But if the

an endeavour had been made to impress | a part of the law of the land.
upon the public mind that the interests of
the working classes were less attended to
by Parliament than those of other classes
of the community. Now, he had some
experience as Chairman of the Standing
Orders Committee, and he believed that a
grosser libel had never been uttered in that
House. It had been the object of both
Houses to prevent any unnecessary inter-
ference with the comforts of the labouring
classes, and if they had not been successful
it was because of the difficulty with which
Parliament had to contend. He felt the
greatest embarrassment in meeting the pro-
posals of the hon. Member. They involved
so many changes and gave rise to so many
considerations that it was impossible to deal
with them in detail. It might be sufficient
to say that in his opinion they could not
possibly apply to the legislation of that
House, and if he might give an instance to
show how unsuited they were he would
quote the Resolution marked C, which pro-
vided that

Motion of the hon. Member for Lambeth
should be adopted, it would introduce an
entirely new system of legislation.

"The proposed site and the said plans of the dwellings so to be built should in every case be submitted for the approval of Her Majesty's Chief Commissioner of Works, who should have power to fix the site and to enforce the conditions laid

down in the last clause, but not otherwise to alter
the proposed plan."

The adoption of the proposal of the hon.
Member for Lambeth (Mr. T. Hughes) would
give the Commissioners of Works a power
which the Legislature had never before de-
legated to any persons.
The Commission-
ers of Works could order the proprietors of
a piece of land to hand it over to a railway
company, and the result of such a course
would be that the metropolitan landlords
would be up in arms against such an
infraction of their rights. That was not
the only difficulty which would be caused
by the Bill, and he asked his hon. Friend
(Mr. T. Hughes) to withdraw the Resolutions
which he has proposed for the present. It
was customary for the House every year
to appoint a Committee to inquire into the
Standing Orders, and to make such altera-
tions as it might think fit. When the Com-
mittee should be appointed the proposed
additions could be brought before them. If
that course did not meet the hon. Gentle-
man's views he would suggest to him the
propriety of moving the clauses in the Bill
which the right hon. Gentleman the Pre-
sident of the Board of Trade had promised
to bring in, and thus make the regulations
which he (Mr. T. Hughes) wished to establish

SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID said, it appeared to him that it would by-and-by become a question whether they ought not to put a stop to the construction of railways altogether, rather than encourage them on the one hand and beat them down on the other by such treatment as was now proposed. He opposed the proposition of the hon. Member for Lambeth. If the proposal was adopted it would greatly interfere with the operations of railway companies in London, while it would confer no corresponding benefit on the labouring classes. There was before the House two Bills for improving the dwelling accommodation of the working classes, but he was afraid that those measures would not provide one half or one quarter as many new dwellings as private Bills before Parliament would destroy.

Al

MR. MILNER GIBSON said, his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel W. Patten) had referred to a Bill of which he (Mr. Milner Gibson) had given notice, and he thought the clauses proposed by the hon. Member for Lambeth might be inserted therein. though that Bill contained clauses very fit to be inserted in a metropolitan railway Bill, he (Mr. Milner Gibson) should be very sorry to give any countenance to the principles on which the clauses now proposed must rest. It seemed to him that they might proceed in this direction till they made improvement almost impossible, and the execution of valuable public works so difficult that they could not be undertaken. No class in this country had been so much benefited by the great works executed of late years in London as had the labouring classes. He believed their wages had been raised and abundant employment found for them by those works. If it could be shown that injury was done to a certain class by any particular works executed in London he should say compensate them, let no man suffer injury in order that certain works might be executed. But if railway companies were to have fastened on them the obligation of being builders of model lodging-houses, he had great doubts whether that enactment would be for the benefit of the working classes. If these were to be erected in the town, the result would be to create a greater evil than was sought to be removed. Somebody must remove from the site of the new model lodging-houses. Was there to be a site found for the dis

(Colonel Wilson Patten), and not ask the House to come to a decision at present. The question was a most important one. The right hon. Gentleman had laid it down in the most distinct terms, that whatever the amount of hardship or difficulty might be of sweeping away the houses of these poor men the House of Commons was not to take any steps whatever.

MR. MILNER GIBSON: I said distinctly that every person who could show that he had sustained any injury by the execution of railway works was entitled to be compensated.

placed persons, and, if not, why not? Were those who were thus removed not entitled to be heard before a Committee of that House if they were dispossessed of the dwelling-houses they occupied? If it was said that these lodging-houses were not to be erected in the town but in the suburbs, he answered, "Leave the supply of these houses to the ordinary operations of enter prize and trade." He believed there was no business in which people were more likely to over-speculate than the building of houses. He had heard it continually stated, that in the neighbourhood of this great metropolis builders were constantly MR. HENLEY said, that was true. But overbuilding, and no employment of money the right hon. Gentleman took care to was so profitable to its owner as to cover designate pretty clearly who he considered land with houses, for which there were to be capable of receiving an injury. He So many customers among the labouring said, "What is a weekly tenant? He classes. He regarded the clause as involv- could be got rid of by the landlord in a ing consequences which they would do well week, and he had no legal status to bring to pause before they sanctioned; it raised him into the magnificent category which, the question of tenancy. In most of the according to the right hon. Gentleman, was cases in which houses would be removed, to entitle him to compensation. He was not for whose occupiers the clauses proposed to one of those who thought that this difficult find sites, the persons living in the houses subject could be met very easily. He was were weekly tenants. At present landlords quite sure, however, that the proposition of could eject weekly tenants at a week's the hon. Member for Lambeth would innotice, and unless a change was made in crease the difficulties a thousandfold. Still, the law the landlords could in like manner he would be very loth to say that there eject them from their holdings in the new were not minds in the House which would buildings. This would be the case unless be brought to bear on the subject, so as, if the House was prepared to give those not to remove the difficulties altogether, at tenants a kind of fixity of tenure. The all events to alleviate them to a considerhouses were to be built which they might able degree and remove many of the inconnot occupy, and which, if they did, there veniencies and hardships to which these was no security that they would continue people must be more or less subjected. He to upy. If the lessee or landlord, who hoped the hon. Member for Lambeth would had the power of getting rid of the labour- consent to have the matter referred to a ing man, knew that he would get much Committee; and although he knew the more for his property by delivering it up question was beset with difficulties, be unoccupied to the railway company, be- hoped that a Bill would be framed procause an empty house would entail no viding residences for the labouring people obligation on the company, the only differ- whose houses were swept away by railway ence would be that they would evict those companies. Let them not go into that tenants, and hand over the property free matter with a foregone conclusion that from incumbrance to the railway company. they could do no good, and must leave Were they going by these clauses to give these persons to sink or swim as the case an inducement of this kind to the proprietors might be, when, from the experience of the of lodgings occupied by weekly tenants? last few years, it was very plain that they If a house was to be built for a man dis- had very little chance of swimming, and possessed, how long must a person have that many of them had suffered the greatest been an occupant in order to have a claim possible inconvenience. On the company ? And how long was he to occupy it? He certainly could not give his assent to the proposal, or any countenance to the principles it involved.

MR. HENLEY said, he hoped that the hon. Member for Lambeth would adopt the suggestion of his hon. and gallant Friend Mr. Milner Gibson

MR. SCOURFIELD said, he thought it was of no use telling a man that be was entitled to compensation for an injury done to him if he had no chance of receiving it. These poor persons had not received any compensation hitherto, and were not likely to do so in future if the House

went on in the present groove with respect thought he could put his land to a better to that subject. He sincerely sympathized use, could be pulled down by him if he saw with the objects of the hon. Member for fit without requiring the sanction of ParLambeth, although he thought they could liament, and the tenants would get no comnot be attained by the Resolutions exactly pensation. Where was the difference, as as they stood. The Resolutions specified far as the labouring man was concerned, particularly the labouring classes. To that between being ejected by a private owner he objected, for before the law all men and being ejected by some company which were equal. He did not like the word purchased the property? The necessary "class. The position of the labouring and logical consequence of the hon. Memclasses in the matter was one of great ber's propositions would be that they should hardship, but the case of the small shop- prevent the owner himself from pulling keepers, who were just above the labouring down his own property without giving the classes, and who depended for their living tenants compensation. That was a new form entirely upon the connection they had of tenant-right, and one which the House formed in particular neighbourhoods in- should hesitate before it sanctioned. No vaded by railways, was much more hope- doubt serious injury was often inflicted on less. From the way in which they were the labouring classes by the pulling down displaced they were often irretrievably of houses on a large scale. Still, the dif ruined. The hon. Member for Lambeth ficulty which those classes experienced in would, no doubt, receive in the fairest obtaining convenient dwellings did not arise. spirit any suggestions for better carrying except in the most infinitesimal degree from out his objects; but the House ought not the operation of the railway companies, to be led away by the doctrine that every but far more from other causes which Parquestion of that kind should be left to the liamentary legislation did not occasion and Committees to which the Bills were referred. which it could not prevent. It arose from The House itself ought to watch the second the immense increase of business in Lonreading of Private Bills that were likely to don, from the enormous cost of land, and entail great injury on numerous persons, and from the fact that the owners of many should not throw the responsibility on the houses and streets formerly occupied by Committees, who generally thought them- labouring men found it more profitable to selves relieved from all responsibility as to turn them into shops, warehouses, offices, matters of principle by the House having and the like. If, therefore, they dealt given the Bills a second reading. Ninety- simply with those cases in which the sancnine cases out of 100 were referred to tion of Parliament had to be obtained beCommittee; in many of them the subject fore schemes could be carried out, they was of such paramount importance that would only deal with a small part of the the Committee would prefer the House question. He agreed with the hon. Memtaking upon them the heavy responsibility ber for Lambeth that the problem how of giving judgment upon it. Unless such working men were to be lodged in London points were to be entertained and dealt had become one of national importance; with by the House, it would almost be and if any inquiry were to take place into better to give up the form of reading these that whole subject, such an inquiry would Bills a second time altogether. probably do great public good. But the proposed Standing Orders involved a dangerous principle, and dealt with the question in a one-sided and very imperfect manner. It was to be hoped, therefore, that by pressing the Motion to a division the House would not be placed in the position of seeming to reject a proposal the intention of which they must approve, simply because they did not believe it to be the right or the best mode of accomplishing their common object.

LORD STANLEY said, he quite sympathized with the feelings which had prompted the hon. Member for Lambeth in bringing forward the question, but thought the Standing Orders which he had proposed were liable to very grave objection, and, whether so intended or not, would create something like a new law of property. Under those Standing Orders, if a new railway company obtained power from Par liament to pull down a particular street, for the buildings so demolished it must not only give compensation to their owners, but must provide new houses for the inhabitants of that street. But the next street, which might belong to a private owner who

MR. POWELL said, he hoped that, in endeavouring to prevent the overcrowding of the people in certain parts of the metropolis, the House would take care by its action not to make matters worse.

The

adoption of too severe a system of inter- | classes fifty years hence might, but in the ference with the progress of railway enter- meantime if the right hon. Gentleman prize might increase the evils which it was would take the trouble of going into variintended to diminish. So far from its being ous parts of the metropolis in which railnecessary for men to be very near their ways had been constructed he would find work, it would be most desirable that the that they had been much injured. It had working classes should be lodged in subur been stated that the building trade was ban villages, rather than in the crowded very active, and that a very large number alleys of the metropolis. The people should of houses were being erected, but they be removed from these overcrowded loca- were not of a class inhabited by labourers, lities to the suburbs of London. What the who were being turned out of their homes labouring man wanted was to have proper by thousands every year. However, on the facilities for getting from his home to his understanding that certain leading railplace of work. way companies would come forward and do their best to remove the evils of which he complained, remembering that "while the grass grows the steed starves," he was quite willing to act upon the suggestion thrown out by the hon. and gallant Member for Lancashire (Colonel Wilson Patten) for the appointment of a Committee, and, with the leave of the House, withdraw his Motion.

MR. THOMAS HUGHES said, the course of that debate had proved to him quite clearly that many seeming difficulties would present themselves in the matter to hon. Members which did not exist in reality. The noble Lord opposite, for instance, (Lord Stanley) had taken an objection on principle which was capable of being answered. The noble Lord said that these Standing Orders would create a new form of tenantright, and he illustrated that by the case of the landlord of a whole street next to a street bought up by a railway company, remarking that that private landlord might pull down all his houses and deal with his land as he pleased, evicting the tenants without any compensation. That was quite true; but such a landlord did not come before Parliament asking for any compulsory powers. All that he maintained was that when a company made an application to the House for powers to pull down the dwellings of the people, it was their duty, before acceding to such application, to see that other provision was made for their reception. It was surprising that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade should refuse to give any countenance to the principle of the proposed Standing Orders; but, happily, his countenance was not required, because countenance that was much more valuable had already been obtained. Consent had been given to the principle embodied in these Resolutions by half-a-dozen of the great railway companies in that metropolis. If, then, the railway companies were ready to take this burden upon themselves, and thus remove the difficulty which every one experienced in dealing with this question, surely the House would not come forward and say that this should not be done. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had stated that the labouring classes had been most benefited by the construction of railways. The labouring Mr. Powell

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. WESTMINSTER SCHOOL.-QUESTION. MR. MOWBRAY said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, before any scheme for the contemplated arrangement between the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Dean and Chapter of Westminster shall be submitted for the approbation of the Queen in Council, Her Majesty's Government will take care that provision shall be made for the additional payment by the Chapter to Westminster School, as recommended by the Public Schools Commission, and for the assignment of separate estates for the maintenance of the school? He also wished to know, whether, if the Government find that such a provision cannot be made by Order in Council, they are prepared to bring in a Bill during the present Session to carry that arrangement into effect?

SIR GEORGE GREY said, in reply, that the arrangements for the commutation were still under consideration, and that no scheme had as yet been prepared. The Commissioners had no objection to the plan proposed by the School Commission, that out of the revenues of the Dean and Chapter funds should be provided for the additional endowment of the school. Legislation would be requisite, and a Bill would shortly be introduced in that or the other House of Parliament on the subject.

MR. BENTINCK said, he wished to know whether there will be any objection

to lay the scheme on the table when it is aware whether any general instructions had completed?