HL Deb 11 May 1875 vol 224 cc449-62

Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that though the practice had begun to prevail of constructing Bills without Preambles, yet the principles of the present measure would be found in the Preamble, the various propositions of which could scarcely be questioned. None of their Lordships would deny that— Various portions of many cities and boroughs were so built, and the buildings thereon were so densely inhabited, as to be highly injurious to the moral and physical welfare of the inhabitants; nor would any of their Lordships refuse their sanction to the further proposition that it was— Necessary for the public health that many houses, courts, and alleys should be pulled down and such portions of the said cities and boroughs be reconstructed. Having thus glanced at the Preamble, he thought it might be convenient if, in the first place, he went through the enacting portions of the Bill for the purpose of simply stating what it proposed. Clause 1 was merely a provision for giving a short title to the Act. Clause 2 described the districts to which the Act was to apply and the Local Authorities in those districts. It was to apply to the City of London and the Metropolis exclusive of the City of London; urban sanitary districts in England containing a population of 25,000 and upwards; and urban sanitary districts in Ireland containing a similar population. The "local authority" was to be as respecting the City of London the Commissioners of Sewers, as respected the Metropolis outside the City, the Metropolitan Board of Works, and in each urban sanitary district the urban sanitary authority of that district. He had the curiosity to ascertain the number of persons to whom the Act would apply exclusive of the inhabitants of the Metropolis and those of the City of London, and he found that it would apply to 5,400,000 souls. Their Lordships would see, therefore, that immense numbers of people would be affected by the provisions of the Bill now before them. Clause 3 provided that the Local Authority might make a scheme for improvement on being satisfied by an "official representation" of the unhealthiness of the district. Clause 4 provided that the "official representation" might be made by the medical officer of health of his own motion, or on the complaint of two justices of the peace, or of 12 ratepayers. Clause 5 described the requisites in the shape of maps, estimates, and particulars which should accompany the improvement scheme of a Local Authority. The Local Authority was to be invested with discretion as to the locality in which new dwellings were to be provided, and was not to be compelled to provide them within the area of demolition. One part of Clause 5 assumed increased importance when read in connection with Clause 8, which empowered the Local Authority to contract with the limited owner who was under restrictions as to his tenure. Another valuable portion of the Bill was that which diminished the costs of Parliamentary proceedings by employing the machinery of Provisional Orders. As to the execution of the scheme by the Local Authority—the Local Authority was, immediately on the scheme having received the confirmation of Parliament, to take steps for purchasing the land required, and for otherwise carrying out the scheme—they might sell or let any part of the land so purchased upon terms that would carry the scheme into execution; or they might engage with any companies or other bodies, to carry out the scheme upon such terms as they, the Local Authority, might think expedient; but they were not, without the express sanction of the confirming authority, to undertake themselves the execution of any part of the scheme—that was left to commercial or other enterprize. Hitherto it had been found by those who had directed special attention to the subject that the impediment to progress was the difficulty of acquiring sites and not the difficulty of providing funds; for some of the 16 associations or Companies of the Metropolis possessed more money than they had been able to devote to the objects for which they were formed. The Bill would not run counter to the principles of political economy, because interference with the inexorable laws of political economy must ultimately bring about much wider misery than would be temporarily caused by the existence of those hard cases which, according to the proverb, produced bad law. The Bill left to private enterprize that which was no part of the business of either the State or the Local Authorities. Where, under the protection of the law, complicated tenures had grown up, it was no interference with the laws of political economy for the State to solve difficulties created by its own artificial action. The Bill was not a compulsory measure, and for the best of all reasons—if a Local Authority was really determined to do nothing, it would be difficult to coerce it by means of a Central Authority. He was unwilling to believe that the great municipal corporations of this country would, when called upon to deal with this subject, show such a want of public spirit as to allow such plague spots to remain within their jurisdiction as were proposed to be removed by this Bill. On this point he would refer their Lordships to what had been done by the Corporation of Liverpool in 1864, by the City of Glasgow in 1866, and by the City of Edinburgh in 1867 under their Improvement and Sanitary Acts. In Glasgow in one single improvement not fewer than 250 families were removed and found ready accommodation in the immediate neighbourhood. The information on the Table of the House as to what had been done by the three great municipal bodies of this country to which he had referred, showed that they were not insensible of the duties which were imposed on them, and that a large portion of the remaining municipalities would gladly accept the opportunity of putting into operation the machinery placed at their disposal by this Bill. The real difficulty with which they had to deal was not the density of the population, for while in the most dense part of London the average density was 235 per acre, and the actual density of the densest part of London was 410 human beings per acre, yet the number accommodated in some of the improved areas were not less than 1,100 souls per acre. The real evil was the unsuitability of the tenements. The problem was complex, the remedy simple. By an economic use of the space obtained, and the erection of more suitable dwellings, they might hope a very large area would remain for playgrounds for children, or for squares, or, what was not less impor- tant in a sanitary point of view, for wide streets. At all events, there was no reason to fear that a very large space would not be available for housing the dispossessed population. London was not like Paris where the population was not indigenous but continually recruited from the country. In 1871, there were living in London of persons born there 2,055,576, so that their Lordships would see the importance of providing adequate condition of sanitary propriety for the rearing of the large number of children born in London; while for the whole of England and Wales the decennial increase ef the rural population—1861–71—was 668,428, the increase of the urban population was 1,969,456. Parliament had not been forgetful of its duty in this respect, and from time to time various Acts had been passed dealing with the subject. He had before him a list of the Acts which had been passed; but up to the present time no comprehensive scheme of this kind had been initiated. One argument which was often used against the demolition of these houses was that it often drove the population into a worse state of things than before; but the detailed experience of Glasgow and Edinburgh gave a very different result. In fact, the working classes were always ready to avail themselves of the improved dwellings which were placed within their reach. Some valuable information had recently been placed on the Table with reference to the diminution of crime coincident with the improved dwellings of the lower classes. In Glasgow, in 1867, when the Improvement Trust commenced, the number of crimes reported was 10,899; whereas there had been, not a casual or sudden, but a continuous decrease, till in 1873 the number of crimes reported was only 7,869. Then, as to mortality. He had figures before him which showed the difference in this respect between two streets of Liverpool, one of which was properly ventilated and provided with sewers, and the other in a very defective sanitary condition. It appeared that while in the one street out of 100 children under one year only four died, no fewer than 50 died in the other. Again, whereas in the whole metropolitan area the ordinary death rate was 24 per 1,000, the death rate in the houses of the Metropolitan Associations for Providing Dwellings might be taken at 14, Their Lordships would see in these figures how large a margin was left for improvement. It was useless to suppose that in providing suburban accommodation for the labouring classes they would find an adequate remedy for the evils complained of. It was essential to a large class of artizans that they should reside near their work. It was not only that time was lost if they lived in the suburbs—not only that they were separated all day from their families—but it was in many cases indispensable that the artizans should be always at hand; and therefore it was impossible that suburban dwellings should ever provide accommodation for that description of artizans. He hoped their Lordships would be of opinion that the time was come when a serious effort should be made in this matter. We had not only to make up for the neglect of the past, but to meet the growing demands of the future—for the population was increasing at an enormous rate, and it was estimated that between the years 1870 and 1880 no less than 3,000,000 souls would be added to the subjects of Her Majesty within these islands, of whom three-fourths would be deserters in towns. He had studiously refrained from drawing a sensational picture of the sufferings and horrors undergone in consequence of overcrowding. He appealed to their reason and justice. It must be remembered that we were no longer living under the conditions of a sparse and scattered population as in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and that we must do what we could to retrieve past errors as well as to make provision for the future. He trusted that if this Bill, the second reading of which he now begged to move, were passed, a great deal would be done to regain for the toiling millions whom it would affect their due share of health and happiness and of life.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Steward.)

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

My Lords, Her Majesty's Government deserve our praise and gratitude for the Bill they have introduced. I admire the boldness and perseverance with which they have addressed themselves to this difficult question. They have done their best to master the difficulty; but they have not mastered it; nor will they do so, until after wide and pro tracted experience. The Bill, on a broad view of it, may be divided into two parts—demolition and re-construction. It may be, though the matter is doubtful, that the part affecting demolition is complete; I will assume, however, that it is so; but the more intricate part remains—and they will find that to cover with houses the large spaces, that shall have been laid bare, houses adapted in number and quality to the wants of the displaced population, will put their scheme very severely to the test. I cannot but think that the Government are over sanguine in their forecast of what will be effected by the Bill. It may ultimately produce great good; but the working of it will demand much thought and patience. It is true that there are very large areas in which great benefit will result to the community from the mere removal of the houses which now encumber them; but when they are removed, what is to be substituted? Now, look to the effects of demolition. Hundreds, indeed thousands, of families will be displaced; some for a time until the tenements shall have been re-built; but many permanently. Such was the case in the Westminster improvements—and for the population so disturbed provision must be made. It is stated, I know, in the Bill, that arrangements of this sort must accompany demolition; but the requirements of a clause and the fulfilment of those requirements are very different things, and oftentimes separated by a long interval. It is vain to rely on the ample notice that is to be given to the inhabitants. They do not, and they really cannot, give heed to it. Occupied, as they are, day by day and hour by hour, they think only of the present; and they cannot afford time or loss of wage to run about in quest of other dwellings. And so when the moment arrives for the levelling of the domiciles in which they reside, they are like persons possessed—perplexity and dismay are everywhere; the district has all the air of a town taken by assault. Then they rush into every hole where they can be received; some near, some very far off; though all struggle to be as close as possible to their former dwellings. Streets and houses, already over-crowded, become doubled in population. Every demand of health and decency is set aside; and people submit, by com pulsion, to the greatest moral and physical degradation. I need not multiply instances, though I could well do so. But all that I have stated was seen when New Oxford Street was constructed, and the St. Giles's rookeries destroyed; the masses in Church Lane—a district already seething with life—were, in consequence, increased two-fold. And in Westminster, to make room for Victoria Street and other handsome improvements, a nation of men, women, and children was driven out; many of the old ones went into the workhouse, and never escaped from it; many fled across the water, suffering great privations, until they had formed new connections of work; and many pressed into the swarming rooms of the neighbourhood, the landlord, in numberless instances, where the poor inhabitants had two rooms, taking from them one, and then forcing them to pay for the single as much as they had paid for the double apartment. Now, I would not have spoken on the present occasion had not the subject before us been one on which I have been engaged ever since 1843; one to which I have devoted a great deal of time and attention; and yet I am no nearer the solution of the problem than when I began it. I mention all this to show the necessity of much care and circumspection in your preliminary operations. My noble Friend has said, and very truly, that the labourer must in many cases reside near his work. That is exactly the point I am insisting on. It is so, even with several classes of the skilled artizans. Take, for example, the watchmakers of Clerkenwell. They must live near together, because, as no one of them is rich enough to possess a complete set of tools for his minute and delicate business, they borrow of each other; a mutual service that could not be rendered were they far apart. And I concur again with my noble Friend that suburban dwellings will not give the full remedy we seek—they will furnish but a part of it—nevertheless, if taste and preference lie that way, these tastes should be encouraged. But now, my Lords, let us think of re-construction—we must not, on commencing so vast a work, rely on what is ordinarily called philanthropy. It must be a commercial enterprize; and with that view we must have recourse to the building capitalists. Now such experience as I have leads me to believe that few of them would undertake a work like that with less than a fair prospect of 10 per cent on the outlay. But here the promoters and the contractors will be at variance. The promoters will of course desire accommodation for the classes temporarily displaced; but the contractors will seek to erect houses which will bear the highest rent by being adapted to the richer order of skilled artizans. At once, then, will arise the difficulty. The large proportion of the labouring people in the metropolis are not of the skilled class, but of the inferior order of labourers who live by casual and irregular duty, without any definite or constant employment, and, consequently, unable to afford sufficient house-room for themselves and their families. Here is a sample, and a sample only, from the Report of the Charity Organization Society on the dwellings of this class— In St. Giles's, about 3,000 families have only one room, exclusive of about 2,000 persons living in common lodging-houses; and in Holborn, out of a population of 44,809 persons, about 8,000 families are in single rooms. I may just, in passing, show the sanitary results of such things. The average mortality," the Report adds, "in the worst streets in St. Giles's varies from about 40 to 60 per 1,000 persons living, and that in the worst parts of Whitechapel averages 40 per 1,000, while that of all London for the year 1872 was only 21.4. Now, must we not infer from this statement that if two parishes alone present such a mass, the whole aggregate of London must present something almost intolerable? And yet these are the classes for which you are to provide sufficient and proper abodes. My noble Friend has said that the experiment has already been tried in Glasgow, and with success. He says that some 250 families were removed, and that they found ample accommodation in the immediate neighbourhood. Now, in the first place, I remember a saying of Mr. Canning's, that "nothing was so fallacious as figures, except facts;" but I must also observe than an experiment made on 250 families is widely different from one to be made on some thousands; and we must also ask what was the precise class of the parties removed, and we must consider, moreover, the distinctive peculiarities of the Scotch and English character. But when my noble Friend makes his calculations as to the possi- bility of erecting cheap tenements for the poorer sort, he must remember that the cost of buildings already erected and the rent put upon them do not furnish a proof that similar results may be attained in the present day. The price of material is higher than it was; and the rate of wages in the building trade is so advanced, that, in order to make a remunerative profit, a much heavier weekly payment must be imposed on the occupier of apartments, whether they be constructed on the separate or the block system. Well, what are we to do? Are we to construct a vast number of single rooms in order to meet the means of these poor people, or are we to build houses according to our new sanitary requirements? If we re-construct single rooms we shall maintain a most indecent and most immoral state of things; if, on the other hand, we do not, rents will be raised so high that it will be perfectly impossible for the people to bear the demands that will be made upon them. I am speaking now of labourers who have no regular work of any kind, and not of skilled artizans. These men live from hand to mouth, and have to take work as it comes, just at the moment. At the docks, for instance, men may be seen standing in single file, 40 or 50 deep. There they remain for hours in the hope of getting work; and were they not on the spot they would stand no chance of being employed. The earnings of these men, whose employment is dependent on the wind and the arrival of the ships, are extremely small. When there is plenty of work they make about 17s. a-week, but taking the average throughout the year their earnings in the aggregate do not exceed 9s. 9d. a-week. Then, as to their abodes; some single rooms are let for 2s. 6d. and 3s. 6d. a-week, but there are some of these people who pay as much as 4s. 6d. a-week for a single apartment. You must remember, too, that although the wages of skilled artizans and those who have fixed labour have risen very considerably, the earnings of the class I have been alluding to have not perceptibly increased, owing partly to the nature of the work and partly to the great influx of people from the country every year. Now I must repeat that, unless we reconstruct dwellings adapted to their means, great injury will be inflicted on the people who are displaced. Yet there is one form of remedy well worthy of consideration. We can adapt, drain, and ventilate old tenements, courts, alleys, and culs-de-sac at a far less outlay than is required to construct anything new. The Society with which I am connected—the Labourers' Friend Society—has made, and successfully made, such efforts on a pretty large scale. We began it some years ago; and since that time the plan has been pursued, and with very good results, by an energetic lady, Miss Octavia Hill. Let me show your Lordships some of the happy results. Take, for instance, Tyndall's Buildings, in Gray's Inn Road. We got possession of this court, and renovated it at a cost of £2,699 19s. 11d. Well, on an average of seven years, from 1864 to 1870, the return has been 5¼ per cent. It contains 87 rooms for families; and your Lordships will bear in mind that the inhabitants are of the poorest class of labourers, mostly Irish, who cannot afford to pay more than from 1s. up to 2s. for their week's lodging. This court I had long coveted, for it was filthy, miserable, and disorderly beyond all precedent. Fever was never absent; and I can answer, from personal inspection, that I, at least, have not descriptive power enough to say what it was physically and morally. Nevertheless, we had courage for the work, and the issue had better be stated in the words of two authorities of some value in the district. The medical officer reported that fever was now unknown in that locality; and the police-constable, who for a long time had been acquainted with the wretched place, assured me that while formerly the police always went down the court by couples, they had now seldom occasion to go there at all. Similar statements may be made in respect of Wild Court, near Drury Lane. It contains 100 rooms for families, which families are also mostly Irish. It was renovated at an outlay of £3,364 19s. 11d., with an average percentage of 4¼. I may add, without going into details, the like results have been obtained in Clarke's Buildings, in St. Giles's-in-the-fields. Now, I venture to suggest this plan—it is, unquestionably, worthy of consideration, as a partial, not as a complete, remedy. Surely, in every area where there is to be a wide demolition, some of the best buildings might be reserved for improvements and adaptation, the only mode whereby we shall be able, at least so far as we know at present, to better the domiciliary condition of the great bulk of the labouring classes. But whatever be the determination of higher powers, I will venture to express a hope that all will be done with care, circumspection, and, above all, not in haste. If the clearances be gradual, it will be far more easy to make provision, temporary or permanent, for those who are driven out. I have been much among the people in such circumstances; and I know what they suffer; and I know, too, how they bear it. I have often heard the language of complaint and sorrow, but never of sedition or revenge. The law thus carried into effect may, by God's blessing, do much good; and my noble Friend may take this assurance to his heart—His brevibus principiis via sternitur ad majora.

LORD ABERDARE

, in supporting the Bill, said, the noble Earl had referred to the vigorous way in which Liverpool and Glasgow had grappled with the evils of bad house accommodation, and he (Lord Aberdare) asked why similar improvements should not be effected in London? The Bill, no doubt, placed the responsibility on the Local Authorities of the various districts—but if these were competent to perform these functions, why should not London, which possessed such large powers of self-government, be able to effect as much as Glasgow? He believed that since 1870 upwards of 3,000 miserable dwellings, containing 15,000 more miserable inhabitants, had been pulled down in Glasgow, and within the same time a sufficient number of new houses built to accommodate the working classes, as well as to meet the increase of the general population. The noble Lord who introduced the Bill (Earl Beauchamp) had touched but slightly on the diminution of the crime in connection with this subject; but the noble Earl did not refer to the improvement in the health and morals which must result from these alterations. He (Lord Aberdare) believed that a very great diminution of crime would result from such improvements as were contemplated by this Bill. Since the improvements made in house accommodation in Glasgow the number of crimes there had decreased from 10,899 to 7,869. That was an answer to the argument that the pulling down of miserable dwellings occupied by the poor would propagate evil and spread it over a larger area. He thought that power should be given by the Bill to exchange land occupied by bad dwellings for other land wherever such change would be to the interest of a locality. He cordially supported the principle of the Bill.

LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK

said, there was no greater obstacle to the health, the purity, the culture, and vigour of the labouring population than the bad condition of the dwellings in which many of that class lived—he believed it would be found that the morality of a population was on a par with the condition of their dwellings. Her Majesty's Government had therefore in every respect done a wise and useful thing in introducing the present measure to Parliament, and they had done so without the impulsion of any agitation; but solely for the object which recommended itself to their consideration—the necessity of improving the dwellings of the working classes and the poor. The necessity for such a Bill had been long advocated by persons who were identified with questions of the kind, but it was a matter which the Government of the day might have allowed to hang over for an indefinite period; and, as it dealt with questions of property, and was therefore a matter of some delicacy, there was a strong temptation to let it drift. And it was certainly a little remarkable that the class which was to be most benefited by the Bill had shown so little interest in it. Having given his opinion as to the value of the measure, he thought he was justified in making some criticism upon its main features—namely, the ground on which it proceeded, the agencies it employed, and the powers it conferred upon them. The ground on which it proceeded was that it was absolutely necessary, not only upon sanitary but upon moral grounds, that some such measure should be passed; but he regretted to say that having just mentioned the word "moral" in the Preamble the Bill made no further mention of it. There were in many of the large cities and towns localities which were the resorts of the vicious and criminal classes, and which ought on that ground to be swept away, but which, being perfectly healthy, could not be touched under the provisions of the Bill. With regard to the agencies which were to be employed in carrying out the provisions of the Bill, he found that the proposals were various. In the case of the metropolis, Petitions for the confirmation of schemes were to be presented to a Secretary of State, but the Petitions of urban sanitary authorities were to be dealt with by the Local Government Board. On the whole, he thought it would be better if the Local Government Board had been chosen as the confirming authority in London as well as in the provinces. Before this Bill was introduced, local authorities possessed power to demolish insanitary property, but not to make a useful appropriation of the site, and the exercise of that power in some cases would have intensified the evil it was intended to mitigate. This Bill gave all the necessary supplementary powers with which a public body could properly be intrusted. But what he objected to was that after a scheme had been made by the Local Authority, and after that scheme had been confirmed by the confirming Authority named in the Bill, it was quite optional on the part of the Local Authority to take proceedings or not towards removing buildings. This could not be for fear of investing the confirming Authority with arbitrary power, because at present if a Local Authority neglected its duty, the Local Government Board could coerce or do what was necessary and raise the money by rating the locality. Why, then, should the superior Authority be left so impotent in this case? It ought to submit a report to the Local Authority for its remarks, and if the Local Authority failed to satisfy the confirming Authority, that ought to be invested with power to order a scheme to be carried out. The hardship would be far less in this case than in reference to water supply and drainage, because in those cases it was an administrative Authority that overrode an elective authority, while in this case nothing could be done without the sanction of Parliament. The Bill also provided that there should be a distinction made with regard to London and the country; and that while in London the Home Secretary was to be the confirming Authority, with respect to provincial towns it was to be the Local Government Board. He did not see any reason for putting the metropolis into a dif ferent position from that of any other town, and he thought the distinction was an invidious one. Nothing could exceed the extent of the powers now given to Local Authorities, either under application for private Bills or for public works. Unfortunately, while they had these extensive powers, they were inert and refused to act. He thought that it would be wise in the Government to amend the Bill in one respect. At present the Local Authority would only have power to make a report, which might be acted upon or not; but, in his opinion, they ought to be required, in the event of the confirmation of their report, to carry it into execution. He did not think the apprehensions of the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) as to capital always requiring the incentive of 10 or 15 per cent were at all well founded, for experience had shown that companies and associations had no difficulty in attracting capital, the owners of which were satisfied with 4 or 5 per cent. The three principal building companies in London paid 4½, 3, and 5 per cent respectively. The Peabody Trust did not pay more than 3¾, but it was conducted on charitable rather than commercial principles; and, if the property were to be sold by auction, it would probably sell to realize 4 or 5 per cent. In a country in which capital accumulated so rapidly, it would be better that it should be employed in these undertakings than that it should be squandered, as it lately had been, upon foreign loans.

Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday the 3rd of June next.