COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 4 July 1876)

§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

said, he did not interpose for the purpose of delay or of moving any Amendment in the Bill before them—he rejoiced to see it, and heartily approved the alterations introduced by the Secretary of State upon the scheme as propounded by the Metropolitan Board of Works. But as this was the first Bill of a long series which would come before the House for the improvement of the dwellings of the working classes, he desired to make an observation on the provisions of it. First, he desired to press upon the promoters of the Bill the necessity of making provision for those who were ejected from their dwellings while the improvement was in progress—without first ascertaining whether there was sufficient accommodation for them in the neighbourhood. This was a great evil. Since he first brought the subject 941 to the attention of Parliament, 24 years ago, probably not less than 1,000,000 of persons had been turned out of their holdings in consequence of metropolitan improvements—he himself had witnessed the misery caused thereby. Now this might be avoided if they adopted the plan pursued in Glasgow. He was acquainted with that city before it was improved, and having recently visited it, he could say that it was improved in a manner and to an extent which he had witnessed in no other city. Well, that great municipality had made very extensive improvements, and in no case did they remove the people until they had ascertained that there was lodging room for them all within easy distances. Now, if they were to proceed on the principle of entirely new construction in every case (putting aside altogether the improvement and adaptation, when possible, of existing tenements—a system far better suited for convenience and economy to the poor) the erection of houses in blocks, ugly and inconvenient as they were, seemed to be unavoidable, so great was the value of the land in London. They were to rise to heights of even five stories. This, again, might be unavoidable; but then there should be on every storey everything that could be required; water should be laid on, and a dust-bin provided on every floor, for if these poor people had to go up and down these high flights of stairs for these accommodations, it amounted to real infliction and infinite toil. Now this by the Bill was provided for each block, but not for each storey. Health and cleanliness imperatively demanded an amendment to that effect. In the distribution and character of the holdings the Secretary of State had acted with much judgment and consideration for the poorer classes. His scheme stood thus:—Provision was made for 3,870 persons in 888 tenements, consisting of 121 single-room, 650 double-room, and 117 three-room tenements, each room being constructed for the accommodation of 2.5 persons. This was a mighty improvement on the plan of the Metropolitan Board, which was very objectionable. Some single rooms were unavoidable—indeed, they were necessary; but here a difficulty arose—if the numbers in each room were to be limited according to the proportions laid down in the scheme, the expense of living in 942 them would be far beyond the means of the poorer classes, and if they were not limited, we should have a repetition of all the moral and physical evils of overcrowded apartments. Therefore, unless they had single rooms at moderate rents poor families must be crowded into unhealthy lodgings. There was a very large population in this metropolis who lived from hand to mouth, and who earned wages averaging not more than from 12s. to 14s. a-week, and of course it was impossible for them to pay 5s. or 6s. a-week for their tenements. It was not easy to see their way out of these embarrassments. Doubtless the best had been done. But he must revert to what was really practicable, and which would tend to moderate, to a great extent, the troubles and losses of displacement. Long and ample notice should be given to the inhabitants; by ample he meant something beyond the mere legal notice—every one should be made acquainted with it. The demolitions should be gradual; not more than 500 persons should be removed at onetime, nor until it had been ascertained that adequate lodging was to be had in the neighbourhood. The modern systems of displacement in London had increased the evil that many wished to remove. The people had been driven into houses which already contained more than their due; and the suburbs had begun to be as crowded and filthy as the interior of London itself. With these precautions immense good might be done. The law would effect a revolution—a revolution as beneficial as ever was effected among 4,000,000 of people.