THE EARL OF MEATHasked Her Majesty's Government whether it is a fact that they have offered the balance of the site of Millbank Prison, some 10 acres in extent, not required for the Tate Gallery or barracks, to the London County Council as a site for artisans' dwellings, at the price of £2,500 per acre; whether this price is not considerably below market value; whether they are aware that the Local Authority of the district, the Westminster Vestry (St. Margaret and St. John), are strongly averse to further building, and are anxious, on a basis not 1798 exceeding £4,000 per acre, to negotiate for the purchase of the land as a public open space, offering to subscribe one-fourth of the purchase money themselves, and to take steps to find the balance; whether, under these circumstances, the. Government will withdraw their offer to the London County Council of the land for building purposes, and offer it at the same price as an open space; and, if not, whether they are prepared to subsidise to a similar extent (viz., £1,500 per acre) other public bodies, commercial companies, or private individuals erecting dwellings for the working classes? He said, that in 1877 an Act was passed taking the control of the prisons from the Local Authorities and placing them under the Central Government. The result had been that consolidation became possible, and many prisons were done away with. Among others was Millbank Penitentiary, on the north bank of the Thames, in the parish of St. John and St. Margaret, Westminster; The site was 23 acres in extent, 13 of which was to be devoted to the Tate Gallery Trustees and to the War Office for building barracks; and the remainder, he was informed, had been offered to the London County Council for the erection of artisans' dwellings at the rate of £2,500 an acre. He was as much in favour of building artisans' dwellings as anybody; but he would prove that this proposal was an economical mistake. There was no urgent need in the district for artisans' dwellings, while there was an urgent need for open spaces, and the Local Authorities had offered a larger sum than was asked by the Government in order that they might secure the land for that purpose. They were willing to contribute a fourth part of the cost, as long as it did not exceed £4,000 an acre—£1,500 an acre more than the Government were offering it for to the London County Council. He had been asked by the local Vestry to assist them in obtaining an open space in the district; and the Metropolitan Gardens Association also had expressed the same desire. In 1889 the London County Council offered to purchase the land at £2,000 an acre. In February, 1891, the valuers of the Government and County Council met, and fixed the market value of the land at £5,500 per acre. In March the County Council increased their offer to £3,000 1799 per acre; but it was refused by the Government, who adhered to the valuation. Then the Vestry made their offer of £4,000 an acre for the land for an open space. So matters remained until January, 1893, when the Treasury offered it to the London County Council for building artisans' dwellings at a price much below the estimated market value. He asserted that the Government were exceeding their powers in making this offer, as under Section 3 of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1885, 48 and 49 Vict., they were bound to obtain "the fair market value" for the land. This offer was less than that made by the London County Council themselves in 1891 by £500 an acre, and by £1,500 less than the sum at which the local Vestry first in 1891, and afterwards in 1893, declared themselves willing to negotiate. As regarded the question of open spaces versus artisans' dwellings, there were already in the district artisans' dwellings containing some l,200 families, while in the neighbouring district of Chelsea there were dwellings of a similar kind. There were, on the other hand, only two open spaces available to the poor people of that district—one, for which they were indebted to the late Mr. W. H. Smith, close to the Houses of Parliament; the other, which was in Horseferry Lane, they owed to a noble Duke, a Member of that House. It had been said in the other House that the poor of this district could go to Battersea Park or St. James's Park; but the latter was ¾ of a mile, and the former 1¼ miles away, which was too far for little children or weakly women to walk. The population in the district of Millbank was more douse than in other parts of the Metropolis supposed to be overcrowded. The average density of the London population was 56, but in that district it was 182, to the acre. In St. Giles' it was 162, in Bethnal Green 158, and in Stepney (including Shadwell, Limehouse, and Ratcliff), it was 127 to the acre. The Millbank district, therefore, was much more crowded than those densely-populated districts. It had been said that the river adjoining was practically an open space; but it could hardly be called a recreation ground. This land should not be offered at a lower price than its proper market value, and the Government had made an 1800 economic blunder in so doing. The subject had been discussed in the other House upon three occasions during the present Session, and upon one of those the Chancellor of the Exchequer had accepted the responsibility for having offered the laud in question to the County Council at less than its proper value. There were several reasons why this site should not be given over for artisans' dwellings. Among those reasons were the question of population, the fact that artisans' dwellings might be obtained in any part of London, while open spaces could not, and the fact that the proposal of the Government would only benefit a small class, while a gift of public land ought only to be made for the benefit of all classes. Further than this, it was inadvisable to place artisans' dwellings containing a number of young girls and women in close proximity to barracks. He wished also to point out that the Government could not, under the Disused Burials Grounds Act, build on one small portion of the land, which had formerly been used as a burial ground. Under those circumstances, he thought it would be only a graceful act on the part of the Government to add to that piece, which could not be built upon in any case, and threw it open to the poor of the district. He therefore urged Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the offer of the land for a building site which they had made to the London County Council, especially as the County Council had been six months considering what it was going to do, and had not yet replied to the offer. He also asked the Government to state their willingness to negotiate for the sale of this land as an open space at £2,500 an acre, the sum at which they were now offering it for building purposes.
THE EARL OF STAMFORDsaid, an open space in this district would be of special value to poor families. Batter-sea Park was at some distance, and an open space at hand was required where women carrying babies and poor persons with not much time to spare could obtain necessary air, exercise, and rest. The cost to the poor people of the district of going to Battersea Park would be prohibitive, especially in view of the raising of the fares upon the river steamers this summer. In St. James' Park there were only some 12 acres of grass avail- 1801 able at any one time for children or others to play upon. The Millbank site lay in one of the most squalid parts of the parish, and it would be the greatest boon to the old and very young to have this site as an open space. There were sanitary reasons for preserving the site as an open space. When the prison was occupied it was considered to be one of the most notoriously unhealthy prisons in England. Was that a proper place to select as a site for artisans' dwellings? Moreover, the prison was built on piles, and the cost of proper foundations alone for the proposed dwellings would be enormous. Some reliable estimate should be made as to the cost before the matter was finally settled. He was informed on credible authority there was plenty of room in the Lambeth Model Dwellings just across the river. He had been told that an idea had got about among the poorer classes in Lambeth that the London County Council intended to erect large buildings upon this site and to let the rooms at 1s. per week, the commercial rent being somewhere about 6s. 6d. Could their Lordships imagine anything more calculated to injuriously affect the moral tone of the poor than such a report as that getting about? Such a report absolutely paralysed all efforts to provide the poor with proper dwellings. Miss Octavia Hill, who had given so much wise and capable help to the poor, had entirely endorsed the views which had been expressed by his noble Friend.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI have some responsibility in this matter, and I wish, therefore, to say a few words. I did not gather that the noble Lord who brought forward this Motion went so far back into the history of the case as he might have done. This purchase originated in the Royal Commission of 1884, presided over by Sir C. Dilke, which reported in favour of the land set free by the demolition of prisons being disposed of at cost price for the purpose of being used as a site for artisans' dwellings. When we came into Office in 1885 I introduced a Bill giving effect to that proposal. When the measure went down to the House of Commons it was strongly resisted by the Liberal Party, who were in a majority, and after con- 1802 siderable discussion it disappeared. I only say this in order not to divest myself of any responsibility that belongs to me, and also to say that my opinions are not altered since that time. I do not admire the proposal that the London County Council should take upon themselves the duty of building artisans' dwellings, and I very much doubt whether that would be a successful operation. The idea is not very good in principle, and I am afraid that if carried out it would not promise well to the ratepayers of the Metropolis. But I do not object to the proposal that the State should give assistance to such construction. In London the State is an enormous employer of labour; and, as far as I know, in every part of the country, both in towns and in rural districts, the usual practice is not for employers of large masses of labour to undertake the whole housing of their employés, but to help the work forward as best they can. For that reason, even if I were a very strict adherent of that political economy which has gone to Saturn and has not returned from there, I should not desire to contest the proposal that the State should, in a matter of this kind, favour the erection of working-men's dwellings in a place where it is so large an employer of labour as it is in London; and on that account I am glad the idea has been resuscitated. Whether this land would be better employed as an open space is a question upon which, of course, men will form different opinions. I can quite understand that the noble Lord, Miss Octavia Hill, and other persons who have shown such a praiseworthy and indomitable energy in preserving and increasing open spaces in the Metropolis, should be enthusiastic on the subject, and that they should prefer their own favourite form of philanthropy; but I must confess that it seems to me more important that men should have wholesome and decent dwellings than that they should have open spaces to take a walk in. I think it is more a necessity of life. I do not the least deny that there is room for a difference of opinion upon the subject, but in view of the open spaces which exist, and in view of the great necessity which, according to my information, there is in the Metropolis for working men's dwellings, I confess I should lean 1803 to that mode of disposing of the bounty of the State. But, however, I have not risen for the purpose of discussing that. I merely wish to point out the origin and history of this proposal, and to express a hope that some way may be found of applying this site which has fallen to the State in an accidental manner for an object which, I think, all sound and wise philanthropists will always continue to have at heart.
§ THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, two questions arose in reference to the value of this land, and what should be done with it. It was public property, and belonged to the Government. His noble Friend strongly advocated that it should be devoted to recreative purposes, and should not be built over; and, looking at all the circumstances of the district and existing open spaces, he must support that view. In spite of what had been said with reference to the State housing its workmen, it had a duty to the taxpayers, and he had always asserted that the ratepayers of the Metropolis had nothing to do with providing artisans' dwellings. All that the Public Authorities should do in the matter was to take care that rookeries and insanitary dwellings should not be allowed to be occupied, and then the owners of such properties would build proper houses. The Government were bound to get the best price they could for the land; and it was a short-sighted policy in the long run that Public Bodies should be asked to spend public money on what had previously been sufficiently done by private enterprise. No individual persons could enter into competition with the London County Council or with Vestries, who had power to tax the unhappy ratepayers up to their eyes for any social or other object.
§ THE EARL OF CHESTERFIELDsaid, he had asked the noble Earl (the Earl of Meath) to postpone his question; but though the noble Eard had said that would be inconvenient to him, he was willing that the answer of Her Majesty's Government should be given on a future day. That was a somewhat unusual course; but he hoped the House would agree to it on the present occasion.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYIt is a very unusual proceeding. May I ask whether the noble Lord will give 1804 notice of the intended answer of the Government?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY)The noble Earl will repeat the question on another day. He was invited to put it off, but he decided not to do so, though my noble Friend was not prepared to answer that question. The noble Earl has, therefore, had the opportunity of making his speech tonight.