HC Deb 12 May 1882 vol 269 cc635-47

[Progress 2nd May.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 (Provisions as to new streets).

MR. WARTON

said, he had several Amendments to propose upon this clause. The clause contained the words "with such particulars in relation thereto as may be required by the Board." He thought these words were hardly fair, because nobody could tell what the Board might require, or when or how often they might change their requirements. It seemed to him that, with these words, if any question arose between the Board and the person injured it would be very difficult to determine what was necessary. Therefore, what he would suggest was to omit the word "such" and to substitute the words "all necessary particulars in relation thereto;" and he should also propose to strike out the words "as required by the Board."

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 8, to leave out the word "such," in order to insert the words "all necessary."—(Mr. Warton.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'such' stand part of the Clause."

SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG

said, he did not quite catch the meaning of the hon. and learned Member; but if he would allow this clause to pass now and then explain what he meant, he would endeavour to give effect to it on Report.

MR. WARTON

That will not do.

MR. FIRTH

said, the line to which the hon. and learned Member referred was not the only one open to objection. Here was a Board, which was not a representative Board, proposing to impose such conditions as they might think fit, and that proposal appeared in line 8, line 13, and line 19, and the whole basis of the section consisted in the words "such conditions as they may think proper to prescribe." There were cases in which the Board had thought proper to prescribe that buildings should not be erected on a given line and in a certain way unless some compensation was agreed to. Their consent had been given in that way, and he thought this was a power that ought not to be given to the Board.

SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG

said, a man in the suburbs might wish to lay out streets, but there might be great difficulty in getting them laid out for the benefit of the public, and this clause was proposed simply to remedy difficulties which frequently occurred. It had nothing to do with the buildings themselves, but simply with the laying out of new streets.

MR. FIRTH

said, this clause had to do with laying out streets; but the next clause related to buildings. No additional jurisdiction ought to be given to the Board of Works.

SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG

said, the present powers of the Board of Works were inadequate in regard to the laying out of streets, and they were only asking the House to give them the power that was necessary.

MR. FIRTH

said, he had frequently been engaged in cases affecting the Board of Works, and it was with knowledge so obtained that he made his statement.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 42; Noes 8: Majority 34.—(Div. List, No. 79.)

MR. WARTON

said, he proposed to strike out the words "think proper to," in page 3, line 14, and also at the beginning of line 19. They had not to do with what the thoughts and intentions of this body were. They might be the most proper people in the world, and they might not. The question was really an important one, and he hoped the hon. and learned Solicitor General would give the Committee an opinion upon it. On the last occasion he had refused to give an opinion, and had only given a Governmental vote; but it was to be hoped on this occasion he would rise and say something.

Amendment negatived.

MR. BOORD

said, he had an Amendment to propose at the end of the clause.

MR. WARTON

said, he had an Amendment before that in line 25. He wished to insert the word "such" before "conditions."

MR. FIRTH

said, he only wished to say that, after the very conclusive division they had had, he hoped the hon. and learned Member would not divide on this matter. Having seen this clause in actual working, and knowing something of the Metropolitan Board of Works, he could only say these were not powers which should be given to that body.

SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG

said, he was prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. BOORD

said, he wished to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Grantham).

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 33, insert "Provided always, That in case the said person so intending to form or lay out any road, passage, or way, as aforesaid, considers that any of the conditions fixed or annexed by the Board are unreason- able, then the said person so objecting to the said conditions may appeal to the police magistrate for the district in which the said road, passage, or way is situate, and his decision shall be final upon the question."—(Mr. Boord.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. WARTON

said, he was in favour of the Amendment; but there were some ugly words in it—namely, as to conditions "fixed or annexed." As they had accepted the word "prescribed" already, he would propose that they should substitute it for the objectionable words.

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. and learned Member propose this as an Amendment?

MR. WARTON

Yes; as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

MR. BOORD

said, he had no objection to it.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment and original Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8 (Provisions restricting in certain cases the laying out of streets for foot traffic only).

MR. WARTON

said, that in this clause, on page 4, line 3, they had the words "think proper to" again. He would propose to strike them out.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. WARTON

moved, after the word "to," in line 14, to insert the word "such."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. BOORD

said, he wished to add the same provision at the end of this clause, as he had added at the end of Clause 7. It would only be necessary to insert the same power of appeal as in the last section; and as the Metropolitan Board of Works proposed that they should prescribe conditions, it seemed to him that his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) should not object to the insertion of the words. He would not trouble the Committee with any remarks on the Amendment, and trusted the hon. and gallant Member would either accept it or give a reason why he could not do so.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 22, insert "same power of appeal as in last section."—(Mr. Boord.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG

said, he hoped the hon. Member would not press the Amendment, and pointed out that the evil which the provision was to remedy existed, not only in London, but in many large cities. The poor in many thickly-populated towns lived in narrow, dreadful places, and the object of the Artizans' Dwellings Act was to remove all these. In Liverpool and elsewhere, under the Act, large sums had been spent in this way. Well, people should not be allowed to build these objectionable dwellings; otherwise, those who came after hon. Members would have imposed on them the duty of removing them.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, that unless this Amendment were adopted the Bill would hardly run on all fours. The hon. and gallant Member had already conceded a power of appeal in the case of roads, but now declined to concede it in the case of footpaths. It was hard to discover on what principle he was acting. He should either refuse the appeal in the case of roads, or concede it in the case of footpaths.

MR. FIRTH

hoped the Amendment would be adopted. If the regulations were laid down in bye-laws, the state of the case would be different; but the Board would be guided by their surveyor, who might be influenced by a variety of considerations—into which it was now needless to enter—in recommending the conditions which should be imposed.

SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG

said, he was willing to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 (Board may annex and enforce conditions as to space to be left open where building is erected beyond the general or regular line of building).

MR. BOORD

said, he had a small addition to make to this clause for the protection, by way of compensation, to those persons who proposed to build on the forecourts or gardens of their houses; and this Amendment, he trusted, would meet with the approval of the Committee. It would be observed that a freeholder proposing to erect a building on the space of ground in front of his house would be obliged to accept any conditions which the Metropolitan Board of Works might think proper to impose on giving their consent as to the area of land in front of the building to be erected. That was to say, that the Metropolitan Board of Works had power to confiscate for the use of the public a portion of the freeholder's property; and the object of his Amendment was to compensate him for the loss sustained in consequence.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 27, after the word "may," to insert "subject to compensation."—(Mr. Boord.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. FIRTH

pointed out that cases had arisen in which the Metropolitan Board of Works had not given their consent to the erection of houses in forecourts, except on the condition that a certain portion of land should be surrendered for the public use, without any sort of compensation. He regarded that as unjust in itself, and he did not think hon. Members would expect that such a condition would come within the meaning of the section. Cases of this kind having actually occurred already, he trusted the hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge of the Bill would be able to accept the Amendment.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

remarked, that there was no provision in the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite that payment of compensation should be made at the expense of the Metropolitan Board of Works—in fact, there was no indication by whom or to whom it was to be paid. The position of the matter, as he understood it, was this. As the law stood at present, the Metropolitan Board of Works had power to prohibit the erection of any building which would go beyond the general line of the street. But the clause before the Committee only provided that the Metropolitan Board of Works, who could thus refuse their consent altogether, might give a qualified consent upon such conditions as they might think fit. If, therefore, they could refuse consent altogether without compensation, it appeared to him there was no reason why, if they gave a qualified consent, that consent should carry with it compensation. It was difficult to see on what ground the owner could found his claim to compensation. He pointed out also that the Amendment, even if it were considered by the Committee, could not be accepted in its present form.

SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG

said, he wished to explain to the Committee the practice of the Metropolitan Board of Works with regard to the erection of buildings under the circumstances referred to. When persons came to them who wanted to bring their frontages forward, and it was pointed out that the street was crowded and required rectification, the Board would say—"If you can arrange with other persons and give up a little bit of land, you may bring your buildings forward." But they had found after the promise had been given, and the applicants had brought their buildings forward, that when the Board asked for a redemption of the promise, this was absolutely declined, and, at the same time, it was said that the powers of the Board had been exceeded. He thought, with regard to the Amendment, that it was very hard to be asked for compensation by persons who were receiving a benefit which, in point of value, was as great as the land they were asked to give up.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, the argument of the hon. and learned Solicitor General amounted to this. Because, under the law as it at present stood, the Metropolitan Board of Works had power to prevent altogether the erection of certain buildings on freehold land, the owner was not entitled to compensation, and it was, therefore, unnecessary to introduce into this clause any provision for giving compensation. But he (Mr. Balfour) objected to the practice of the Metropolitan Board of Works, as admitted by the hon. and gallant Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg), as to the making of conditions with persons desirous of building on their own land, inasmuch as it appeared that the powers of the Board to prevent a man building on his freehold were applied for the purpose of screwing out of him something for the public use. Either it was against the public interest that a man should build in the manner indicated, or it was not. If it was not in the public interest that he should do so, he contended that the Metropolitan Board of Works ought not to make the power which they had of preventing him an instrument of torture for ex- tracting some concession from him. If it was not contrary to the public interest, he was entitled to use his rights as proprietor, and if he was not allowed to do this he ought to get compensation, as suggested by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Boord).

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, there appeared to be some little confusion as to the position of the Metropolitan Board of Works in relation to this matter. The Board already had full discretion as to whether they would or would not give their consent to the erection of certain buildings. The present proposal was to enable them to consent on certain conditions, if they thought fit to do so in the public interest. One could not see, under these circumstances, for what the owner was to get compensation. If the Metropolitan Board of Works agreed to a man's proposal to build in the way contemplated by the clause, they were then consenting to enable him to do something which he could not do before. Why, then, should he be compensated?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

pointed out that his object in supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Greenwich was to prevent the Metropolitan Board of Works gratuitously and arbitrarily preventing a man doing what he would otherwise be able to do, unless they got something out of him. He held that the clause, as it stood, amounted to an encouragement to the Metropolitan Board of Works to exercise the arbitrary power of forbidding, in order to get out of the owner of the property something for the benefit of the public.

SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG

said, it was the duty of the Metropolitan Board of Works to look to the interest of the public; they had no other interest in the matter; which, so far as the public interest was concerned, was one of give-and-take. An applicant came forward, wanting to build, and his proposal was agreed to on conditions which were necessary for the public interest.

MR. FIRTH

asked on what terms the consent of the Board was given at that time?

SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG

said, the terms varied according to the circumstances of the case.

MR. BOORD

said, he was under the impression that a case had been granted by one of the Metropolitan Police Magis- trates, although, not having the particulars in his possession, he was unable to refer to it in detail. He believed that the right of the Metropolitan Board of Works to affix conditions to their consent had been the subject of dispute before a magistrate, who had granted a case. Now, it was while the decision of that case was pending that the present Bill had been introduced; and, if he was not wrong in his supposition, it was intended to forestall the decision on the point which some day might be expected. It was for this reason that he proposed the Amendment now before the Committee.

MR. WARTON

remarked, that the hon. and learned Solicitor General had made two speeches in the course of the discussion upon the Amendment before the Committee. His argument in the first speech in answer to the proposal to compensate the owner of land for the conditions imposed on him by the Metropolitan Board of Works amounted to this—that persons who were entitled to compensation were not to get it, because there was nothing in the Amendment as to the form or mode of compensation. It was too nice an argument to say that because the whole plan and method of compensation was not described the subject was to be dismissed altogether; and he entirely dissented from this view of the matter. The clause they were asked to pass, in its present form, involved a very important principle; and it must not be forgotten that the Bill, from its first introduction, had been hurried along at a great pace. Under these circumstances, he thought it well that owners of property on both sides of the House should bestow a due amount of consideration upon what was taking place. The Metropolitan Board of Works was, probably, not different in its character and objects from other Boards of Works, and a few years ago he received a notice which gave some idea of what those objects were. "The object of all Boards of Works"—so ran the document—"is to widen roads, regardless of the rights of property." They cared nothing for the rights of anybody at all, and they flourished on the property of others. With regard to the widening of roads, it was often the case that the roads contained two sorts of houses, with forecourts varying, perhaps, from 20 to 100 feet. He asked whether the rights of property were to be dependent on the line which the Surveyor to the Metropolitan Board of Works chose to call the general line? Again, in his second speech, the hon. and learned Solicitor General asked what the owner was to be compensated for? The answer to that was quite clear. The Metropolitan Board of Works said to the owner—"You can only go a certain distance, because it is our pleasure, and you must give up a piece of your land if we allow you to go farther." It was on that ground that compensation was claimed; and because he considered the owner entitled to compensation he felt it his duty to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Greenwich.

MR. WHITLEY

said, he wished to point out to the Committee that the clause now before them was to be found in every Municipal Act of Parliament of a kindred nature to this Bill. Every Municipality, in other words, was charged with powers similar to that provided for by the clause. It must be borne in mind that in various provincial localities the owners of property themselves had fixed the line of the streets, and that line it was necessary to preserve in the interest of all. A person by improperly bringing forward his frontage might injuriously affect the interest of every other owner of property in the street; and the Board of Works was the only body that could, by the exercise of the power vested in them, prevent gross injustice and damage being done to the property generally. He was convinced that it was right, in the interest of owners of property, that the powers of the clause should be conferred upon the Metropolitan Board of Works for the purpose of preventing one or two persons injuring all the property in a street by improperly bringing forward their frontages; and for that reason he trusted the clause would be allowed to pass in its present form.

MR. FIRTH

said, he had listened attentively to the remarks of the hon. Member who had just sat down, which, he was bound to say, had not even touched the question raised by the Amendment before the Committee. Supposing the interests of property were affected in the manner indicated by the hon. Member, a provincial public body would, of course, refuse their consent. But, with respect to this matter, the position in London was different to that in the Provinces, inasmuch as in London the line of the street was constantly changing, and property was not affected in the way described by the hon. Member. He should be glad to receive an answer to this question—Why should a man be compelled to give up his garden for the purpose of widening a street without being paid for it?

SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG

said, there was no compulsion whatever in the case. It was simply a matter of favour to a person who came forward and asked to be allowed to do a certain thing for the Board to give their consent on certain conditions. As he had before pointed out, owners sometimes departed from the promises given by them and accepted by the Board as a condition of their being allowed to bring forward their frontages. He trusted the clause would be allowed to pass without alteration.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 27, to leave ont the words, "if they think fit."—(Mr. Onslow.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. WARTON

pointed out that the penalties referred to in the Proviso at the end of this clause related to a state of things entirely different from those to which penalties were applied in other portions of the Bill. To make the matter clear, he proposed to add some words, which he believed the Committee would see the propriety of agreeing to.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 41, after the word "penalty," insert "under this section."—(Mr. Warton.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 42, to leave out the words "if they think proper."—(Mr. Onslow.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. FIRTH

said, he wished to ask a question bearing upon the recent observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg). Many streets in London had houses in front of which were forecourts or gardens. Supposing he took, for the purpose of illustration, a street which had on one side of it 20 houses, 15 of which were brought forward. What would be the general or regular line? If it were that of the 15 houses, on what principle was it proposed to prevent the other five houses being brought into that line without the owners gave up their forecourts?

SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG

said, he should like to have an opportunity of looking into the matter before replying to the question of the hon. Member.

MR. FIRTH

said, in that case it was clear that his hon. and gallant Friend was asking for legislation without knowing upon what it was based.

SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG

said, he was quite sure, in a case of the kind mentioned by the hon. Member, that the architect would see that proper attention was given to the circumstances.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he had not been quite convinced by the argument which the hon. and learned Solicitor General had used against the proposal of his hon. Friend (Mr. Boord) to give compensation to owners compelled to give up portions of their property by the Board of Works. On the whole, he thought the best plan would be to strike the clause out of the Bill. The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) seemed to think that if the clause were omitted it would be easier for the owner of a single house to do harm to the neighbouring property by thrusting it beyond the line of the street. But he would point out to the hon. Member that the evil was made easier by the adoption of the clause. The Board of Works had at present power to prevent this, and had, moreover, every motive to do so; but if the clause passed it was conceivable that it might be to the interest of the Board to allow an individual to injure the neighbouring property, because in exchange for their consent they would be enabled to extract from the owner of the peccant house, so to speak, some benefit in favour of the public. In order that the whole question might be reconsidered, and that the point as to who should pay compensation, and upon what terms it should be awarded, might receive the attention of his hon. and gallant Friend, he proposed to omit the clause from the Bill.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 6: Majority 14.—(Div. List, No. 80.)

And it appearing on the Division that 40 Members were not present in the Committee:

Mr. Speaker resumed the Chair:—House counted, and 40 Members not being present:

House adjourned at half after One o'clock till Monday next.