HANSARD'S PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES IN THE SECOND SESSION OF THE TWENTY-SECOND PARLIAMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND, APPOINTED TO MEET 29 APRIL, 1880, IN THE FORTY-THIRD YEAR OF THE REIGN OF HER MAJESTY QUEEN VICTORIA. EIGHTH VOLUME OF SESSION 1881. HOUSE OF LORDS, Thursday, 28th July, 1881. MINUTES.]-PUBLIC BILLS-First Reading- Fund (183); Removal Terms (Scotland) COTTIERS AND COTTARS (DWELLINGS) (The Lord Waveney.) SECOND READING. Order of the Day for the Second Reading read. L ORD WAVENEY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, that after the statement he had made on the introduction of the Bill he need say but little; but there were misunderstandthe object of the measure. ings which he desired to clear up as to His main object was, if possible, to bring the agricultural classes into accord with the habits and civilization of the period, for it appeared to him that in certain important particulars those classes had not as yet attained that level. Something Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Act, had been done in that direction by the and subsequently by the Public Health (Ireland) Act; but the principle of action in past legislation was wanting in promp B titude and efficiency. He had no desire | became active and pressing after the to interfere in any way with the forward rules and regulations of the Local Gomarch of the Bill which now engaged vernment Board had been received. He the attention of the other House, and proposed that the power for the cleansing which, in a few days, might be expected of unhealthy dwellings and the carrying to reach their Lordships' hands. There out of proper sanitary arrangements was some disappointment that that pro- should be exercised through a Court of posal, as originally brought forward, Summary Jurisdiction, but subject to an made no mention of the labourers of appeal to the Courts of Session. As a Ireland; but the claims of that class had, desire was manifesting itself in an extrahe was happy to say, since been recog- ordinary way for assimilating Irish and nized, though only to the extent of such English law, a hint, perhaps, might be provision as might benefit the agricul- taken from the working of the Local Sanitural labourers through the operation of tary Board of England. In the district in fiscal laws and regulations. He could which he lived cottages were condemned not help seeing that much might be done without reservation, and remained unfor the advantage of dwellers in cottages inhabited, as there was no power to by reasonable supervision of a more compel rebuilding; but, as a matter of direct and prompt character than that public policy, it was not desirable that in which at present existed. It had been | Ireland the house accommodation should suggested that his proposal would, if be diminished. The multiplicity of carried, involve an expense which no families and the overcrowding of the landlord could be expected to bear; but accommodation in the Irish cottages that was not part of his intention, and he were constant sources of complaint, and did not admit that it would be the con- additional accommodation was not prosequence of the measure. In parts of vided, because the occupiers were unable Ireland the agricultural classes had en- to pay such a rent as would remunerate joyed comfortable accommodation; but the landlord for the outlay. He would even in those cases there was a deplor- suggest that a better rent would be obable ignorance of sanitary conditions. tainable if garden allotments were atThe Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings tached to the dwellings. In some cases Act, which extended universally to the he gave to Boards of Guardians power to rural districts of England and to cer- spend money in the rebuilding of cottain urban and rural districts in Ire- tages; and though he admitted it was not land, provided, in some degree, a re- consistent with public policy to give to medy for that state of things; but no those bodies the initiatory power of exequivalent provision had been made for penditure, still he thought there were Scotland, and where the Act did apply cases in which the strict rule might be the remedies were always slow, and, in overstepped. The Poor Law system, some cases, impossible of application. which was originally adopted for the He had made it his business to inform purpose of ascertaining the extent of himself on the spot as to the views of the poverty in the land, the requisite sum local Boards of Health or Sanitary Boards, necessary to relieve it, and the most which would have the administration of efficient modes by which that relief might the provisions of the Bill; and he found be applied, had become a machine of a that their opinion was, that a power larger character, performing a great should be called into action which would variety of functions, and therefore it was represent the decisions of the Sanitary that he did not hesitate to impose upon Board. He, therefore, provided in his it additional duties provided for by this Bill that the dwellings of persons paying Bill. With regard to Scotland he could rent for occupation in Ireland, and the not fail to remember what he had seen Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and read of the sad poverty, notwithshould be submitted to periodical in- standing the exertions of the proprietors, spection by an officer to be appointed by which prevailed in the Highlands and the Poor Law Commissioners in Ireland, Islands of Scotland, resulting from the and the Board of Supervision in the small croft system. He hoped their Highlands and Islands of Scotland. Lordships would reject the idea that this Under Section 150 of the Public Health was class legislation, and allow the Bill Act the duties of the Board of Guardians, to be read a second time; because he in regard to the spread of epidemic only, believed, considering the great attention Lord Waveney Moved "That the Bill be now read 2" -(The Lord Waveney.) now being paid to the agricultural com- | habitation; and what were the sanitary munity, that it would confer a great boon authorities to be authorized to do? They upon them. were not authorized to compel the person who lived in the cottage to keep it clean, but were authorized to go to the proprietor and compel him to remedy the barbarous mode of living of the people. LORD WAVENEY: The immediate lessor. THE DUKE OF ARGYLL said, that but for the gravity and solemnity of the noble Lord he should have thought that this proposal was intended as a practical joke. He listened very attentively to the noble Lord's speech the other day in introducing the Bill; but he could not for the life of him make head or tail of anything the noble Lord said as indicating what the measure was to be. The noble Lord said something about the cottiers of the Highlands of Scotland, whose condition, the noble Lord said, was analogous to the cottagers of the very poorest parts of Ireland; but he really had not the slightest conception of what the noble Lord intended to do. In the first place, he must say that the attempt to combine the provisions for Ireland and Scotland was in itself ridiculous. In point of fact, the circumstances of the two countries were quite different. He gathered from the observations which the noble Lord had made that he had obtained his information on this subject entirely from some observations of Sir John McNeil, which were 25 years old, and from the report of a newspaper commissioner sent out to make inquiries on the subject. The object of this measure professed to be to prevent epidemic diseases by compelling proper sanitary arrangements to be provided in cottages; but he did not believe that, except in times of famine, epidemics were prevalent amongst the cottier population. It was well known that the cottiers of Ireland were a most healthy class of people. In the Bill there was provision for large powers being given to the sanitary authorities of Unions and parishes. That, however, must refer to Ireland alone, as it was absolutely absurd to have such a provision for Scotland, as there were no unions or parishes, except for the purpose of building poorhouses, and it was absolutely absurd to put that in the Bill. He asked their Lerdships to look at the powers which the Bill proposed to give to sanitary authorities. They were to have the power to compel the carrying out of proper sanitary arrangements in any cottage or number of cottages which they might consider to be unfit for human THE DUKE OF ARGYLL said, it was the same thing. There was no power to go to the tenant and force him to clean his own house. The noble Lord said he wanted to bring the cottiers of the Highlands of Scotland and of Ireland into accord with the civilization of the day; but if the noble Lord confined the operation of the Bill to Kerry and Connaught, he thought the noble Lord would find that he had a very severe task to achieve. Anyone who had seen estates in the West of Ireland knew very well that disease there arose from the almost bestial habits of the people. There was frequently a dung-heap just outside the door, and the pigs often lived inside the house, and yet the Bill did not propose to compel the occupier to keep his house clean. All the Bill said was that the sanitary authorities should go to the landlord and tell him to do it. He did not think that that was a proper way of curing the habits of a large population. Then it was proposed by the Bill to give the sanitary authorities the power of ordering the rebuilding of cottages of an equivalent character in cases where there were not proper sanitary arrangements-that was to say, that a landlord should be bound to rebuild every cottage upon his estate. He had gone into a calculation of what the expense of this would be, and he had a case before him of an individual proprietor, the particulars of whose estate would be brought before Her Majesty's Commissioners. On that estate there were not less than something like 4,000 of these poor cottier tenantry, all of them under £8 valuation, and most of them under £4. Now, under this Bill, the sanitary authorities would have the power to call upon the landlord to rebuild every one of those cottages. What would that cost? Professor Baldwin had said that cottages with every decency of life could be built for £13 or £14 each. He could only say that he wished Professor Baldwin would come to Scotland and teach the landlords there how titude and efficiency. He had no desire to interfere in any way with the forward march of the Bill which now engaged the attention of the other House, and which, in a few days, might be expected to reach their Lordships' hands. There was some disappointment that that proposal, as originally brought forward, made no mention of the labourers of Ireland; but the claims of that class had, he was happy to say, since been recognized, though only to the extent of such provision as might benefit the agricultural labourers through the operation of fiscal laws and regulations. He could not help seeing that much might be done for the advantage of dwellers in cottages by reasonable supervision of a more direct and prompt character than that which at present existed. It had been suggested that his proposal would, if carried, involve an expense which no landlord could be expected to bear; but that was not part of his intention, and he did not admit that it would be the consequence of the measure. In parts of Ireland the agricultural classes had enjoyed comfortable accommodation; but even in those cases there was a deplorable ignorance of sanitary conditions. The Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Act, which extended universally to the rural districts of England and to certain urban and rural districts in Ireland, provided, in some degree, a remedy for that state of things; but no equivalent provision had been made for Scotland, and where the Act did apply the remedies were always slow, and, in some cases, impossible of application. He had made it his business to inform himself on the spot as to the views of the local Boards of Health or Sanitary Boards, which would have the administration of the provisions of the Bill; and he found that their opinion was, that a power should be called into action which would represent the decisions of the Sanitary Board. He, therefore, provided in his Bill that the dwellings of persons paying rent for occupation in Ireland, and the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, should be submitted to periodical inspection by an officer to be appointed by the Poor Law Commissioners in Ireland, and the Board of Supervision in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. Under Section 150 of the Public Health Act the duties of the Board of Guardians, in regard to the spread of epidemic only, Lord Waveney became active and pressing after the rules and regulations of the Local Government Board had been received. He proposed that the power for the cleansing of unhealthy dwellings and the carrying out of proper sanitary arrangements should be exercised through a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, but subject to an appeal to the Courts of Session. As a desire was manifesting itself in an extraordinary way for assimilating Irish and English law, a hint, perhaps, might be taken from the working of the Local Sanitary Board of England. In the district in which he lived cottages were condemned without reservation, and remained uninhabited, as there was no power to compel rebuilding; but, as a matter of public policy, it was not desirable that in Ireland the house accommodation should be diminished. The multiplicity of families and the overcrowding of the accommodation in the Irish cottages were constant sources of complaint, and additional accommodation was not provided, because the occupiers were unable to pay such a rent as would remunerate the landlord for the outlay. He would suggest that a better rent would be obtainable if garden allotments were attached to the dwellings. In some cases he gave to Boards of Guardians power to spend money in the rebuilding of cottages; and though he admitted it was not consistent with public policy to give to those bodies the initiatory power of expenditure, still he thought there were cases in which the strict rule might be overstepped. The Poor Law system, which was originally adopted for the purpose of ascertaining the extent of poverty in the land, the requisite sum necessary to relieve it, and the most efficient modes by which that relief might be applied, had become a machine of a larger character, performing a great variety of functions, and therefore it was that he did not hesitate to impose upon it additional duties provided for by this Bill. With regard to Scotland he could not fail to remember what he had seen and read of the sad poverty, notwithstanding the exertions of the proprietors, which prevailed in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, resulting from the small croft system. He hoped their Lordships would reject the idea that this was class legislation, and allow the Bill to be read a second time; because he believed, considering the great attention Moved "That the Bill be now read 2" -(The Lord Waveney.) now being paid to the agricultural com- | habitation; and what were the sanitary munity, that it would confer a great boon authorities to be authorized to do? They upon them. were not authorized to compel the person who lived in the cottage to keep it clean, but were authorized to go to the proprietor and compel him to remedy the barbarous mode of living of the people. LORD WAVENEY: The immediate lessor. THE DUKE OF ARGYLL said, that but for the gravity and solemnity of the noble Lord he should have thought that this proposal was intended as a practical joke. He listened very attentively to the noble Lord's speech the other day in introducing the Bill; but he could not for the life of him make head or tail of anything the noble Lord said as indicating what the measure was to be. The noble Lord said something about the cottiers of the Highlands of Scotland, whose condition, the noble Lord said, was analogous to the cottagers of the very poorest parts of Ireland; but he really had not the slightest conception of what the noble Lord intended to do. In the first place, he must say that the attempt to combine the provisions for Ireland and Scotland was in itself ridiculous. In point of fact, the circumstances of the two countries were quite different. He gathered from the observations which the noble Lord had made that he had obtained his information on this subject entirely from some observations of Sir John McNeil, which were 25 years old, and from the report of a newspaper commissioner sent out to make inquiries on the subject. The object of this measure professed to be to prevent epidemic diseases by compelling proper sanitary arrangements to be provided in cottages; but he did not believe that, except in times of famine, epidemics were prevalent amongst the cottier population. It was well known that the cottiers of Ireland were a most healthy class of people. In the Bill there was provision for large powers being given to the sanitary authorities of Unions and parishes. That, however, must refer to Ireland alone, as it was absolutely absurd to have such a provision for Scotland, as there were no unions or parishes, except for the purpose of building poorhouses, and it was absolutely absurd to put that in the Bill. He asked their Lerdships to look at the powers which the Bill proposed to give to sanitary authorities. They were to have the power to compel the carrying out of proper sanitary arrangements in any cottage or number of cottages which they might consider to be unfit for human THE DUKE OF ARGYLL said, it was the same thing. There was no power to go to the tenant and force him to clean his own house. The noble Lord said he wanted to bring the cottiers of the Highlands of Scotland and of Ireland into accord with the civilization of the day; but if the noble Lord confined the operation of the Bill to Kerry and Connaught, he thought the noble Lord would find that he had a very severe task to achieve. Anyone who had seen estates in the West of Ireland knew very well that disease there arose from the almost bestial habits of the people. There was frequently a dung-heap just outside the door, and the pigs often lived inside the house, and yet the Bill did not propose to compel the occupier to keep his house clean. All the Bill said was that the sanitary authorities should go to the landlord and tell him to do it. He did not think that that was a proper way of curing the habits of a large population. Then it was proposed by the Bill to give the sanitary authorities the power of ordering the rebuilding of cottages of an equivalent character in cases where there were not proper sanitary arrangements-that was to say, that a landlord should be bound to rebuild every cottage upon his estate. He had gone into a calculation of what the expense of this would be, and he had a case before him of an individual proprietor, the particulars of whose estate would be brought before Her Majesty's Commissioners. On that estate there were not less than something like 4,000 of these poor cottier tenantry, all of them under £8 valuation, and most of them under £4. Now, under this Bill, the sanitary authorities would have the power to call upon the landlord to rebuild every one of those cottages. What would that cost? Professor Baldwin had said that cottages with every decency of life could be built for £13 or £14 each. He could only say that he wished Professor Baldwin would come to Scotland and teach the landlords there how |