THE EAEL OF DERBYpresented a Petition of Leaseholders and Occupiers of Property in Praed Street and its Vicinity, in the Parish of Paddington, complaining of the injustice which they suffered at the hands of the Metropolitan Railway Company, under the powers given them last 1061 year, and praying that further powers sought by the Metropolitan Railway (Improvements, &c.,) Bill may be withheld until they shall have complied with the Provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. The noble Earl said it was impossible for their Lordships to enter into the details which would be necessary to give the relief asked for, but the petitioners did not pray to be heard by counsel before any Committee, and all he could do, therefore, was to move that the petition should be on the table. The noble Earl also presented petitions of the London Institution for the Advancement of Literature and Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, and of Owners of Property and Residents in Finsbury Circus, praying to be heard by Counsel against the Finsbury Circus Railway Station Bill: also, Petition of Rev. William Denton, Perpetual Curate of the Parish of Saint Bartholomew, Moor Lane, Cripplegate, praying that no Railway Bill be allowed to pass which would lead to the Destruction of the Homes of the Poor, without first securing suitable Dwellings for the Persons displaced. The noble Earl then said, My Lords, these petitions do not bear immediately upon the subject which I am about to bring under the notice of your Lordships—namely, "the displacement of labourers in consequence of great public works in the Metropolis." I have given notice of my intention to call attention to this subject, not because I am about to trouble your Lordships with any lengthened observations, still less to propose a specific remedy for the grievance complained of, but because I think the matter is one which deserves serious consideration, more especially as it affects in the most vital manner the interests of a large portion of the population who are utterly unable to protect themselves against legislation, however unfavourably it may bear upon them; and, moreover, because I am quite satisfied that this question is one which deeply concerns the social and moral interests of this great Metropolis. The petition intrusted to me is from one individual only; but this individual has been for eleven years the incumbent of one of the poorest and most densely-peopled parishes in the heart of this Metropolis, and may, therefore, be supposed able to speak with a tolerable knowledge of the feelings, the opinions, the wishes, and the circumstances of the people by whom he is surrounded. I shall have, by-and-by, to refer in some detail to the particular circumstances of 1062 the parish which I now bring forward as a sample of others similarly situated. Before doing so, however, it may be well to call your Lordships' attention to the extent of the railway schemes which are submitted for the consideration of Parliament during the present Session. I have been told that the total extent of railways now in operation in the United Kingdom is between 9,000 and 10,000 miles; besides which Parliament has sanctioned 3,000 miles more, which are in various stages of progress, and some of which are advancing towards completion. There are now also before Parliament, asking for the sanction of the Legislature, no fewer than 240 new railway schemes. Of those 117 are schemes brought forward by new companies, and 120 are schemes of old companies, chiefly for branches or extensions. The extension lines of the old companies embrace a distance of something more than 1,000 miles; the new companies propose schemes extending over more than 2,000 miles; so that Parliament is now asked to assent to the construction of 3,000 miles of railway, or about one-third of the railway communications already existing in the United Kingdom. I need not say that, of course, a comparatively small proportion of those lines affect the Metropolis or its immediate neighbourhood. From the Report of the Board of Trade it appears that although some have been or will be abandoned, there are in the Metropolis—some of them traversing its very heart—15 new schemes, comprising in the whole a length of railway extending to 24 miles and upwards; while in the immediate suburbs (not including Greenwich and Woolwich and the south-eastern districts) there are seven or eight schemes which will extend to 40 or 50 miles. In the Metropolis and its suburbs, therefore, 60 or 70 miles of new lines are proposed, a great portion of these passing through the most crowded streets. Now, My Lords, I wish to call your attention to the Report of a Commission issued SQ far back as 1846, and presided over, I think, by Lord Canning. This Commission laid it down that if, at any time hereafter, it should be deemed advisable to admit railways within these limits (meaning from, say, the Edge-ware Road to Grosvenor Place in the line of the west, and from Finsbury Square to London Bridge as the extreme east, which are exactly the limits within which these schemes fall), this should be done in conformity with some uniform plan, carefully 1063 laid down under the authority of the Government, and sanctioned by the wisdom of Parliament; and that under no circumstances should the thoroughfares of the Metropolis, and the property and the comfort of its inhabitants be surrendered to separate schemes brought forward at different times and by different companies. That was the opinion of the Commission of 1846; and now, in 1861, we have within these limits 15 railway schemes, wholly unconnected with each other, and by companies wholly independent of each other, those railways extending through the district to an extent exceeding 24 miles. I hold in my hand a map issued by the Board of Trade of the railways now proposed. Your Lordships will see a large patch on the map marked by a bright red spot. That is the proposed Finsbury station, intended to be the centre of all the railways from Wormwood Scrubs on the one side, to Stratford on the other. The railway to which I wish to call attention is a very short one—little more than half a mile in length. It is called the Metropolitan Extension Railway, between Finsbury Circus on the east, and Smithfield on the west, and it bears a small proportion to the 24 miles which are to be constructed, many of which are to be carried through districts not less crowded than that I am referring to. Your Lordships will see on this map a line from the North-Western Railway (the extension to the docks) which runs in nearly a direct line from north to south. It is called the North London Railway, is about 21 miles in length, and runs from Kingsland down nearly to Finsbury Circus. Then there is another and an independent scheme for the establishment of a gigantic railway terminus, occupying the whole of Finsbury Circus, and something more. I will say a few words to your Lordships before I sit down; but for the present I will deal with the Metropolitan Extension line between Finsbury Circus and Smith-field. The population of this parish, which is not an extensive one, is given in the Clergy List at 4,500; but I am informed by the incumbent that it now considerably exceeds 5,000. The number of houses in the parish is not more than 500, and, therefore, there are 9, 10, or 11 persons to each house. In the whole parish there is not a single gentleman's house, or even one large shop. The whole population consists of the poorest classes, the grade of shopkeepers, costermongers, and lowest dock labourers. [Earl GRANVILLE: 1064 What is the name of the parish?] It is St. Bartholomew, Moorfields, Cripplegate. Throughout the whole parish there are not 10 families who occupy a house to themselves, although the bulk of the houses contain only 3 rooms. The incumbent tells me, "the aristocracy of my parish consists of families who are able to indulge in the luxury of 2 rooms." But the greater number of families have 1 room, and 1 only; and this is sometimes divided between more than 1 family. Well, through this parish it is proposed to carry the railway. Out of the 500 houses, and the 5,000 inhabitants, there are under notice more than one-half of the whole number of houses, and very nearly one-half of the in-inhabitants. Your Lordships must see at once that the class of persons who inhabit this parish are utterly helpless to prevent any extension against their own interests. These persons are all weekly tenants. Of course, the railway company select the poorest class of property if they have any choice in such a district. They give ample remuneration to the owners, who are exceedingly glad to part on good terms with a property which is of the most unsatisfactory character. Out of the 5,000 inhabitants at this moment considerably more than 2,000 are under notice. It may be said, and perhaps it will be said, that these populous parishes are improved by driving a broad line of railway through them that will at least let air and light into these centres. I will not deny that there may be some advantages attending the construction of a wide street, or even a railway, by letting in light and producing a circulation of air in such districts; but we must not shut our eyes to the hardships and suffering at the expense of which these improvements are made. Even supposing the number of persons who will be turned out of their dwellings in the parish I have spoken of are under 2,000—and this is but a part statement, for the number will be raised to 9,000 in the Metropolis on the whole—yet it must be recollected every removal involves a loss of the means of living. The occupations of the people tie them to a particular spot, and by removing they lose their employment, their customers, or the tradesmen for whom they work. If they remove they are deprived of the means of earning their living, and at one blow you deprive thousands of the means of supporting themselves and those dependent on them. But, my Lords, it does not cer- 1065 tainly follow that they will remove. The danger is, that, instead of removing to some other neighbourhood, they will only settle into the already crowded dwellings left in the other parts of the district, and fix themselves upon these overcrowded and wretched abodes, rendering the "last state" of that parish "worse than the first," as they will be cooped up into a much smaller space, and subjected to still greater hardships and discomfort. My Lords, it would be idle to trouble your Lordships with many details of the evils caused by the overcrowding of dwellings. There is abundant information on the subject in a variety of official documents which have created the most painful feelings in the Members of this House. But I have here a Report of the Sanitary Committee of the City of London made by Dr. Letheby; that Report is now four years old; but I fear the state of things it describes has not been greatly changed since it was made. What do your Lordships say to this? Dr. Letheby states that in 1,989 rooms there were living 5,791 persons—a husband, wife, and often four or five children in one room. Adults of both sexes—sometimes of the same, sometimes of different families—lodged in the same room, men and women herding together like savages, and where the slightest regard to the ordinary rules of common decency was impossible. He adds that the physical degradation and discomfort hence arising were blighting the morals and the existence of the rising generation. My Lords, this is the state of things officially described by Dr. Letheby four years ago. The lapse of time has not altered this state of things with regard to this vast mass of persons. And if this is the case it, at all events, behoves your Lordships to be careful how you run the slightest risk of giving an indiscriminate sanction to schemes that must necessarily dislodge large numbers of the poorer population of the Metropolis; to be careful how you run a risk of aggravating these already fearful evils. My Lords, the petition I hold in my hand states as the opinion of the petitioner, that this overcrowding of dwellings is the main cause of habits of drunkenness and improvidence, and that these evils will be increased if the too scanty number of the dwellings of the poor is diminished by carrying out the railway schemes before your Lordships, And in connection with this subject I may, perhaps, advert to another scheme that bears, if not directly 1066 yet indirectly, on the comfort of the working classes of the City. There is a scheme proposed for converting the whole of the space of Finsbury Circus into a large railway station. The plan is brought forward unconnected with any railway company whatever. The Bill is asked for by a Railway Station Company without a railway, as other companies have asked for a Railroad Bill without a station. Now, what is the area of the space of Finsbury Circus? Though the inhabitants prize it highly and cannot imagine anything more luxurious than that space open to the air, and adorned with trees, yet the whole of the space unoccupied does not exceed three acres and a-half. But this ground is unoccupied under rather peculiar circumstances. Some fifty years ago the Corporation of London, as trustees for property in Moorfields, obtained the right of building on it; but at the time the appropriation was made it was distinctly provided by the Act of Parliament that a large space of ground should be reserved for the recreation of the public. In consequence of this Act, these three and a-half acres remained unbuilt on; it is the only space in the neighbourhood where people can. take air and exercise, and it lies within fifty yards of the crowded parish I have alluded to. The proposition is that the whole of the inclosure, ornamented with 200 trees and shrubs, and the space outside, used on Sundays as a promenade by the working classes, shall be taken and converted—not into a railway by which a circulation of air might be occasioned, but into a large railway station—thus doing away with that chance of recreation and fresh air the people of the neighbourhood now have. The inclosure is surrounded by some fifty houses of the better class, tenanted by medical men, the clergymen of City parishes, and others of the higher class, whose avocations detain them in the City. By the inclosure of the space whatever comfort is now enjoyed by the infirm and by children will be destroyed. I believe the proposed inclosure will not directly affect the lower classes, but indirectly it will. It is the only place within a short distance where they can have fresh air, and that will be taken away from them. Consequently, with regard to the lower classes in this neighbourhood, the inclosure will be a serious annoyance to them, and a great inconvenience. In a sanitary point of view there cannot be any question that the inclosure will be highly detrimental 1067 to the health and comfort of the whole vicinity. Among the buildings it is proposed to remove is that of the London Institution, established for the encouragement of literature and science. It has an extensive library; it has been an acquisition to all classes in the neighbourhood, yet it is to be swept away, and with it, of course, all its advantages. My Lords, there is one prayer in the petition that I am not prepared to accede to, though it is a very natural one. It is a very extreme prayer; and the question it raises has already been brought before your Lordships by the noble Earl below me (the Earl of Shaftesbury). It is that every railway company shall be compelled at their own expense to provide lodging accommodation for a number of people equal to those their works may displace. That proposal was discussed by your Lordships on a former occasion; but it appeared that in some cases it would be impossible, as ground could not be converted to the purpose; in others it would be unnecessary, as there would be enough vacant houses, or spaces where houses could be built to receive those who were dislodged. Tour Lordships, also, have always been jealous of allowing railway companies to embark in any speculation not connected with their lines, and thought it inexpedient to make them land or house jobbers. The proposal was amended by my noble Friend, I think, on my suggestion; and I believe railway companies, on applying for their Bills, are now required to state the number of houses they propose to destroy, and what precautions they have taken against the evils caused by that destruction. This requirement has, I am sorry to say, failed, for every petition, by some means or other, gets over the difficulty. As far as I know this is not one of the points into which Parliamentary Committees are bound to inquire before giving their sanction to any Bill. As to Finsbury Circus, the parties petitioning are the London Institution and the principal inhabitants of the neighbourhood; and one inhabitant has petitioned singly. They are in a station of life which enables them, if they think they have any grievance, to submit it to the proper tribunal. But the Metropolitan Railway, to which I first referred, is actually an unopposed Bill, because, in all the district through which it passes, there is not a single person of sufficient means or influence to bring the subject before your Lord- 1068 ships. The inhabitants are not only going to be turned out of their dwellings, but they are to be turned out without notice, and without the possibility of having their case heard before the Committee on the Bill. A Bill so destructive in its operation surely requires watching; but, nevertheless, it will pass unopposed, unless my noble Friend the Chairman of Committees should think it necessary to bestow upon it a little extrajudicial attention. I find that up to last year no such thing was ever thought of as occupiers being allowed to remonstrate against being displaced; but I have been told by a gentleman who was on a Committee of the other House last year to which the Black-wall Extension Railway was referred, that the Committee did entertain a petition from the labouring classes, who joined together to present it; and the Committee, very much to the disgust of the counsel engaged in the matter, not only listened to the statements of the petitioners, but also rejected the Bill in deference to the prayer of the labouring classes. In the case I have now brought under your Lordships' notice there can be no opposition, and it is for your Lordships to say whether any course can be adopted to prevent such injury being done to so many persons. I have said I do not think the course we ought to take is that which is recommended by the petitioners, of laying down an abstract rule that every railway company should be required to find accommodation for as many persons as it deprived of homes. It has also been suggested that a trust should be created, and that each railway company should pay to that trust a sum sufficient to provide dwellings for those displaced by its operations, a regular and stipulated rate of interest being paid to the company for the money so advanced. That is only one of various schemes which have been suggested, and upon which I offer no opinion. My desire is that before infinite evil is done, before an infinite number of persons are turned out of their homes, before infinite injury is done by adding to the already overcrowded dwellings in the district—that before all that is done, that your Lordships may appreciate the gravity of the question, and that the Government may consider what means can be adopted to mitigate an evil the magnitude of which no one can dispute. I am not prepared to move anything, but I cannot help thinking that if your Lordships consider the statement I have made 1069 possesses any force, the appointment of a Committee would be of advantage to inquire into the effects upon the population and the social condition of the Metropolis of the great extension of railways. The deliberations of such a Committee would, I think, be no waste of time, and its appointment would be received with gratitude by those who are prevented by their poverty from coming forward and socking that redress and inquiry which the law has provided for all that are able to avail themselves of it.
§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYMy Lords, I am glad that the subject has been taken up by the noble Earl, and I hope it will meet with the attention which its gravity demands. In 1853 I submitted this subject to your Lordships' consideration; but I did not succeed in obtaining what I desired. I moved that the parties undertaking these great works should be held responsible to the parties whom they displaced; and that while they sought to make profit from a proceeding which spread devastation throughout a whole neighbourhood, it was not right that the gain should be all on one side and all the loss on the other. I did not obtain the Committee I asked for, but a Standing Order was passed, which required that a return of the number of houses that would be demolished and of persons who would be displaced should be made before any Bill should pass. These Reports have been regularly made for the last seven years, and nothing can be more useless than they have proved to be. I have only had time to take seven Bills, which are now submitted to Parliament, and in those Bills I find powers taken to demolish 1,145 houses, and to displace 5,422 persons. That is the result of my researches into seven Bills; and if it be true that there are more than 200 Improvement Bills coming to this House this Session, your Lordships will see that the ravages they will cause will be as great as if a foreign army had invaded the country, plundered the inhabitants, and dispersed them in all directions But in order to appreciate fully the effect of these improvements, you must go to the spot before the demolition and after it has taken place. I have felt it my duty for many years to inquire into these matters, and I have visited threatened districts where the poor people were living in ignorant security. They are generally poor working people who could not rea- 1070 lize their position until the pressure actually came upon them, and when three or four weeks' notice was given them that they must quit their homes, or the houses would be pulled down over their heads. This order to turn out fills them with consternation; they rush in all directions to seek for a home; the husband or wife loses time and wages in searching for a dwelling-place; and probably when the period comes for quitting their abodes, they have not been able to provide another for one of two reasons; either they have not had sufficient time to look about, or they have not been able to find a house to receive them. The consequence is, that at the last moment these hundreds or thousands rush in vast crowds into already overcrowded dwellings of the neighbourhood, necessarily to the utter neglect of all considerations of decency or of health. I will just give your Lordships the results of an examination that was instituted only last week. A great demolition of houses took place a few years since in the neighbourhood of Field Lane, City. A thousand houses were pulled down, 4,000 families, comprising 12,000 individuals, were turned out and driven into the surrounding tenements. The result of an inquiry made a few days ago is as follows:—I took 45 courts within the compass of a few minutes' walk; 20 of these courts contained in the aggregate 250 houses, in which wore 1,133 families, each occupying one room. The average number of persons in each family was five, and the general size of the rooms was from 15 feet by 10 to 8 feet by 9, and the rent of each room averaged 2s. 4½d. per week. The total number of inhabitants in these rooms was 5,665. That is in the City, under the care of Dr. Letheby, whose Reports have been referred to by the noble Earl, and whose exertions have been highly praiseworthy, and have been attended with beneficial results; but the state of things defies his power wholly to remedy. Without the City the state of matters is still worse. In the vicinity of Cow Cross there are 14 courts, in which I find there are 173 houses, containing 58G rooms, occupied by a like number of families. The total number of persons is 3,764, the average number in a room being 6½. The size of the rooms varied from 15 by 12 to 9 feet by 9. These rooms were, in all instances, low, dark, dismal, and dirty; and it was with difficulty that I could stand upright in them. Some 1071 were so narrow that, by stretching out my arms, I could touch both walls at the same time. In eight smaller courts, leading out of Holborn Hill I found 66 houses, containing 314 rooms, the average size of which was 8 feet 3 inches by 7 feet 9 inches, and yet into these rooms were crowded no less than 1,479 inmates. I will also give the results of an examination of 401 scholars at the Field Lane Ragged School, on the 25th of February last. I found that they represented 284 families, of which 178 were occupants of single rooms. Of these I found that in 17 families there were three persons sleeping in a room, in 20 there were four, in 38 five, in 32 six, in 38 seven, in 24 eight, in 8 nine, and in 1 there were ten persons slept. The average rent was 2s. 4d. a week. I found that 99 families occupied two rooms each, the average number of each family being seven, and the rent 3s. 8½d. a week. It is impossible, my Lords, to exaggerate the physical and moral evils that result from this state of things. It is impossible to describe its effect on the population. I would not for the world mention all the details of what I have heard, or even of what I have seen, in these scenes of wretchedness. But there are to be found adults of both sexes living and sleeping in the same room, every social and every domestic necessity being performed there; grown-up sons sleeping with their mothers, brothers and sisters sleeping very often, not in the same apartment only, but in the same bed. My Lords, I am stating that which I know to be the truth, and which is not to be gainsaid, when I state that incestuous crime is frightfully common in various parts of this Metropolis—common to the greatest extent in the range of these courts. Again, as to the effects of all this on health, can anybody doubt that anything can be more prejudicial to the human system than the filthy squalor, the fetid air, and depressing influences of these dwellings? When you ask why so many of the working men betake themselves to the ale-house and the gin-palace the answer lies in the detestable state of their homes. You cannot expect a man of even Borne strength of principle and affection to bind himself for a whole evening to such a filthy apartment and vitiated atmosphere. Even if he has any turn for literary pursuits or mental improvement it is impossible for him to carry it out in such a miserable den. Nor does the depressing in- 1072 fluence stop there. These men are driven to the gin-palace to seek excitement and sustain their sinking nature; and I have had it from hundreds of both women and men that this cause, and this cause alone, has driven them to the use of ardent spirits. The proof of it is that we have now in the model lodging-houses hundreds of families, the fathers and mothers of which were drunkards of the worst kind; hut, being now brought into a condition where health of body can be maintained they have entirely given up their beastly habits, and become decent Christians and good members of society. My Lords, I will not now repeat my proposition, however just I may think it, and although I believe it will be the principle eventually laid down by Parliament—namely, that those who gain the whole profit should bear some measure of the loss inflicted by these displacements of the working population. But I must protest against any further sanction being given to those wild schemes by which large numbers of these poor people are turned out of their abodes, and sent into the overcrowded tenements in all directions, and yet the projectors never complete the work they have undertaken. Last year I protested against part of the open space at Smithfield being taken; and yet a considerable part of it has been taken for the purpose of being covered, and the people shut out from the advantages of purer air. A proposition has also been made to take away part of Lincoln's Inn Fields. A greater act of cruelty, and I may say of tyranny, towards the working classes could not be conceived. Serious evils result from the juvenile population having no places for recreation. Poor children having no other ground accessible to them, trundle their hoops and play at "cat" in the thoroughfares, sometimes to the inconvenience of the passers-by; and I learn that recently no fewer than fifteen young boys were sent to Coldbath Fields Prison for no other offence than indulging in these amusements. I am myself very glad that these children do thus play at "cat," and trundle their hoops, and annoy the public; for it will make the public look to the cause of the evil, and do what they can to remove it. But a prison is the very worst school in the world for these young boys, and it is a cruelty to them that they should not have some means of innocent enjoyment. It has been said, my Lords, that suburban villages might be provided for 1073 the working classes, and I have had various plans placed before me. There are, doubtless, great difficulties in the way, and the very greatest is offered by the people themselves; because suburban villages would produce the separation of the working classes from the scenes of their labour. The labouring man must live near the scene of his work. When I consulted the working men themselves on the subject I found them much more ready to go to a distance from London than their wives, the managers of their households. I have not heard one woman speak in favour of the suggestion. They one and all said that such a removal from London would break up their connections and deprive them of the 3s. or 4s. a week they are now enabled to earn; while in these villages, the inhabitants being all of the same degree of life, they would not be likely there to obtain those little jobs by which they now eke out their husbands' wages. All these are points of great importance to the interests of the labouring man and his family, and require to be carefully considered. For myself, my Lords, I am surprised at the calm and orderly manner in which the people submit to these privations, and to what they must regard as great acts of oppression. There is one other point which I must mention. Your Lordships may depend upon it that seven-tenths of the pauperism of this country arise from habits of intoxication and the recklessness and extravagance they engender. The experience of the late severe frost brought this truth to light in the most unmistakeable manner. I am quite certain that a very large proportion of those who appeared at the police offices, and pressed on the various institutions for dispensing the bounty of the public were persons who ought not to have been in so destitute a condition, who were brought into it by their own fault, and who, having been in the receipt for years of wages amounting to 30s., 35s., and even more per week, might, but for their drunken habits, have easily laid by something for an evil day. No doubt there will always be many persons who will give way to intemperance; but I am sure that if you improve the domiciliary condition of the people, and enable them to live in decency, health, and comfort, by removing them from the contaminating influences, socially, morally, and physically, to which they are now subject, you will reach the root of the evil, and do far more good than 1074 by any improved administration of the Poor Law, or by any appliances of private benevolence: because you will help the working man to maintain his own cause, stand up for his own rights, and support his own family without being a pensioner on the public. The poverty of this country is not a necessary and inevitable poverty. The wages of labour and the amount of work to be had are such that, if the people were only sober, thrifty, and careful, they might be the most happy and comfortable people on the face of the earth. Nine-tenths of our poverty, misery, and crime are produced by habits of intoxication; and I repeat that I trace those habits, not altogether, but mainly, to the pestilential and ruinous domiciliary condition of the great mass of the population of this Metropolis and the large towns of the country. I am exceedingly glad, therefore, that a great political leader like the noble Earl has taken up this question, for I can now hope that it will receive the attention which it deserves.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONexpressed his thanks to the two noble Earls who had just spoken for bringing forward this subject in which the clergy of the Metropolis were greately interested. And especially he rejoiced that so practical a proposition as the appointment of a Committee of their Lordships had been suggested with regard to it. Their Lordships might perhaps think that the east-end was the part of London which was in the most piteous condition, as being inhabited entirely by the poor; but he believed that nearer their own doors would be found poverty more squalid and miserable than any existing at the east-end of the Metropolis, and that arising from the very cause to which their attention was now called. He was informed by a clergyman interested in the spiritual welfare of St. John's parish, in the very neighbourhood where they were now sitting, that when Victoria Street was formed 5,000 persons were displaced in his parish, one-fourth of whom took refuge in the overcrowded districts on the other side of the river, while the others found shelter within his own parish; so that, as a general rule, every house before inhabited by one family came to be inhabited by three or four. Their Lordships had that night heard no exaggerated account of the miseries which ensued from this state of things. When the Black wall Railway Bill was brought before the House of Commons' Committee it was felt that the case called 1075 for some particular action; and the particular action taken was this—the gentleman who was proprietor of the houses to be pulled down, being a man who fully answered to the responsibilities of his position—a man who was not contented to receive the rents of such miserable houses without attending to the wants of the people, who kept a medical man to attend to their health, and a missionary to look after their spiritual wants—was heard before the Committee, and the Committee resolved that without his consent the houses should not be pulled down. He believed this subject had only to be extensively ventilated and the owners of property would understand what was required of them in relation to it. The poor could not attend themselves before railway committees; they must trust in being represented by the owners of property: and these persons, when their attention was drawn to the subject, though they might gain some money by the exchange, would not be so ready to accept what would lead to the utter ruin of their tenants, and the example of the gentleman examined before the Blackwall Railway Committee would be imitated by other proprietors. The metropolitan clergy, he had stated, were very much interested in this matter. In the case of the clergyman who had signed one of the petitions which had been presented to their Lordships, as a matter of fact, his private and personal interest would probably have been promoted by the proposal to remove a large portion of his parishioners. They had heard what his parish now was; it certainly would not be in a worse condition. Last year this gentleman came to him (the Bishop of London), and said the whole parish, church and all, was to be swept away by the railway, and he might have contented himself, receiving a compensation, and enjoying a sinecure instead of a laborious parish. But he was thankful that the clergy of the Metropolis had more regard for the welfare of their flocks than for their own convenience. He trusted, as this matter had been brought before the public, the proprietors of houses as well as the clergy would see what their duty was in relation to it. He could not doubt that the particular proposal which had been made of a Committee to inquire into the subject would, if adopted, have great effect in remedying the evil complained of.
§ EARL GRANVILLEThis is a subject, my Lords, most interesting in itself, and 1076 it has been treated in a most interesting manner by the two noble Earls and the right rev. Prelate who have spoken upon it. I will myself take the opportunity of alluding to one or more points raised by the noble Earl who has introduced the subject. As far as my recollection goes I think the first point touched upon by the noble Earl was the number of railway Bills, including the Metropolitan Railway, awaiting the consideration of this and the other House of Parliament; the second question touched upon was as to one of these railways and the Finsbury terminus; and, lastly, there was the great evil of the displacement of labourers connected with all those improvements in the Metropolis by the railway works being carried on. With regard to the first point, the statement made by the noble Earl as to the enormous mileage of railways over the country, there can be no doubt it is enormous, though in some cases the railways have not been very profitable to their shareholders, chiefly owing to Parliamentary procedure and the conduct of companies themselves; but they have added enormously to the prosperity and welfare of the people. With regard to the mileage embraced in the schemes now before Parliament, which the noble Earl stated at 8,000, it is quite clear that this is a matter which, in the present state of knowledge possessed by the public in relation to the practice of Parliament, might be left very fairly to itself. It must be remembered that when a number of Bills for a certain mileage are promoted a great many of them are rival lines which have no chance of being sanctioned by Parliament. Besides, there is another question which must have its weight—where is the capital to be found for all these railways when the rate of discount at the Bank is 8 per cent? With regard to the Metropolitan Railway, when the noble Earl, carried away by his zeal on another subject, which we all know interests him deeply, describes the devastation produced by railways to be as though an invading army had passed through the land, I would have your Lordships to consider that some of these lines will be of the greatest advantage to the Metropolis. It is impossible to see our overcrowded streets without feeling assured that these railways, if properly constructed, will add enormously, not only to the comfort of the Metropolis, but to the increase of its capital, the fund out of which labour must be paid, and 1077 therefore to the welfare of the labouring classes themselves, besides to a large extent increasing the salubrity of the Metropolis itself by opening new lines of communication; and any general increase of the salubrity and sanitary condition of the Metropolis must be acknowledged at least as much to affect the poor as any other class. With regard to the second point, the Finsbury Circus terminus, my first impression would certainly be unfavourable to any scheme which had a tendency to close up any large space of open ground in the Metropolis; and that would no doubt be strengthened by the very able ex parte statement of the noble Earl against the particular line. But while the noble Earl was certainly justified in calling attention to a particular line, so that it may be watched when it came before the House, nothing would be so unfair as to come to any judgment on any private Bill without the opportunity of hearing what the promoters have to say in favour of the line. I now come, my Lords, to the third point, and here, in one particular, I entirely agree with every noble Lord who has taken share in this debate—I mean the enormous, the incalculable evil of the poorer class in the Metropolis being so crowded together as has been described, and as we have too much reason to believe, truly described. No one knows better than the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) the evil is great, and the remedy is most difficult. The only suggestion the noble Earl who first spoke made on the subject was the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry; he did not offer any remedy for the state of things he described. The difficulties are enormous. Palliatives may be applied; but when you come to deal with the Metropolis, containing a population of 2,500,000, it is almost impossible to apply palliatives. There are the model lodging-houses, and we all know the Metropolitan Association, which has worked so beneficially in this direction. I remember reading an eloquent speech of the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), in which, with reference to this subject, he made a most touching appeal to charity. He said it was useless to go to the capitalist, and the work must be done by charity alone. A great many of your Lordships are shareholders'—I am myself one—in the Metropolitan Association for Improving the Dwellings of the Poor. We receive 2 per cent for our money. It is more than we expected; 1078 but it is not an amount which would induce capitalists to regard it as a profitable investment; and when you come to deal with this great question, the failure of sufficient interest for your money has an important bearing on the case. I was so much impressed with the importance of this matter that I consulted one of the great contractors as to whether it was not possible by an association of the more influential parties, embracing men of great capital, to give that sort of interest which would tempt to speculations of this sort; but with great regret, after considering the subject in all its bearings, he confessed to me that it would be perfectly fruitless. Another objection to such a scheme is that a great part of the people who go to such places to live are persons who can afford to pay for the better kind of lodgings. Even in the model-lodging houses a great many of the tenements are taken by persons whose means are above them, and are not that class of destitute persons who are huddled up in small rooms, and for whose relief these buildings were intended. The difficulty of dealing with the matter, therefore, I say, is very great. But it may be said if the evil exists why do you aggravate it by making new railways? In the first place, I would call your Lordships' attention to the fact that a great many of these metropolitan railways are underground railways which go under several miles, taking only one house for a station, where, therefore, you will have the minimum of interference? They cannot, therefore, be compared with the above ground railways in the amount of destruction committed; nor by any means with some of the recent improvements by making large streets, which, without any compensation whatever destroy great numbers of small houses. As to the practical part of the question, it is clear, I think, that the the very fact that the Standing Order to which the noble Earl referred has been moved year after year, and that the evil still exists, is a proof that it has been ineffectual, and that the railway companies cannot build houses as substitutes for those which they destroy. I understand that the promoters of some of the metropolitan railways now before Parliament propose, not that the companies themselves shall become householders, or land jobbers, but that they shall be bound to run a certain number of trains a day to carry the labouring population to the outskirts of the Metropolis at very cheap fares. As 1079 the rents in the suburbs are lower than in the midst of the City, the working classes would thus be enabled to procure accommodation on much the same terms as they now pay. While the charwomen and others engaged in certain occupations would find it necessary to remain in the towns, a larger area would be thrown open to the bulk of the working people. It must not be forgotten also, that many of the streets and alleys which are threatened with destruction are so disreputable, and seem to possess such an irresistible attraction for the dissolute and criminal classes that, as long as they exist, there is no hope of their ceasing to be the haunts of vice. I am not sure, therefore, that you are not doing a positive act of kindness to the poor in removing the worst description of these houses. I will not prolong this discussion further. I am quite sure that nothing can be more useful than that the subject should be ventilated; and, I trust, that the right rev. Prelate's expectation may be fulfilled, and that the landowners of the Metropolis may be led by what has been said to-night to look after the condition of their more helpless tenants. I doubt, however, whether any great advantage would be derived from the appointment of a Committee. The subject will necessarily come under the consideration of the Private Bill Committees to whom the various schemes will be remitted, and if a Select Committee on the general question were also to be appointed it would lead to a double investigation of the same matter, and to the examination of parties twice instead of once. I would suggest that the Railway Bills should be grouped in such a way that all those which involve this question should be sent to the same Committee, who would give these details a careful consideration. But if the noble Earl should think it right to propose the appointment of a General Committee, I am sure your Lordships will give to the Motion that attention which any proposal proceeding from so high an authority would deserve.
§ EARL GREYsaid, he entirely approved the suggestion of his noble Friend that the new railways should be made the means of affording relief to the labouring classes in regard to house accommodation. The noble Earl who introduced the subject (the Earl of Derby) had pointed out the great difficulties which arose from displacing the working classes from their present homes, but he had not been con- 1080 vinced that those difficulties could not be met. A t all events he was certain that they were not in a situation to pronounce one sweeping condemnation of every scheme which involved a displacement of the houses occupied by the labouring classes. He could not conceal the disappointment he felt when his noble Friend who represented the Government in that House declared himself unable to suggest any mode of avoiding the dangers which were so forcibly indicated by the noble Earl. The more they considered the subject the more they must feel that the question of metropolitan railways demanded the most anxious and careful consideration. It was a question which ought to be dealt with upon some distinct and comprehensive principle. The extract which the noble Earl read from the Report of the Committee which sat some years back must carry with it complete conviction to the mind of every man who was capable of comprehending the question. It was most unsatisfactory to learn that, while the evil was so pressing, the Government had no remedy to suggest, and were willing to throw that great question loose to the consideration of one or perhaps two or three ordinary railway Committees, who would be ignorant of each other's views. A question of so much difficulty and importance could not be dealt with in that way. It had been stated that those who were most interested in the matter would not be able to appear as parties before an ordinary railway Committee. The truth was that the existing machinery for dealing with the whole subject of railway legislation was altogether insufficient to meet the difficulties of the case. The existing arrangements ought to be reviewed, and some better plan than the present must be devised. He could not but believe that, whatever evil might arise from delaying the metropolitan railway Bills for another year, it would be infinitely less than would be produced by passing a hasty decision on the question, and permitting a certain number of lines to be constructed, which might afterwards turn out to be inconsistent with a general scheme of a matured and well-arranged character. He hoped the Government would not allow this subject to remain in its present unsatisfactory position. To the Government they had a right to look to solve the difficulty. They knew the number and character of the works to be proposed before Parliament met, and it was 1081 their duty to have considered the subject, and to have been provided with some remedy for a difficulty which was so apparent.
THE MAEQTTESS OF BATHsaid, he thought that the whole of their present machinery for dealing with these questions was inadequate to meet the requirements of this case; inasmuch as a Select Committee of inquiry into a railway project could not hear any parties whose property it would not affect. He believed that the people living in the neighbourhood of Fins-bury Circus, for instance, would have no locus standi before a Committee appointed to consider the proposal for constructing a railway terminus at that point. He would suggest to their Lordships that the petitions which had been presented by his noble Friend should be referred to the Select Committees that were to take those schemes into their consideration, with an instruction from the House that each Committee should inquire how far the proposed lines would affect the interests of persons who occupied houses in their neigbourhood. He believed their Lordships need not waste much sympathy upon the promoters of those undertakings. They were got up in many cases between an attorney and an engineer, who, after creating a company tried to make the best terms they could for disposing of the project to some large railway company already in full operation, those two officials being thus enabled to obtain the fees which formed the great object of their labours.
§ LORD REDESDALEsaid, the simple fact was that it was utterly impossible that the railway system of the country could be properly controlled unless they had a Railway Board. He had said so over and over again for years whenever the question had been mooted. But the railway companies did not like the idea, and the Government were indisposed to take it up, and so nothing was done in the matter. It was very true, as the noble Earl had said, that the Government knew before Parliament met what schemes were to be brought forward; but before they could move in the matter the preliminary steps had been taken and expenses incurred by the promoters. If they wished to deal properly with the whole question they ought to establish a Board to which the promoters of any scheme should be required to submit it, in order that it might be decided whether it was fit to be laid before Parliament; they could thus interfere for the purpose of delaying or reject- 1082 ing a scheme at the moment when their interference could be really effectual. If a certain amount of discretion were vested in a Government Board, at least as far as metropolitan Bills were concerned, he could not see that it would do any harm, and believed it would do a great deal of good. What the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Bath) had said as to the origin of such schemes was true in a great many cases. A number of attorneys, engineers, and, above all, a contractor got up a scheme of a railway between them, and, whether it was received or rejected by Parliament, in one way or another these persons managed to make their profit out of it. But if such schemes were referred to a Government Board they would discover whether they were supported only by a few professional men, or by the people in the neighbourhood of the proposed lines. In his opinion no parties would gain more from the appointment of such a Board than the existing railway companies who were often placed in an unfair position when they were asked to subscribe to branch lines proposed by parties who could not raise, and had no prospect of raising, a third part of the means necessary to complete them. Powers were then inserted by which existing companies were to be at liberty to subscribe large sums, and who were unable to refuse their requests in consequence of pressure that could be brought to bear upon them. Those companies were all more or less connected with engineers and contractors, and a great pressure was put upon them to make them undertake very injurious expenditure. With regard to these metropolitan railways he was unable to suggest any means of meeting the case which had that evening been submitted to the notice of their Lordships, simply because there was no proper machinery for dealing with them. The Finsbury Circus speculation was just as if persons had proposed to take Grosvenor Square for a railway terminus, and had got up the scheme, not because the Great Western or the North Western had expressed any desire to have a station in Grosvenor Square, but because the promoters thought they should find their interest in obtaining for it Parliamentary sanction. The Finsbury Circus Company had made no return of any houses of the labouring poor being displaced, and he believed that in the locality the houses were of a good character. The Metropolitan Railway extension from Smithfield 1083 to Finsbury Circus returned that it would displace 1,100 labouring poor by destroying 172 houses; but by the return of the clergyman of one of the parishes the displacement would be very much greater. He supposed that the returns were either carelessly taken, or it was very difficult to calculate what number of persons came under the denomination of labourers. By the returns received from those lines which were now being carried out immediately within the Metropolis it appeared that 880 such houses would be destroyed, and 3,882 of the labouring classes displaced. There were six other railways within the metropolitan district which made no return with respect to the demolition of any houses; yet, he supposed, it would be impossible to run a railway into any part of the Metropolis which would not be attended by that effect. He did not think it desirable to refer all the metropolitan lines to one Committee. The Charing Cross line and the Finsbury Circus, line served districts totally different; and the effect of referring the whole of the lines to one Committee would be that the Committee would inquire very carefully into the first or second; but, then, being uncommonly tired they would pay very little attention to the other schemes. As far as the mere consideration of the Bills was concerned they had better be divided into groups, and referred to separate Committees. At the same time the whole subject of the accommodation of the public by metropolitan railways required grave consideration, and, except that objection might be taken by the promoters, he saw no very great harm in deferring the consideration of the schemes for a year or two, as had been suggested, when they might be in possession of some report upon the subject. He believed there was a great deal of sense in the recommendation of the Committee referred to by the noble Earl that Parliament should not sanction anything like a general central terminus. The rail-Way, which had, at first, been much ridiculed—the Underground Railway, with stations at different points—was likely to afford considerable accommodation by bringing persons to the termini of the great lines where the trains were made up, and was far better than a central terminus which would bring all the passengers going into the country to one point, and that point in the centre of the Metropolis. The existing companies showed great rivalry in metropolitan extensions, 1084 and, instead of benefiting, he believed they would ruin themselves. He believed that if they asked the South Western they would find that they had never made a shilling by extending their line to their Waterloo Station. He believed that the Charing Cross Railway would not add materially to the profits of the South Eastern Company. He believed, indeed, that enormous expenditure on metropolitan extensions was hardly ever repaid, and, although it was desirable for the public advantage that there should be a great number of central stations, he preferred that people should be taken from the central districts to stations outside London rather than that the railways should be brought into the centre of the Metropolis. How could several Committees deal with the whole question? One Committee might come to a sound conclusion and reject a Bill; but another Committee, wanting the same discretion, might by a bare majority sanction a less desirable line. It was not fair, perhaps, but it was a necessary consequence of the system; whereas a Board must act upon some uniform and comprehensive system. If the subject were really of the importance which noble Lords attributed to it, he hoped that they would at last adopt what he had from the first advocated—? namely, a Railway Board of some kind, in whom the public would have confidence and which would, at all events, be responsible for the decisions it pronounced.
§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that with regard to the proposition to suspend all the schemes now in Parliament until the whole subject had been considered they ought to remember the present position of the metropolitan railways. The ground was almost entirely occupied. Some of these lines were already in the course of construction, and in others the Bills sanctioning the undertakings had passed through Parliament. For instance, the Company for making a subterranean line from Paddington to Farringdon Market had obtained their Bill, and the works would be completed this year. Another metropolitan railway was open almost close to their Lordships' doors—in Victoria Street. The line to Charing Cross was sanctioned, and the works were in progress. There was, in truth, very little remaining to be done in dealing with the general question, and it would be very hard on parties who had incurred great expense in preparing Bills for the exten- 1085 sion of useful lines if their schemes were postponed until that House had declared its opinion on a subject which, in its main features, was concluded by what had been already sanctioned. He deprecated as much as any one the inconvenience which it was urged must result from displacing large numbers of the working classes; but, in the first place, he had to observe that the subterranean railways affected the dwellings of the poor less than any other town improvement, and were productive of the greatest public benefits, while at the same time they did not destroy as many houses as any of the great streets which were being made through some of the most abominable and worst parts of the town. There were two other great schemes in contemplation which would displace ten times as many houses as all the railways—the scheme for erecting new courts of law between Lincoln's Inn and the Strand, and the scheme for a great metropolitan hotel in Holywell Street; and surely their Lordships were not prepared to say that they would suspend every great plan for the improvement of the Metropolis which might displace any of the poorer classes and drive them to seek fresh homes. If they waited until they had devised a remedy for that, the town would remain unimproved to the end of the chapter. Not one of their Lordships—not even the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) who had given so much time and attention to the subject—had suggested a remedy, and at present he saw no possibility of a remedy. Though there might be some advantage in appointing an independent Committee to consider the whole subject and to endeavour to devise a remedy which might be applied in future contingencies, he strongly deprecated the appointment of any Committee which would have the effect of suspending the great operation of existing railways, or the progress of the Bills now before their Lordships' House.
THE LORD CHANCELLORrose, to correct a mistake into which the noble Earl below (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had fallen. No proposal had been made to close up Lincoln's Inn and build new courts of law on the space. Such a scheme he should deprecate most strongly. What was proposed was to build them on the area between Lincoln's Inn and the Strand.
§ Petitions ordered to be on the table.
§ House adjourned at a quarter to Eight o'clock 'till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.