HC Deb 02 August 1867 vol 189 cc753-64

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

MR. BAZLEY

moved, as an Amendment, the following Resolution:— That, in the opinion of this House, it is not expedient that the provisions in this Bill by which it is proposed to impose upon the local authority the obligation, if and when required by the owners, to purchase condemned properties at prices to be ascertained under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, should receive the assent of this House. The hon. Gentleman objected to the provision requiring the corporations of municipalities to purchase dilapidated property, and to build houses for the working classes on the sites. Such a provision was calculated to induce owners of property to allow their houses to fall into a state of ruin in the hope that they would get a good price for them from the local authorities. It was impossible to expect corporate bodies to take those duties upon themselves in addition to their other responsible duties. This Bill was, in this respect, an interference with the free agency of the public at large and with the rights of property. The provision in question would necessarily enhance the value of dilapidated property at the expense of the public. He hoped that the hon. Member for Finsbury would consent to expunge this obnoxious clause, and would amend his Bill so as to make property responsible in its duties as well as its privileges. At that advanced period of the Session he thought that the hon. Member would do well to withdraw his Bill and introduce a more satisfactory one in the next Session.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is not expedient that the provisions in this Bill by which it is proposed to impose upon the local authority the obligation, if and when required by the owners, to purchase condemned properties at prices to be ascertained under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, should receive the assent of this House,"—(Mr. Bazley,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. POWELL

remarked that the proposition of the hon. Member for Manchester was a most inconvenient one, inasmuch as, if carried, it would seriously interfere with the further progress of the Bill, and thus set at nought the great labours bestowed upon it in advancing it to its present stage.

MR. SERJEANT GASELEE

said, the Motion of the hon. Member for Manchester was a practical way of getting rid of an objectionable Bill. He agreed with that hon. Gentleman that it was monstrous to suppose that the municipal authorities could provide houses for the poor. The ratepayers had quite enough to do with their money without being required to build dwellings for the working classes. If such a principle were admitted he did not know where it would stop. The next demand made upon them might be to provide clothing, if not carriages and horses, for the poor. He trusted that the House would support the Motion of the hon. member for Manchester.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, he thought it desirable that this measure should be submitted to the consideration of a Committee. He however confessed he was of opinion that there was great weight in the objections of the hon. member for Manchester as to the policy of obliging corporate bodies to become the purchasers of dilapidated property. Such a measure would probably lead to great inconvenience.

MR. WHALLEY

agreed with the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, as well as with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Manchester, which he contended was the only safe course under the circumstances, to adopt. If they allowed the Bill, in its present shape, to go into Committee it would be almost impossible to mould it into a proper form. It was extending the principle of centralization in perhaps, the most offensive way ever proposed in that House.

MR. LOCKE

said, he was afraid that neither the hon. Member for Peterborough nor the hon. and learned Member for Portsmouth could have considered this subject very deeply, seeing that this was the first occasion that they had ever turned their attention to it. ["No!"] Well, perhaps he should have said the second time. The hon. Members objected to the power of purchasing house property of this description being given to the local authorities; but if the local authorities were not to have that power, who was to have it? [Mr. Serjeant GASELEE: The people themselves.] But who was to set the people in motion? Where were they to find a body of men so capable of discharging such a duty as the municipal authorities? It was an extraordinary fact that people who were generally so anxious to promote the welfare of the poor always offered the most violent opposition to any proposition improving their condition which involved the levying of a rate. What did the Bill propose to do? Medical officers by hundreds had shown that in Manchester and in other populous towns there were places which bred fevers and other terrible diseases, and which, in other respects, were totally unfit for human habitation. These places were incapable of improvement; down they must come, and proper dwellings must be erected in their place. Well, the Bill proposed to give the local authorities power to perform this necessary work, and provided that the cost of doing it should be met by a rate. No objection was ever raised against the cost of making a sewer being defrayed by a rate; and it was quite as important for the general health that these nests of fever should be done away with as that new sewers should be made. The hon. Gentleman behind him felt no compunction at bringing forward a railway Bill by which hundreds of poor people would be evicted from their dwellings, but he shrank from any proposition which would, in any degree, remedy the evil the construction of the line had caused. He, however, denied that any eventual expense would be imposed upon the towns were this Bill agreed to, because experience had shown that in Liverpool, where a law of this kind was in force, the amount of the rate had been more than balanced by the decrease in the poor rates. He understood that the same might be said of Glasgow. He admitted that difficulties might arise as to the mode in which the owners of the property taken were to be compensated; but details of this kind might be easily altered in Committee; and he trusted that the House would not lose an opportunity like the present of getting rid of fever haunts because there happened to be an objection in one or two particulars to the machinery of the Bill.

MR. GREENE

remarked that this matter had been carefully considered by the Select Committee of which he was a Member. That Committee took into consideration both the welfare of the ratepayers and the requirements of the poor. If this Bill were rejected, the House would lay itself open to the charge that they cared very little for the interests and welfare of the poor except to make it a matter of claptrap on special occasion. The utmost that could be raised was a 3d. rate, and he contended it was a measure of economy, for nothing was more expensive or costly than disease and crime. When a man lost his work he became chargeable to the parish. Therefore, he trusted the House would go into Committee upon the Bill, and, if there were any clauses that required further consideration, make such Amendments as would render the Bill more satisfactory to the country, and more advantageous to the poor. The people ought not to be housed any longer in dwellings which were unfit for a sporting dog, while the House of Commons were wasting their time about matters of much less importance than the improvement of the condition of those classes whom they professed to desire to raise in the social scale. It was vain to attempt to educate the people and to talk morality to them as long as they dwelt in houses that were not even fit for the accommodation of cattle.

MR. CANDLISH

said, he did not understand the object of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Manchester to be the defeat of the Bill; but, if that were the object, he could not give the Amendment his support. He was strongly in favour of the Bill, though, at the same time, the Amendment involved a principle to which he entirely subscribed—namely, that it should not be at the discretion of any owner of property to compel the municipality to purchase. If such a principle were admitted, a premium would be held out to a person who had encumbered property which he wished to get rid of to let it fall into decay in order that he might sell it to the municipality at a higher price than it was actually worth.

MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENS

said, he wished the hon. Member for Sunderland would consider what conceivable object he and the other promoters could possibly have had in bringing forward this measure if the result of it would be to inflict loss on the ratepayers of the country. Was it likely that they intended to promote so suicidal an object? If the Bill were to work in the manner predicted by his hon. Friend, the supporters of it would be covered with discredit in less than twelve months. The Corporation of Manchester was the implacable enemy of the Bill; and he was not surprised that the hon. Member for Manchester had brought forward this Amendment with a view to the defeat of the measure. At a meeting of the Sanitary Improvement Congress, which was recently held at Manchester, the most disgraceful revelations on these dwellings were made, and upon that narrow issue he was willing to rest the necessity for this legislation. There was not to be found a more flagrant and scandalous case of inhuman habitations in existence on a larger scale than was to be found at Manchester. Yet Manchester now wished the House to adopt the laissez faire, and to defer this Bill to another year. Of course, if the Government wished the Bill not to pass this Session, it could not possibly pass. He was surprised at the statement that had been just made by the Home Secretary, because he understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government were in favour of the principle of the Bill; and without their assent it would be useless for him to attempt to pass the Bill through Committee. Great care had been taken in framing the various clauses by the hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City (Mr. Goschen), and the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird); and the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets had given notice of a clause limiting the price to be paid for property under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act to the price which a willing seller would be ready to receive and a willing buyer to give.

MR. LEEMAN

regretted that the hon. and learned Member for Finsbury had not answered the question contained in the hon. Member for Manchester's Amendment—namely, whether he intended to expunge the operation of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act from this Bill? If the hon. and learned Gentleman was as well acquainted as many Members of the House were with the practical working of that Act, he would at once perceive that no such clause as that proposed by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets would meet the difficulties which had been started, and he thought very properly, by the hon. Member for Manchester. He gave the hon. and learned Gentleman every credit for the object he had in view; but the machinery by which he sought to carry out the object must be most objectionable to the municipalities of the country. The Bill contained no machinery for enabling local Boards to offer opposition before a grand jury, nor did it give those Boards any power of appeal to the Court of Quarter Sessions. The Bill also offered a bonus to owners of old property to let it go to wreck, and would be an inducement to surveyors and architects to support the owners in their improvidence. When a property had become sufficiently dilapidated as to be seized on by the local authorities under the Act, the owner received the specified notice; and although the Bill said the property was to be sold at such a price as would be fixed on between a willing seller and a willing buyer, it did not more accurately describe what the price should be; and, of course, the ower, who had been waiting for the notice, would immediately declare he was a most unwilling seller; he would then take his notice to his surveyor, who would chime in with his employer's desires, and recommend the appointment of an arbitrator under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. The surveyor would naturally recommend himself as arbitrator, another would be appointed on the other side, an umpire would be agreed on by them, witnesses would be called, and expenses would run up, in many cases to an amount greater than the value of the property arbitrated on; and what made the matter worse was that, under the provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidated Act, these expenses would, in most cases, have to be borne, not by the owner of the property, but by the corporation. He was as desirous as the hon. and learned Gentleman was to see old property improved; but he protested against the proposed mode of compelling town councils to buy condemned houses under provisions which would most unjustly entail expenditure on the part of the ratepayers, and reward householders for negligence.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the town council of Bradford were quite in favour of the principle of the Bill; but that they at the same time felt that it would be excessively unfair to hold out a premium to the owner of property to neglect it in order that he might get more money for it eventually. That objection might be met by the introduction of Amendments into the 22nd clause, which would preclude the owner of such property from obtaining for it more than the market value. It would be easy when the House went into Committee to introduce clauses to meet the practical objections which had been raised by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Leeman).

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

pointed out that at every stage of the Bill the language of the Government had been perfectly consistent in regard to its progress. The late Secretary for the Home Department warmly approved, on the second reading, the objects which it sought to promote, and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had the other day given expression to similar sentiments. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bazley) could, he thought, be regarded in no other light than as intended to induce the Committee to withdraw the Bill, and at the present period of the Session a perhaps not less certain mode of defeating it was to debate its provisions at length.

MR. M'LAREN

said, the hon. Member for York (Mr. Leeman) had argued against this Bill on grounds that would have prevented the construction of every railway in the kingdom. Two-thirds of the criticism on the Bill might be at once obviated by adopting Amendments that have stood on the Paper for the last two months.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, he was of opinion that the objections which had been raised against the Bill would be very well met in Committee.

MR. HENLEY

said, he thought the discussion on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Manchester showed that he was fully justified in bringing it forward because there was scarcely a single speaker who had addressed the House who did not appear to be of opinion that some other machinery than the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act should be introduced into the Bill. Where property was taken compulsorily the owner's interest ought to be well guarded. All questions of difference must come before some tribunal for decision. The hon. Member for Bradford said he would always have a jury. He (Mr. Henley) did not know what was the expense of a jury; but it was probably less than arbitration. The hon. Member for York had remarked on the necessity of giving to town councils the right of traversing presentments. In this he entirely concurred; and so he did in another remark of the hon. Member, that the power of building should be confined to large places. He believed that there already existed power to shut up places unfit for human habitation, or put them in repair. But in large places the inconvenience to the working men was extreme, if houses were taken down without the provision of other residences within a reasonable distance from their work. In smaller places the mischief was less. But all these points were questions for the Committee when they came to clauses. The Bill might do good, though he was not sure that granting power to public bodies to purchase property and re-build was not open to much discussion, as the tendency of interference on the part of public bodies in such matters was to check private enterprize.

MR. BAZLEY

said, as there seemed to be every desire to carefully consider in Committee the suggestion he had thrown out, he would withdraw his present Motion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Interpretation of Terms).

MR. GOSCHEN

moved to add that— Building company shall mean and include any society, company, or association incorporated under 'The Companies Act, 1862,' or any other Act for the time being in force, for the incorporation of joint stock companies, or by any special Act or Royal charter for the purpose either solely or amongst other things, of purchasing land and building thereon.

Motion agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 18, and 23 & 24 Vict. c. 106 incorporated).

MR. WHALLEY

moved an addition, providing that no rate should be levied until the scheme shall be submitted to and approved by Parliament, as in the case of inclosure of lands.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 (On Representation by Four Householders that Disease exists in a House, Officer of Health to inspect and report).

MR. M'LAREN

said, he had been requested to move that in line 30 the following words be left out, "contagious disease then exists or has frequently existed in any premises."

Motion agreed to.

In line 31 the words "or that such" omitted, and "any" inserted.

In line 32, after "disease," the words "and have in fact occasioned disease," inserted.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8 (Officers of Health to deliver Copies of Report to Clerk of Local Authority and Clerk of Peace).

MR. W. E. FORSTER

moved in line 40 to insert— Or if the premises be within a borough having a commission of the peace but no separate Court of Quarter Sessions, then to the clerk of the borough justices.

Words inserted.

MR. SAMUELSON

moved to add at the end of the clause the following:— In places where the local authority have appointed as one of their officers a surveyor or engineer, the officer of health shall furnish such surveyor or engineer with a copy of his Report, previously to sending a copy to the clerk of the local authority, and it shall be the duty of such surveyor or engineer to consider the Report so furnished to him, and to send his opinion thereon to the clerk of the local authority.

Motion agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 (Clerk of Local Authority to lay Report before Council).

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, it would, in his opinion, be quite impossible to make a grand jury in counties deal with these cases.

COLONEL WILSON PATTEN

thought it was unadvisable to place this class of work upon grand juries.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

moved in line 7, after "sessions" to insert "or at a sessions to be holden by the borough justices for the purpose."

MR. HENLEY

thought it would be impossible to make the language of Clauses 9 and 10 applicable to grand juries.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

thought that if his Amendment were agreed to it would remove the objection urged respecting county grand juries.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

suggested that as far as England was concerned the ordinary course of the law should be followed—namely, of bringing these cases before Petty Sessions, when an appeal would lie at Quarter Sessions. He would suggest to the hon. Member to withdraw Clauses 9 and 10, and bring up a new clause on the Report to effect this object.

MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENS

acceded to the suggestion.

Amendment withdrawn.

Clauses 9 and 10 negatived.

Clauses 11, 12, and 13 agreed to.

Clause 14 (Owner may appeal against Presentment).

MR. M'LAREN

proposed in line 25, after "proper," to insert— Or may make an order closing the house, and requiring the owner to deal with the house either in conformity with the Report of the inspector, or in such manner as the Court may think fit, for the purpose of rendering the house fit for human habitation. The hon. Member explained that these words were in the draft Bill framed by the counsel to the Home Office.

MR. GOLDNEY

suggested that the Amendment should not be pressed now, but introduced into a later clause where it would be more applicable.

MR. M'LAREN

said, he had no difficulty in acceding to the suggestion.

Amendment withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 (Owner to execute specific Works or sell Premises to the local Authorities).

MR. GOLDNEY

proposed to amend the clause to the extent of giving compulsory power to the local authority to purchase houses which the owner declined to render fit for human habitation.

COLONEL WILSON PATTEN

thought that if the owners were obliged to shut up such premises, all that was necessary to be done in this matter would be accomplished. The power which it was proposed to give to local authorities to purchase property of this kind would, in some parts of the country, be found a very obnoxious one.

MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENS

said, he could not concur in the view of the right hon. Gentleman. This question went to the root of the Bill, and unless compulsory power to purchase was taken, to be vested in some local body, the evil which this Bill was intended to meet would not be met.

MR. HENLEY

remarked that if the suggestion of his right hon. Friend the Member for North Lancashire were acceded to, it would do away with the good the Bill was intended to effect. There was plenty of power now, without this legislation, to shut up unhealthy houses. The object of this Bill was to put houses in a fit condition for people to live in, or else to pull them down and build up better ones.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

remarked, that if they merely shut up a house or forced the owner to sell it to another poor man it would be allowed to remain in the same state. But if they enabled the local authority to purchase it, the objectionable dwelling could be knocked down, and a better building erected on the site.

MR. POTTER

considered their only course was to close up such property leaving the owners to make the best they could of it.

MR. POWELL

remarked upon the important results that would arise from building warehouses on the sites of those dilapidated dwellings, thereby giving rise to a great demand for labour and benefiting the working man.

MR. AYRTON

said, he did not see how they could provide better dwellings for the people by merely shutting up the property in an objectionable state.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

reminded the Committee that the hon. and learned Member for Finsbury had consented to agree to the Amendment that was suggested, and therefore they were not at present in a position to discuss the question. A person having property should use it without injuring other people.

MR. M'LAREN

suggested that as an Amendment was to be introduced respecting the doubtful points of the Bill, they should go on with the other clauses, and, if possible, finish the Bill; and all other matters could be discussed when the new clauses were brought up.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed, to.

Clauses 16, 17, and 18 agreed to.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.