Throughout the central parts of London the process of demolition of houses of all sorts and sizes, inhabited by the well-to-do or by the poorest, was continuing. The street improvements which were being carried out in some places entailed extensive demolitions; whilst the construction of railways and the erection of large stations necessitated the destruction of hundreds of others, mostly those inhabited by poorer persons. Thus, in the improvements in the Holborn Valley, 348 houses, accommodating 1,044 families and 4,176 persons, were taken down and not replaced. And in St. Pancras, and many other districts, the dwellings of the poor were constantly being removed by railway expansion. The subject of the displacement of labourers in consequence of great public works in the metropolis was brought before the House of Lords in 1861 by Lord Derby.[83] "It affects," he said, "in the most vital manner the interests of a large portion of the population who are utterly unable to protect themselves against legislation, however unfavourably it may bear upon them. "In the metropolis and its suburbs sixty to seventy miles of new line (railway) are proposed--a great portion of these passing through the most crowded streets." He described specially the parish of St. Bartholomew's, in Cripplegate, with a population of about 5,000 inhabiting 500 houses. "Throughout it, there are not ten families who occupy a house to themselves, although the bulk of the houses contain only three rooms. The incumbent tells me the aristocracy of his parish consists of families who are able to indulge in the luxury of two rooms. But the greater number have one room, and one only, and this is sometimes divided between more than one family. "Half of these houses are under notice for the railway." And Lord Shaftesbury described a great demolition of houses which took place a few years previously in the neighbourhood of Field Lane, City: "1,000 houses were pulled down; 4,000 families, comprising 12,000 individuals, were turned out and driven into the surrounding tenements." Lord Granville suggested, as a remedy, the provision of cheap trains to carry artizans from healthy dwellings in the suburbs to the scene of their work, and Lord Redesdale said he had introduced clauses into the Railway Bill providing that the companies should run a cheap train every day. But, as Lord Shaftesbury pointed out,[84] that would not be sufficient, as-- "In some cases the men are under an engagement to their employers not to live more than a certain distance from the warehouse," in order that no time might be lost in executing orders. The remedy, moreover, could only be very gradual in its operation, and was quite inadequate to meet the existing emergency.