The Sun.
London, England, 1867-03-27 00:00:00

TIPPERARY ELECTION COMMITTEE.

This committee, consisting of Mr. John Floyer, Lieut.-
Colonel Hogg, Mr. Walter Morrison, Mr. Arthur Russell,
and Sir Phillip Grey Egerton (chairman), was sworn at
the table, and ordered to meet to-morrow.
ARTIZANS' AND LABOURERS' DWELLINGS
BILL.

Mr. M•CULLAGII TORRENS moved the second read-
ing of this bill, which ho said was similar to the measure
introduced last year as it loft the select committee. It
might be said that it contained a principle of undue inter-
ference with Free-trade, but if it was shown that that in-
terference was not in their case urgently necessary, ho was
willing to concede that the bill ought not to be passed. In
many cases hardworking men were condemned to inhabit
stye; which members of that House would not con-
demn their horses or dogs to live in. In such cir-
cumstances, he contended, they could not expect
those men to turn to intellectual pursuits ; far less could
they restrain them from going round the corner and getting
three-pennyworth of paradise from the gin shop. That
House was accountable, if having the means within their
power, they neglected to use them. The hon. member pro-
ceeded to give instances of over-crowding, remarking in
passing that it was a mockery to tell working men to go to
the uountry, because the expense was too great. In a
densely populated court, packed as close with human beings
as herrings in a barrel, a man caught fever, and his wife
and six children were obliged to inhale the impure air.
Whyl did the fever make sure work? Because in a house
of eight rooms there were livings 7 people. The parish sup-
plied a coffin ; but what happened then ? the wife and
children were thrown upon the rates. This was bad, both
on the ground of principle and economy, and wont a great
way to meet the objections that this bill would add to the
rates. Besides, he had a petition earnestly praying that
the bill might be passed from ono of the most heavily rated
parishes in the metropolis. He could give hundreds of such
examples. The bill had been thoroughly sifted by the
select committee, and they considered it a safe measure.
It adopted the principle of the act given to Liverpool four
years ago, by which the officer of health was enabled to
give information when any house was unfit for habitation,
and the scope of that act was extended so as to include re-
building, a power which Liverpool was also desirous of
obtaining.
Mr. H. J. SELWIN supported the bill, and said that
three millions sterling were expanded in relief and chari-
ties every year in the metropolis; but, however large that
sum might be, it was only a relief of the evil after the fact,
it was not an attempt to remove it. He quoted from statis-
tics to show the death-rates of various large towns, and,
adverting to the large number of persons in the metropolis
who lived in unhealthy habitations, said he should prefer a
more elastic system of meeting the difficulty than that
proposed by the hon. member for Finsbury. They might,
he thought, request the Government to give a guarantee
of four per cent. on capital invested in dwellings such as
those proposed by the bill, and in that way they would
attract a great amount of capital which was at present un-
invested. On going into committee, if the bill were read a
second time, he would ask the sense of the house on this
suggestion.
Sir J. C. JERVOISE and Mr. GREEN supported the bill.
Mr. AYRTON thought it was a misfortune that the bill
did not extend to all England, and especially to rural dis-
tricts, where the squalor of the houses was greater than
in the metropolis. But there appeared to bo some misap-
pi ehonsion as to the bill : it could not deal with over-
crowding by the provisions which it contained ; it dealt
with property no longer fit for human habitation. That
was a distinct question from overcrowding. A house might
be fit for habitation if it was only occupied by the num-
ber of people for whom it was designed. But if they
put into it four or five times the number, it was quite plain
it must be injurious to health : that, however, was a dis-
tinct question from the condition of the house itself. He
had walked into many of the alleys of the metropolis, and
he could assure the house that the structure of the build-
ings was rather exaggerated by fanciful and philosophical
persons. He believed very few houses were in themselves
unfit for habitation if the number of people living in them
were not too great. With some alteration in committee he
thought the bill should be passed; and especially should
they guard against any abuse in the sale of dilapidated
houses which had been allowed to fall into disrepair
merely that they might :be profitably sold to the parish.
The market value at the time of the purchase should only
be given, and no compensation should be allowed for com-
pulsory purchase.
After some observations from Mr. POLLARD-URQUHART
and Mr. EDMUND POTTER,
Mr. HENLEY said the importance of the bill could not
be overrated. Mr. Ayrton had well pointed out that it
only referred to houses unfit for habitation, and the re-
marks of several previous speakers wore therefore inap-
plicable. He was of opinion that tho measure did not
go too far, and that it would be productive of beneficial
results.

Mr. BRUCE, concurring in the remarks of Mr. Ayrton;

pointed out that the bill did not give power to build house
for the labouring ,classes wherever they were wanted•
Power was only given to pull down houses after they were
judicially condemned as unfit for human habitation, pro-
vision being at the present time made for erecting suitable
dwellings iu their places, if the owner failed to do so.
Mr. T. CHAMBERS said that nine-tenths of the mis-
chief complained of—overcrowding—was nut at all touched
by the bill. The evil with which it dealt was, according to
the hon. member for Tower Hamlets, of a very limited
amount. He was in favour of the measure so far as it re-
lated to the destruction of fever dens ; but he was afraid
that, by giving to local bodies power to effect supposed
local improvements, they would put a stop to a philanthro-
pical spirit for doing good. He hoped the measure would
be seriously altered in committee, and if not he should vote
against it.

-Mr. J. B. SMITH concurred with Mr. Chamber; and
objected to the machinery of the bill.
Mr. LOCKE, in reply to Mr. Chambers, remarked that
the evil of overcrowding was met by the Health Bill of last
session, to which the present measure was only a supple-
ment.

Mr. GRAVES referred to what had taken place in Liver-
tool, and spoke strongly in favour of the bill.
Col. SYKES thought some clauses should be introduced
in addition to the provisions of the Health of Towns Act.
Unless this were done, people would continue to crowd
together from motives of economy.
Mr. POWELL pointed out several amendments which he
hoped would be made in committee. He objected to the
clause which provided that in certain cases when a house
was taken down no other house should be erected on the
same site.

Mr. HUGHES understood that a division could be taken
on the bill with respect to the rebuilding of houses by the
local authories. On that point he believed that the fall-
ing down of houses in poor districts without erecting
other houses in or near the same site, would do more harm
then good. It was to be observed that a sufficient time
would be allowed to the owner to rebuild if he thought
proper; and if he failed to do so, it was only right that
the local authorities should have power to step in and
make provision for those who had been turned out of their
dwellings.
Mr..HUBBARD thought the bill would require consi-
derable alteration before it could be rendered entirely satis-
factory.
Mr. BAZLEY disapproved of the provisions which
called upon the local authorities to give effect to it.
Mr. WALPOLE thought the houses taken down should
be rebuilt, unless they were required for a better purpose.
It would become a ma.tter2of the greatest import-
ance, when the bill was in committee, to frame such clauses
as would prevent the landlords pocketing more than the
annual marketable value of the property. The clauses with
respect to loans and securities would also require considera-
tion and he suggested to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Torrons)
that he should put himself in communication with the
Treasury before going into committee. If these matters
were properly arranged the bill would then receive his
cordial approval.
Mr. M'LAREN approved of the bill.
Mr. H. LEWIS contended that the bill would throw an
additional rate of threepence in the pound on the metro-
polis, and he thought they should not give their sympathy
to one class however deserving it might be.
Mr. KINNAIRD was of opinion that the rates were
high in consequence of the existence of fever nests, the
rooting out of which would effect them in a corresponding
degree.
The bill was then read a second time without a divi-
sion.