateful to us bad housing conditions, and can in no way in themselves either stimulate us in our efforts, or stimulate the local authorities in their efforts, or stimulate or encourage public opinion, as that has already been done. Therefore I think we should not overburden the Bill with a, Clause which is unnecessary, but proceed on the lines laid down in the Bill to realise those ideals of every one of us who take an interest in this question.

10.0 P.M.


I think that the Committee will agree that the question before us is not the one on which we are all at one, namely, whether it is desirable that local authorities should put on record the very fullest possible information in regard to the sanitary conditions and the occupation of the houses within their district which are used by the working classes. That we are all agreed upon. The question is, Is it necessary in reference to the other conditions which now exist, and which are to exist under other clauses in this Bill, to have this additional Clause? My opinion is that it is not necessary, and for this reason—the Clause provides for a certain number of points to be registered which we may divide into two classes. We have those which are already provided for elsewhere and those which cannot be recorded in any useful form because the conditions are so constantly changing that it is impossible that a quinquennial record can be a full record of many such questions. I would give a reason why, from a common-sense point of view, in my opinion, it will not only be useless, but even injurious to have such a register. At present, assuming this Bill to become law, under other clauses and under the existing-law the local authority, and above all the medical officer, have not only the power, but have laid upon them the duty of making inspections whenever it is considered necessary, and at any time when it is necessary, of any dwelling. Those inspections are to be made at a time when some occasion exists for suspicion, and will be made at an uncertain moment. What is suggested here is that there is to be at some particular time, at a moment known to everybody, a return made in regard to the occupation of certain houses. What can be easier than to evade it? It is perfectly easy if there is any intention to evade to make a return which will be perfectly true on the day on which the return is made, but in the class of tenant with which this Bill is particularly concerned the occupation changes at the shortest possible notice. You have a flotsam and jetsam of population going and coming, and the record obtained of the very cases which most require records will be perfectly valueless, because the conditions do not remain not only not for five years, but very often not for five weeks or even five days. Therefore, it does seem to me you are going to encourage expense to force the local authorities to do something which they do not wish to do. The evidence as to that accumulates. I think there is no Member of this House probably who has not received a very strong representation from those who will have to carry out this Bill if it becomes an Act protesting against this Clause, because I think they will take it that this Clause assumes the desire in their case to shirk their duty. They will take it that this House assumes that they will not attempt themselves to form a record of the condition of the property within their area, and which it seems to me they are perfectly able to do. I agree, and everybody agrees, that a record so far as it can be obtained, and it can be obtained under other clauses in this Bill, of every house in the districts is a very desirable thing. Is this Clause necessary to get it, that is the point? I would vote for the Clause if I believed that it was possible to record, and have tabulated and to make good use of all the necessary information obtained by this Clause being embodied in this Bill; but I believe that all the information necessary can be fully obtained, and ought to be, and will be, fully obtained, and that all this Clause will do is to put a tax on local authorities to force them to obtain information which will be absolutely useless to them in so far as it goes, and information which they already have the power to obtain under other Clauses. Therefore, as a matter of practical common-sense, and with the fullest sympathy with the objects of the Clause, and because only I believe those objects are attained in other parts of the Bill, and that to pass this Clause would be redundant and would be expensive, and would set the local authorities against the Bill, and in many respects, would be of great difficulty, therefore, on the whole, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will not support the Clause.


The subject under discussion at this moment in the House is very interesting, and to some people it appears to be a very vital matter, for reasons which they have advanced from different points of view. Before I give the views-of the Government on this matter, may I bring before the House the fact that hon. Members who have spoken in favour of the retention of Clause 30, which was put in the Bill against the wishes and the intentions of the Government, hon. Members who have spoken for this retention, speak as if the only alternative to the existing inspection of houses or lack of inspection is Clause 30 itself. That is not the issue. On the contrary, it is the very opposite of what the House ought to be confronted with. I admit that in many places the sanitary inspection of houses in towns and cities and rural areas is far from what it ought to be, and that that inspection ought to be improved and must be improved. We seek to improve it in a more practical, businesslike way than Clause 30 itself, as I will set out. To assume that what is defective in the present sanitary inspection, which requires to be daily, continuous, and, in very poor areas, almost hourly and automatic, can be supplied by Clause 30, is to live in a fool's paradise and to deceive the House of Commons as to what its object is. Let me take the case given by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Morrell). What good is it to a cottager in a rural district, living in an insanitary dwelling, to know that either in 12 months or, after the first 12 months, every five years, his cottage is to be subjected to a structural and sanitary survey, and that not by an inspector who knows its defects? The hon. Member quoted with approval a lonely consumptive cottager in an isolated rural area who ought to be saved from a defective house. What relief is a quinquennial survey or a survey once in 12 months to a man in the last stage of consumption? It is- absurd to think that that can be any relief to him whatsoever. But we admit that the rural areas are not inspected as they should be, and that the consumptive patient has a right to have his illness mitigated, or, better still, prevented, by having a sanitary cottage to live in.

What does the Hill do to bring that about? Hon. Members have omitted to state this, and it is necessary for me to relate what the Bill does on this point. First, the Bill contains very drastic provisions for dealing with defaulting authorities who neglect their duty under the existing law. Secondly, it simplifies and strengthens the present law as to the closing and demolition of insanitary cottages, in doing which, in my opinion, we had better spend money rather than waste it upon quinquennial surveys and providing surplus sanitary inspectors with jobs which may be doing themselves some good, but from which the community profits little. Thirdly, houses are to be kept reasonably fit for human habitation. We appoint a medical officer for every county, who is to devote the whole of his time to this work; we insist that every local authority shall have a public health and housing committee; we insist on an interchange of medical officers' reports between the officers with the county council and with the Local Government Board. We also give the Local Government Board further powers than it now enjoys of requiring a local authority to report on its area with particulars as directed, without foregoing the power the Board now possesses of specially sending down its own inspectors to see that local authorities carry out their duties; and we insist upon our officers giving special reports upon special areas. We believe that the general outcome of the working of the Bill, with the 10 or 12 additional powers to rectify existing defects, to stimulate lax local authorities, and to screw up the level of sanitary operations and inspections, will do more for the people in rural areas in one year than 20 quinquennial surveys would do in the following century.

Let us look at this matter from the point of view of solid fact. This Clause is in the Bill only because the Prime Minister, very properly under the peculiar circumstances, promised that the measure should be presented to the House as it left the Committee. That was no pledge that we should stand by the Clause, on which the Government was defeated in Committee. What is more, this Clause was not in the original Bill. It was put in by only a small majority of 20 to 17, and it is not supported, as far as we can gather, by local authorities, by medical officers of health, or by sanitary inspectors, who, to their credit, are continually asking for increased powers to expand their duties, but who are against this Clause. It is objected to also by the Municipal Corporations Association, the Urban District Councils Association, the Rural District Councils Association, the Surveyors' Institute, and a number of authorities which I need not mention. They object to it because it is inquisitorial in its character, extravagant in cost, and useless in practical results. First, I will deal with the cost. We have very useful experience to guide us. Applying the test of the experience of the Manchester and Liverpool surveys over smaller areas—about 83 acres in each case—it would want 3,352 persons to do the survey in one year, or 40,000 to do it in a month, as it ought to be done; and it is estimated that the total cost for England and Wales would be nearly £500,000—a sum that would enable the Local Government Board to purchase land for and build 2,500 cottages, at £200 each, and give them to local authorities every five years. It seems to me that, on the ground of cost, there is really no argument why this Clause should be retained. Then I come to the register. The register, if adopted, would be an elaborate Domesday Book of the smaller class of dwellings throughout the country— £40 a year in London, £26 in boroughs of 50,000 inhabitants, and elsewhere not exceeding £16. That means that there will be at least 3,286,000 tenements of less than five rooms to be surveyed and inspected—672,000 in London, 934,000 in county boroughs, 985,000 in urban districts, and 695,000 in rural districts. These 3¼million tenements will not represent the total number of houses to be surveyed, because the Clause is not limited to five-roomed tenements. There are many tenements above five rooms which are not more than £40, according to the standard required by the Bill. Let us look at the difficulties of the situation. There is great force in the point—I think it was one of the best points—made by the hon. Member for Kingswin-ford (Mr. Staveley-Hill). It would mean a separate staff. It must mean that, because you would be taking the practised daily inspectors from their work, which only they can do as well as they do, and to the extent that you have a separate staff, so you would discourage the daily statutory duty of the existing inspectors, who would regard this supernumerary quinquennial survey by doctrinaire amateurs as a reproach upon their ordinary professional work. We are asked whether this will do much good. I do not think it will do much good. I am absolutely surprised that we should be asked to go to Paris for an object-lesson and an example of how to do our sanitary work. But I will close with that at once. I know my Paris both by night and day. I know the heights of St. Armand and I know Belleville just as well as I know the elevation of Lavender- hill. But if there is one city in the world that we ought to avoid in this particular matter it is Paris. What is the test of good sanitary inspection and of good sanitary conditions. It is the absence of consumption. What is the evidence of good sanitary inspection? It is a low death rate. Let us grapple with that. I will take Paris, with this survey alleged to cost only £2,500. It is a ridiculous estimate to give, and ignores the fact that outside of those who are engaged upon this very elementary register, beyond those costing £2,500, Paris has 3,171 officers on insanitary and insecure buildings in the City itself, besides 4,488 in the Department of the Seine. What is the result? With all this survey, in existence for 15 years, the facts are these: Where two people die from consumption in London, three die in Berlin, and five to six in Paris. Let us take the percentages. I have them here in the Report of my Chief Medical Officer. The percentage is 1.65 in London, 2.4 in Berlin, and 3.65 in Paris. I go from consumption and take the general death rate. In Paris the general death rate, as a rule, ranges from 18 to 20. At this moment the death rate in London, which is twice the size of Paris, is 13.8—from 20 to 30 per cent, lower than Paris. Whether you take the general death rate or that from tuberculosis there is no justification, in fact or by comparison, between London without its survey and Paris with it. But then the hon. Member for Oxford says, "Oh, but Paris has recently done some thing with regard to tubercular houses." If he knows Paris—


I do know it.


The hon. Member does know it. Well, no educated man ought to be ignorant of it. If, then, Paris is an ideal place from a sanitary point of view, how does he account for this remarkable fact, where 9,500 people die of consump- tion in Paris, with 2½ millions of people, we have 9,176 people dying in London from the same disease with nearly five millions of people? Why did he not take his survey a little further? What would he have found? That from 8,000 to 9,500 people die of consumption in Paris in the survey area in what are known as contaminated houses, where people are herded and inspected, and examined almost out of their houses, and almost out of their boots, and inspection has so signally failed to bring about any change. On the contrary, owing to this not being drastically dealt with, consumption is spreading even in the new tenements, and at last Paris is compelled to do what it should have done years ago—throw down these fortifications of disease, and immediately that they are thrown down and that they have tramways all over the place, and that the people live in cottages instead of in barrack dwellings, consumption will diminish, not owing to survey, but owing to action of a sensible and drastic character. I want to know whether the hon. Member for Oxford will take us to other places besides Paris, because if he took us to Berlin he would find an almost similar condition of things. The fact that the survey is made in Continental cities is no amendment of the state of things there. I am aware of the nine-day tourist, who gets his expenses mostly paid for him, going on a tour of municipal inspection of Europe and taking a superficial survey of Paris and Berlin, and because they are impressed by a little more flowers, a little more whitewash and a little more artistic treatment of the frontages, they assume London and England are far behind. Do hon. Members know the black quarters of Berlin? You have no right to take Unter-denlinden as a sample of Berlin, and you have no right to take the Champs-Elysées as a sample of Paris. Go to the constituency of Jean Jaurés! Go to Montmarte! Go to Belleville, among the people living in the block dwellings, who, notwithstanding the survey and the inspection, are infinitely worse off than the people living in the worst slums in London, in a condition of things for which survey is no remedy, as the figures show. What do the Government propose to do?


God knows.


The hon. Member for Woolwich says "Who knows?"


No; I said God knows.


I will tell the hon. Member what the sanitary inspectors and the medical officers think, and I will give him a sample of what is done in London and what the Government propose should be done in preference to survey. It is only proper I should deal in a practical way with this technical question. I represent in this House 184,000 people who live in 24,000 houses. If this survey prevailed these 24,000 houses would every five years be architecturally supervised and sanitarily inspected. That would not bring their death rate down. Battersea now says to its 13 inspectors: "You do not want to be browsing around the big houses in Clapham Common and Nightingale-lane, inspecting them whether they want it or not; your place is down in the Latchmere-road district, where people are living eight or nine in a house." Inspect such houses once a day or once a week if required, and once a month if necessary. What is the result of concentrating on such districts? In the case I have given the figures would make Paris and Berlin green with envy. In 25 years in that district, where we have quadrupled our population, we have reduced its death rate from 26·7 down to 12.3 per thousand. In the last ten years the infant mortality has been reduced from 163 to 107 per thousand. In many ways disease has been diminished, and the death rate for adults, infants, and consumption has been brought down to the level of many Continental watering places. At this moment there is going on a process of providing new houses where insanitary houses have been pulled down. In one district where there is a population of 1,500 of the labouring classes the death rate and infant mortality has been reduced considerably. What we want is not a system under which the inspectors go everywhere whether inspection is wanted or not, but we want a sanitary survey where it is most needed, and we want a drastic sanitary inspection, and this is provided for in the Bill. The survey which is proposed does not provide it, for it simply creates an army of officials without any corresponding return for the services they render, and if we go on increasing our needless petty functionaires at the rate some hon. Members desire, without any corresponding good, it would

end in every other man who was not a policeman being either a sanitary inspector or a Salvation Army captain. No nation can stand such extravagance. No nation with sanitary authorities working in this way can lead the world in this matter. We ought not to be expected to support a ridiculous Clause of this kind, and it is because the Government provide in their Bill a cheaper, better, and a more practical process as far as effective sanitary inspection goes than Clause 30, that I, in the interests of cheap and sanitary reform, ask the Committee to reject Clause 30, and support the Bill in other respects.


I will ask the Committee to come back from Paris and Berlin and look at the situation for a moment at home. It is on account of the sanitary condition of our villages and towns that we earnestly ask the House to allow the inclusion of this Clause in the Bill. We have gone into the matter very carefully, and we refuse to accept the assertion that what we propose is going to cost a great deal of money. Much of the work we wish to see done has already been done, and that which has not been done ought to have been done under the existing law. All we ask is that the county medical officer of health shall have an opportunity of putting his work in some concrete form, and that can only be done by a register of this character, after a survey ranging over five years.

And, it being Half-past Ten of the clock, the Chairman proceeded, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 15th June, successively to put forthwith the question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair: "That the words of the Clause, 'It shall be the duty of every local authority within the meaning of this Section,' stand part of the Clause."

The Chairman then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the Clauses to be concluded at half-past Ten of the clock this day, and on any Amendments thereto, moved by the Government, of which notice had been given.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 75; Noes, 121.

Division No.555.] AYES. [10.30 p.m.
Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.) Brodie, H. C. Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)
Barnard, E. B. Brooke, Stopford Cooper, G. J.
Barnes, G. N. Carr-Gomm, H. W. Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)
Bright, J. A. Clough, William Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.) Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Crean, Eugene Hudson, Walter Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Crooks, William Idris, T. H. W. Robinson, S.
Crosfield, A. H. Johnson, John (Gateshead) Rogers, F. E. Newman
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Jowett, F. W. Rowlands, J.
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) Joyce, Michael Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)
Duckworth, Sir James Kekewich, Sir George Sherwell, Arthur James
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Flynn, James Christopher Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Glover, Thomas MacKarness, Frederic C. Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)
Grayson, Albert Victor Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift Verney, F. W.
Greenwood, Hamar (York) Massie, J. Vivian, Henry
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Walsh, Stephen
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) Micklem, Nathaniel Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Hart-Davies, T. Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Morpeth, Viscount White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Myer, Horatio Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Hazleton, Richard O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Hemmerde, Edward George Parker, James (Halifax) Winfrey, R.
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Hodge, John Radford, G. H. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir
Holt, Richard Durning Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) J. Dickson-Poynder and Mr. Morrell.
Acland, Francis Dyke Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Pollard, Dr. G. H.
Arkwright, John Stanhope Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds) Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Gulland, John W. Pretyman, E. G.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Gwynn, Stephen Lucius Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Reddy, M.
Barran, Sir John Nicholson Henderson, J. Mc D. (Aberdeen, W.) Rees, J. D.
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Beale, W. P. Hogan, Michael Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Beauchamp, E. Holden, Sir E. Hopkinson Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.
Bellairs, Carlyon Holland, Sir William Henry Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Berridge, T. H. D. Jackson, R. S. Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Bryce, J. Annan Kavanagh, Walter M. Seely, Colonel
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Laidlaw, Robert Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.
Butcher, Samuel Henry Lambton, Hon. Frederick William Shipman, Dr. John G.
Carlile, E. Hildred Lamont, Norman Silcock, Thomas Ball
Cave, George Lane-Fox, G. R. Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) Stanier, Beville
Cleland, J. W. Lewis, John Herbert Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. Strachey, Sir Edward
Cox, Harold Lowe, Sir Francis William Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Lundon, T. Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)
Craik, Sir Henry Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Devlin, Joseph Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Dobson, Thomas W. MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) Tomkinson, James
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- M'Arthur, Charles Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Duffy, William J. M'Micking, Major G. Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Evans, Sir S. T. Molteno, Percy Alport Valentia, Viscount
Everett, R. Lacey Morrison-Bell, Captain Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Fell, Arthur Morse, L. L Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Ferguson, R. C. Munro Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Waring, Walter
Ffrench, Peter Muldoon, John Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Fletcher, J. S. Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) Waterlow, D S.
Forster, Henry William Norman, Sir Henry White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Foster, P. S. Nussey, Sir Willans Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Fullerton, Hugh O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Furness, Sir Christopher O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Young, Samuel
Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John Paul, Herbert
Glendinning, R. G. Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Philips, Col. Sir lvor (Southampton) Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.
Gretton, John Philips, John (Longford, S.)

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

Question proposed, "That Clauses 31 to 43, inclusive, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 158; Noes, 36.

Division No. 556.] AYES. [10.40 p.m.
Acland, Francis Dyke Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. Barnard, E. B. Beale, W. P.
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) Barnes, G. N. Beauchamp, E.
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Barran, Sir John Nicholson Bellairs, Carlyon
Berridge, T. H. D. Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Bright, J. A. Henderson, J. Mc D. (Aberdeen, W.) Pollard, Dr. G. H.
Brodle, H. C. Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. Radford, G. H.
Brooke, Stopford Hodge, John Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)
Bryce, J. Annan Hogan, Michael Reddy, M.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Holden, Sir E. Hopkinson Rees, J. D.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles Holland, Sir William Henry Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Holt, Richard Durning Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.) Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Cleland, J. W. Hudson, Walter Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Clough, William Idris, T. H. W. Robinson, S.
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Jackson, R. S. Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Cooper, G. J. Johnson, John (Gateshead) Rogers, F. E. Newman
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) Joyce, Michael Rowlands, J.
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Kavanagh, Walter M. Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Kekewich, Sir George Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)
Cox, Harold Laidlaw, Robert Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Crean, Eugene Latnont, Norman Seely, Colonel
Crooks, William Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Sherwell, Arthur James
Crosfield, A. H. Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) Shipman, Dr. John G.
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) Silcock, Thomas Ball
Devlin, Joseph Lewis, John Herbert Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) Lundon, T. Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Strachey, Sir Edward
Dobson, Thomas W. Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Duckworth, Sir James Mackarness, Frederic C. Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)
Duffy, William J. Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)
Evans, Sir S. T. MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) Tomkinson, James
Everett, R. Lacey M'Micking, Major G. Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Ferguson, R. C. Munro Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Ffrench, Peter Massie, J. Verney, F. W.
Flynn, James Christopher Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Vivian, Henry
Fullerton, Hugh Micklem, Nathaniel Walsh, Stephen
Furness, Sir Christopher Molteno, Percy Alport Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Glendinning, R. G. Morrell, Philip Waring. Walter
Glover, Thomas Morse, L. L. Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Waterlow, D. S.
Grayson, Albert Victor Muldoon, John White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Greenwood, Hamar (York) Myer, Horatio White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Norman, Sir Henry Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Gulland, John W. Nussey, Sir Willans Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) Winfrey, R.
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) Parker, James (Halifax) Young, Samuel
Hart-Davies, T. Paul, Herbert
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Philipps, Col. lvor (Southampton) Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.
Hemmerde, Edward George Philips, John (Longford, S.)
Arkwright, John Stanhope Foster, P. S. Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Gretton, John Pretyman, E. G.
Butcher, Samuel Henry Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds) Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Carlile, E. Hildred Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.
Cave, George Hunt, Rowland Stanier, Beville
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Lambton, Hon. Frederick William Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)
Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Lowe, Sir Francis William Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Craik, Sir Henry Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Valentia, Viscount
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- M'Arthur, Charles Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Fell, Arthur Morpeth, Viscount
Fletcher, J. S. Morrison-Bell, Captain TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Forster, Henry William Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) A Gibbs and Mr. Lane-Fox.