§ [Progress 18th May.]
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 2 (Interpretation).
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE (Chelsea)I do not wish to press any Amendment to any portion of this clause; but desire merely formally to move to omit the words in the 2nd paragraph, from line 24 to line 27, in order to put to my right hon. Friend who represents the Government in this matter (Mr. Stansfeld), and to my hon. Friend in charge of the Bill (Mr. Dodds), certain difficulties which might occur under these words. I do not know whether any hon. Members in this House, who represent rural interests, are aware of the fact that this 127 Bill applies to a very large number of rural districts. It is a Bill prepared by Municipal Corporations who have chiefly had in view, I think, the interests of urban districts. But the measure deals with urban districts which are merely technically urban districts—for instance, large Local Board districts, which often contain numerous parishes, and this is particularly the case in Yorkshire; and there are a large number of rural districts that have urban powers. We have, therefore, to look at the Bill, not only as an urban, but also as a rural measure. Under the words I refer to this might occur—a road might be held to be a street, though those who have been engaged in preparing the Bill might never have expected that it would have been possible for it to be so considered. Take the case of a man laying out an estate. He makes a gravel road through it, with streets sketched out in the same manner, with a view to recommending the sale of certain plots for building purposes. Plans are prepared and put up at railway stations and at other convenient places, with a view to the better sale of the land. In most of these cases all the land belongs to one man; but there are cases in which there is more than one owner of such building land, although one man possesses by far the larger quantity. The Local Authority may be greatly under the influence of the man laying out the land, and in such a case a great hardship might be inflicted upon the other proprietors of land along the new street or adjoining it. The gravel road might be held to be a street, under this Bill, for the reason that ultimately it is intended to use it as a street. In this way a man may be forced to contribute largely to the expense of making the street, though he might derive no benefit from it, and not only that, but although he may be altogether opposed to the speculation. I formally move to leave out these words. I do not intend to press the Amendment; but I wish to ask the attention of the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to the point. He is perfectly familiar with rural districts; and I would ask him whether, in his opinion, there would not be likely to be some hardship in these words—
Includes any land laid out as a street, whether or not buildings have been erected on either side thereof?
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 1, line 24, to leave out the words "'Street,' in addition to having the meaning assigned to it by the 'Public Health Act, 1875,' includes any land laid out as a street, whether or not buildings have been erected on either side thereof."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. DODDS (Stockton)The right hon. Gentleman, apparently, has not fully considered Clause 7 of the Bill, by which ample provision is made to secure that owners of property abutting on a street shall not be charged a higher amount towards the expenses of the paving, flagging, sewering, and so on, of the street than the benefit which it is considered likely to confer upon them. The Bill applies not merely to urban, but also to rural districts. It applies, in fact, to every road in regard to which Clauses 151 and 152 of the Public Health Act are in operation.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEWe must not lose sight of the fact that the rural Sanitary Authority may take a different view of the question whether or not an owner adjoining a proposed new street is benefited to the view the owner himself may take. I think, as I have already said, that serious objection may be taken to the words I have referred to; but, as I said before, I do not propose to press my objection to them.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ On Motion of The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Stansfeld) (Halifax), the following Amendment made:—In page 2, line 15, leave out "more than one person is the owner," and insert "two or more persons are the owners."
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 2, line 25, at end of the Clause, to add the words—"'Owner,' in addition to having the meaning assigned to it by 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' shall, where the lands or premises fronting, adjoining, or abutting upon any street are held upon a building lease subject to a ground rent, include the freeholder or lessor, who shall become liable to be charged with the expenses of executing the private street works jointly with the 'owner,' as defined in 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' and in proportion to the benefit to be derived by him
129
from such private street improvements, regard being had not only to the ground rent payable to him, but also to the number of years remaining unexpired under the building lease."—(Mr. Carbutt.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ MR. DODDS (Stockton)I cannot accept the Amendment, which would introduce a new definition of the word "owner." The Courts have given decisions which have bestowed upon the word a distinct and clearly-defined meaning, and to introduce this Amendment into a Bill intended only to extend the sections of the Public Health Act of 1875, would be to introduce serious confusion. I, therefore, must ask the Committee to refuse to pass this Amendment.
§ MR. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)I beg to support the Amendment; and I trust that even if the hon. Member cannot accept it, he will endeavour to meet the grievance which it is obviously intended to remove.
§ MR. DODDSIt may be desirable to meet the grievance, but it is not in the power of a private Member to introduce a Bill for the purpose. This measure has been designed for the purpose of meeting the imperfections in the Act of 1875. I cannot hold out to the hon. Member any hope that we shall be able to deal with the point in this Bill. A A time, no doubt, may come when it may be possible to introduce a Bill to remove the grievance the hon. Member wishes to meet.
§ MR. CARBUTTThe grievance of which I complain is felt so keenly in a very large number of towns where land is let on small leases that I think it would be well to go to a division.
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. STANSFELD) (Halifax)I must ask my hon. Friend not to press his Amendment to a division. It seems quite clear that the Amendment as it stands will not effect the object in view. In the next place, the Amendment makes the Sanitary Authority the judges of the proportions in which the liability shall be charged upon the owner or the freeholder. That, I think, is very objectionable.
§ MR. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)I hardly understand how the Sanitary Authority can be proper judges of the proportions to be paid by one set 130 of men, and not proper judges in case of a division between the lessor and the lessee. Surely, if they can judge in the one case they can judge in the other. But I submit to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Stansfeld) that the Sanitary Authority is not the final judge—there is a higher authority.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 62; Noes 76: Majority 14.—(Div. List, No. 107.)
§ Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 3 (Private street works).
§ On Motion of The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Stansfeld) (Halifax) the following Amendment made:—In page 2, line 26, leave out any urban district" and insert "the district of any sanitary authority."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE (Chelsea)I beg to move formally the omission of the words "two months" in page 3, line 11, and the insertion of "one month," in order to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Government to the clumsiness of this Bill in regard to its working. The Metropolitan system, which is a different one to that proposed by this Bill on this point, works very quickly indeed. This Bill will take from 12 weeks to 12 months to work in each case. The shortest possible period in which the expenses can be calculated and the works begun will be 12 weeks, and, on the average, about six months will be occupied in getting the work in order. I think that is too long. I merely mention the matter to see whether the right hon. Gentleman can suggest anything by which the Bill can be brought into operation more speedily.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 11, to leave out the words "two months" in order to insert the words "one month."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'two months' stand part of the Clause."
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. STANSFELD) (Halifax)My attention has not been directed to the point raised by my right hon. Friend, and therefore I can- 131 not pronounce on the subject now. I shall be very happy to consider the matter, and, if possible, meet his views.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 4 (Objections to proposed works).
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE (Chelsea)As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds (Mr. Jackson) is not present, I will move the first Amendment which stands in his name—it is to leave out "majority in number" in line 26. That will raise a question which we can raise again in a few minutes, probably in a more convenient form. It is very difficult to see why Clause 4 is drawn in the form in which it is drawn. The Committee will see there are two parts to Clause 4. In one of those parts a single owner can stop the proceedings under the Bill; but by the other portion of the clause a majority of owners is required to stop the proceedings. I admit that upon some of the legal points it may be a wise proceeding; but surely a different system might prevail upon the points which are really matters of fact. The Sub-sections (a) and (d) seem to me to be on all-fours with the cases contemplated in the second part of the clause; and, therefore, after hearing what my hon. Friend (Mr. Dodds) has to say, I shall be inclined to move to take Sub-sections (a) and (d) out of the first part of the clause, in order to put them in the second part of the clause. This Amendment seems to raise the same question, and, therefore, I move it. As to the question of majority, there is another point which we ought to take in view, and it is this—that probably very many cases will arise in which there is no majority, where there are only two owners concerned, and they take opposite views. The word "majority" would not meet that case at at all.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 26, to leave out the words "majority in number."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'majority in number' stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to propose the whole of the Amendments 132 standing in the name of the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Jackson)?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEI want to hear what hon. Members opposite have to say in support of their Amendments as they stand on the Paper. The question in regard to the first part of the case would be best raised, I think, not by the Amendment which I have moved in the name of the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Jackson), but by moving to leave Sub-sections (a) and (d) out of the first part, and putting them in the second part of the clause. The other point as to the majority is a very difficult one. I put it before the Committee as one which concerns rural and not urban districts. In rural districts you frequently find cases in which only two persons are interested, and in which, therefore, there cannot be a majority. Hon. Members opposite are probably more interested in that point than I am myself.
§ MR. DODDS (Stockton)The Amendment of the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Jackson) has been fully considered by those who are associated with the promotion of this Bill; and, on the whole, we think that the form in which the clause stands is preferable to that suggested by the hon. Gentleman. I shall be glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Stansfeld) has to say on the subject. Personally, I am in favour of the clause as it stands.
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. STANSFELD) (Halifax)The question is a very proper one for discussion. The objections are—
That the alleged street is not within the meaning of this Act; that the street is wholly repairable by the inhabitants at large; that the proposed works are insufficient or unreasonable, or that the estimated expenses are excessive,and so on; and the proposal of the Bill is that all these objections can be made by at least one-half of the owners of the property in the street, and that the objections which any single owner may raise shall be objections in respect of his own property alone. The real question for us to decide is whether the first class of objection should be raised by an individual owner.
§ MR. DODDS (Stockton)As to the word "majority," there is considerable force in the suggestion of my hon. 133 Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and we shall be glad to consider the matter by Report. I think the Amendment may be made.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE (Chelsea)I am glad the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has consented to consider by Report the question of the advisability of retaining the word "majority." The matter, as put by the President of the Local Government Board, was, perhaps, a little misleading to hon. Gentlemen from the rural districts. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the majority of the owners in the street; but one, and probably the most important, point is, whether it is a street or not. A rural authority may wish to have a gravel path made into a street, or to have it known as a street. The point is whether, in such a case, we should insist upon a man representing the majority of owners before he can be heard in the matter at all. I think in such a matter any owner ought to be heard.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ On Motion of The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Stansfeld) (Halifax), the following Amendment made:—Page 3, line 29, after "or the," insert "owners or."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE (Chelsea)I moved the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Jackson) to see whether hon. Mem-Members opposite had considered the Amendment. The Amendment, which would meet the view I have put forward, would be to take Sub-sections (a) and (d) out of the first part of the clause and put them in the second part. That would insist on power being given to any one owner to object in a case where it was alleged the alleged street was not a street, and also in a case where the proposed works were insufficient or unreasonable, or that the estimated expenses were excessive. I would leave (b) and (c), which are legal points, to be dealt with in the manner proposed in the clause; but the matters of fact which would most frequently arise I propose to put in the second part of the clause.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, to leave out "(a.) That the alleged street is not a street within the meaning of this Act."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. DODDS (Stockton)I think that, on the whole, the suggestion of my right hon. Friend will be an improvement of the clause, and therefore I shall be happy to agree to the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
On Motion of Sir CHARLES W. DILKE, the following Amendments made:—Page 4, leave out—
(d.) "That the proposed works are insufficient or unreasonable, or that the estimated expenses are excessive.
Line 8, to insert after the words "that is to say," the words—
That the alleged street is not a street within the meaning of this Act," and "that the proposed works are insufficient or unreasonable, or that the estimated expenses are excessive.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 5 (Hearing and determination of objections).
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE (Chelsea)I do not propose to move any Amendment of this clause, but simply wish to call the attention of the Committee to the two different appeals proposed in the Bill. There is an appeal to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and there is an appeal to the Local Government Board. My impression is that the appeal to the Local Government Board is one to which all the aggrieved parties are likely to resort. I do not think anyone will go to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction; and I should have thought it would have been best to provide for an appeal to the Local Government Board only. The Committee need not be afraid that if that course were taken great expense would be thrown on the country; because there is provision in the Bill for raising the costs from the owner. Even if an increase to the Inspector's staff of the Local Government Board were necessitated under this Bill, there would be no extra charge to the country. I do not know whether my hon. Friend for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) has considered the matter; but if he has not, I hope he will do so before Report.
§ MR. DODDS (Stockton)There may be cases in which both parties are quite ready to take the opinion of the magistrate in the locality. It would be a pity, 135 therefore, to exclude a Court which is sitting at your own door, and compel the parties to resort to an appeal to the Local Government Board, however trivial the question in dispute may be. I think it is better to have two strings to our bow. The retention of this provision can do no harm; but it is easy to conceive cases in which it would probably be a great convenience and a saving of expense to resort to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction.
§ MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)I agree with the hon. Member (Mr. Dodds) that it is too much to refer all cases, no matter how trivial, to the Local Government Board.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEPersonally, I am disposed to accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend (Mr. Dodds) that we should leave the clause as it is; but I hope the President of the Local Government Board will promise us that the Local Government Board will not assume that the intention of Parliament was that the matter should go to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. There is just the danger in providing the two appeals that the Local Government Board will say—"Parliament meant you to go to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction before you come to us." I hope the Local Government Board will be willing, through their Inspectors, to act in all cases in which the parties desire they should.
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. STANSFELD) (Halifax)I think that under Sub-section (2) the Local Government Board would have no option in the matter.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEWhat I was afraid of was that the Local Government Board might consider that they have power to insist that certain legal points should be settled by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction before the parties came to the Board.
§ MR. STANSFELDThe words of the sub-section are—
Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, the sanitary authority may, before any application is made to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and if before the expiration of the period for objections they are so required in writing by a majority of the persons making an objection, or by a person entitled to object alone, shall refer to the Local Government Board all such objections, and that Board, after such local or other inquiry as they see fit, may make such order in the matter as to them may seem equitable.136 I do not think the Local Government Board could refuse.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 6 to 8 agreed to.
§ Clause 9 (Final apportionment of expenses).
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE (Chelsea)I propose to omit the word "expended," in page 7, line 2, and to insert "borrowed," and then to move the omission of the words—
From the respective dates of payment of such moneys until such completion.Local Authorities are not able to borrow all the money they want for these matters, in the small sums in which they are obliged to pay the money. A case in point came before me when I was at the Local Government Board. The Chiswick Authorities had to raise a total sum of £15,000. They could only raise it in amounts of £5,000, while they only had to pay £1,000 at a time. A certain loss in interest would fall on the rates, if we carried this section in the form in which it stands. I admit this clause does away with nine-tenths of the grievance Local Authorities have at the present time, though it leaves a small portion of the grievance untouched. If the Committee accepts this Amendment, and then omits the words from "from" to "completion," we shall at once get rid of the last vestige of the grievance, and I cannot but think it is well to remove all the hardship.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 2, to leave out the word "expended," and insert the word "borrowed."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'expended' stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. DODDS (Stockton)I labour under a great disadvantage in not being able to follow the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, those Amendments not appearing on the Paper. But upon the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that nine-tenths of the difficulty under which Local Authorities labour will be met by my clause, I am content to take it in its present form.
§ MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)a: I think it would be well to take the clause as it stands.
§ MR. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)I am sorry I cannot recognize the 137 improvement suggested by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke). The clause will protect the Sanitary Authority if they spend the money before they have borrowed it, and that seems to me to meet the difficulty far better than the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 10 (Time of payment, charge on premises, and recovery of sum due for expenses).
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. STANSFELD) (Halifax)I beg to propose to leave out "within," in line 38, and insert "at the expiration of." The words of the clause are—
And shall be payable to such authority within one month after payment of such principal sum has been demanded.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 38, to leave out the word "within," and insert the words "at the expiration of."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE (Chelsea)The clause provides that the payment of the principal sums due shall be spread over a period not exceeding 20 years from the date of the final apportionment. I propose to omit the word "twenty," and to insert in its place either "ten" or "twelve." "Twenty years" has been adopted by the Bill, instead of "thirty year," as at the present time. Thirty years has always been felt to be preposterously long, and I cannot but think that 20 years is too long. The works contemplated could not last for 20 years. Ten or 12 years is the outside period the works will last. I think it is improper, even as a maximum, to put in so long as 20 years. I should like to have the opinion of my hon. Friend (Mr. Dodds) on the point.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 14, to leave out the word "twenty," in order to insert the word "ten."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'twenty' stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. DODDS (Stockton)I regret my right hon. Friend has taken objection to this reduced period. I do not at all 138 agree with him that works of sewage will not last for a considerably longer period than 20 years. If you saddle the present generation with too heavy a burden, by making it repay the money borrowed within a very short period, the result very often is that very necessary work is not done, and money is not borrowed.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. STANSFELD) (Halifax)Section 8 requires that—
The said register shall be kept in accordance with such regulations as the sanitary authority may from time to time make, with the approval of the Local Government Board, and shall be admissible in evidence, on its mere production from the custody of such authority.I propose to add after "Board" the words—Or in accordance with any general regulations from time to time made by that Board.It is convenient that for certain cases there should be this provision.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 9, line 17, after the word "Board," to insert the words "or in accordance with any general regulations from time to time made by that Board."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 11 agreed to.
§ Clause 12 (Recovery of expenses summarily or by action).
§ MR. WESTLAKE (Essex, Romford)The Amendment which stands in my name is intended to make the cost of street improvements repayable by the owners at an earlier stage of the proceedings. The provision contained in the Amendment exists extensively; it exists in the Metropolis by virtue of Public Acts, and has been sanctioned by various Local Acts for a number of Local Boards; and it has been found so satisfactory in its working that I have been requested by the Local Boards of East Ham and Barking, which have had the opportunity of observing its usefulness under the neighbouring Local Board of West Ham, which is one of those that possess it, to move its insertion in this Bill. The purport of the Amendment is that the expenses shall 139 be recoverable in advance. It has been found that, where the power exists, the expenses are much more freely paid in advance. The owners know that upon the payment of the expenses depends the chance of the Local Board being willing to take over the streets and make the improvements. If the work is done before they are made to pay, they are by no means as ready to pay as they were when they came to the Local Board to make the request. The Local Board are obliged to institute law suits, and heavy expenses are incurred. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 9, line 26, to leave out from "(1)," to end of line 34, and insert—"At any time after the expiration of the two months mentioned in section three, or if any objection affecting the premises in question has been made under section four, then, at any time after the matter of such objection shall have been determined, the sanitary authority, in addition and without prejudice to any remedy under the other provisions of this Act, and whether before the private street works in question have been commenced, or during their progress, or after their completion, may from time to time recover from the owner or owners for the time being of any premises included in the provisional or final apportionment, either as a civil debt in a court of summary jurisdiction for the county or place in which the premises are wholly or partly situate, or as a simple contract debt by action in any court, the sum, if any, charged under this Act on such premises in respect of the expenses of such private street works, or, if no such sum has so become charged, the sum provisionally apportioned on such premises in respect of such works, which last-mentioned sum, being so recovered, together with a corresponding portion of the interest mentioned in section ten, sub-section (1), shall be reckoned in diminution of the amount to be charged on the said premises under this Act; and, in case the amount otherwise to be charged on the said premises under this Act shall be less than that provisionally apportioned on them, and recovered as aforesaid, the sanitary authority shall repay the difference to the owner from whom the last-mentioned sum was recovered."—(Mr. Westlake.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. DODDS (Stockton)This seems to be an attempt to incorporate upon the system of the Public Health Act, which is in operation in the country generally, the Metropolitan system, which is different in important particulars. In the next place, I think it would be exceedingly hard upon the owners of property, many of whom have sufficient 140 difficulty in finding money after improvements, to compel them to pay beforehand for the work that it is intended to do. It is now the practice of the Local Board with which I am connected to allow the owners of property to make application to extend the time of payment by two or three years, according to the circumstances, the owners of the property paying interest on the various instalments. As this is the first charge on the property, there can be no loss if ordinary precautions are taken. I must, therefore, oppose the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 13 (Exemption from expenses of incumbent of church, &c.)
MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Nottingham)Clause 13 limits the exemption to cases in which there is a building for the purpose of worship. There are cases where land has been purchased with the view of erecting a place of worship upon it, and my Amendment is to give to the owners of such land the benefit of this exemption. It may be objected that the land may never be used for the purpose for which it was purchased, and that exemption may be improperly granted. I propose to meet such a case, by limiting the exemption to land which can be used only for that purpose.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 10, line 3, after the word "poor," to insert the words "or the trustees to whom has been conveyed land for the exclusive purpose of erecting thereon any place of public worship."—(Mr. Carvell Williams.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE (Chelsea)Is the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Carvell Williams) aware what the effect of this Amendment would be in law? It is a very common thing that trustees have the power to sell at any time. There was a case at Usedale Road quite recently in which land was bought by trustees of a chapel for the purpose of erecting a chapel. A new street has been made through the land, and the trustees have contributed their share to that new street. Since that they have sold the land for other purposes, and 141 the chapel is to go to Fulham. This is a case, I think, to which this Amendment would apply. Of course, there are, too, a great number of cases in which chapels have ceased to be used as places of public worship.
§ MR. DODDS (Stockton)I have already explained privately to my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment the reason why I cannot adopt it. I should say, in the first place, that the clause has been already amended so as to meet the principal objection my hon. Friend had to it as it stands in the Public Health Act, which is limited exclusively to ministers, and not extended to property vested in trustees. I know of two cases in my experience in which land, bought for places of worship has been put to other uses. In one case in Middlesborough land was bought for a parsonage house. The ground, however, became so valuable for building purposes that it was sold, and a number of public-houses built on it. In Stockton, within the past 12 months, a plot of ground of considerable size was given by a gentleman as a site for a church and school, and other buildings connected with them. The land around was let for building purposes, and streets were formed. What happened? A chapel was built on part of the property and a school upon another portion, and upon the remaining part of the property a row of very nice dwellings have been built during the past six months, which get the full benefit of all the paving around the site without any charge whatever. For these reasons, as well as for others which I have mentioned to my hon. Friend, I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment. I have given him a great deal, and now he asks for more.
§ MR. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)I could mention three cases similar to those mentioned by my hon. Friend.
§ MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Nottingham, S.)I venture to say that the cases mentioned by the hon. Member (Mr. Dodds) would not be covered by these words, because I apprehend that the land in these cases was not conveyed for the purpose of erecting places of worship and for no other purpose. The case I have in mind is one in which it would be impossible to devote the laud to any other purpose.
§ MR. DODDS (Stockton)The Amendment would involve an inquiry into the title of every piece of land.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Nottingham, S.)The hon. Member (Mr. Dodds) who has charge of this Bill has undoubtedly cured a defect in the existing law, by inserting the words "or trustee" in the first line of Clause 13. By a recent decision doubt was created as to the applicability of the exemption to cases where there was neither incumbent or a minister. That doubt will be removed by this Bill if it should pass; but what I ask for is that the parties in pending cases should be put in the same position as those who will come under the Bill. I wish to give the benefit of the Bill to those who have suffered as a result of a quite recent decision.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 10, at end insert—"(2.) Section one hundred and fifty-one of the principal Act shall read as if, in the first line thereof, the words 'the incumbent, minister, or trustee,' had been inserted, instead of the words 'the incumbent or minister,' and, as so altered, shall apply as well in all cases where notices or orders have been already given or made, or works executed, or shall hereafter be given or made or executed.'"—(Mr. Carvell Williams.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. STANSFELD) (Halifax)Section 151 is already repealed.
§ MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSThat being the case, I shall raise the question in another form on the Report.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 14 to 16 agreed to.
§ Clause 17 (Application of sums received from owners, &c.)
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. STANSFELD) (Halifax)I beg to move to insert after "may," in line 14, "subject to such conditions as they may deem necessary."
§ On Motion of The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Stansfeld) (Halifax), the following Amendment made:—Page 11, line 14, after 143 "may," insert "subject to such conditions as they may deem necessary."
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 18 (Power to borrow for private street works fund).
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. STANSFELD) (Halifax)I propose the omission of this clause, and also of Clause 19. My reason is simply this—the object of these clauses is to enable the Sanitary Authority to set aside excess of repayments for objects other than those contemplated by the scheme. We gave that power in the 17th clause, subject to the assent of the Local Government Board.
§ Clause negatived.
§ Clause 19 (Annual return to Local Government Board) negatived.
§ Clause 20 (Adoption of private streets).
§ On Motion of Mr. DODDS, the following Amendment made:—Page 12, line 13, after the first "authority," insert "either before or after the passing of this Act."
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 21 agreed to.
§ Clause 22 (Application of Act to part of a street).
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 12, line 40, to leave out from "the part not so repairable to expenses," in line 4, page 13, inclusive, and insert—"This Act shall apply to the whole street as if no part of the street were repairable by the inhabitants at large: Provided, That where any expenses are incurred under this Act in respect of the street, a proper proportion of such expenses, having regard to the part of the street which is repairable by the inhabitants at large, shall be charged upon such inhabitants and paid as other expenses of such repair are paid, and the authority paying these expenses, where not the sanitary authority, shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be an owner of premises charged with expenses of private street works."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. DODDS (Stockton)In my opinion, and in the opinion of those who have taken very considerable interest in this matter, the clause as it stands in the Bill is preferable to the amended form suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. Under the circumstances, how- 144 ever, I feel I have no alternative but to submit to the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ On Motion of The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Stansfeld) (Halifax), the following Amendments made:—Page 13, line 26, after "any," insert "Sanitary authority resolve to execute any;" line 26, leave out "are executed."
§ MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)I have the following Amendment on the Paper:—Page 10, after Clause 12, insert the following Clause:—
The owners or proprietors of any canal or navigable river shall not be liable in any expenses of private street works under this Act, in respect of any land or premises of such owners or proprietors which shall be used solely as a part of their line of canal or navigation or towing path hereof, and shall have no communication with the street in connection with which such expenses are incurred.I do not propose to move this, but propose to give way to the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Jackson), because his clause is more complete. It applies to railways as well as canals. The purport of the clause is very simple, and I think it is also just as well as simple. There are cases in connection with both railways and canals where there is a road or passage belonging to the Company not accessible from the public highways. It is especially the case in regard to canals; and we propose that where there is a towing-path or a passage of that kind the Company shall not be liable for the expenses under the Act, provided there be no communication with the public street. If, however, the communication be estalished at some future time, then liability would arise. My hon. Friend below me will bear me out, I think, that this has been introduced into a Local Act this year. I think it is a just provision. It is hard on Companies that they should have to pay expenses in respect of that from which they derive no advantage whatever. I will move the clause in the name of my hon. Friend.
§
Amendment proposed, in page 10, after Clause 13, to insert the following Clause:—
(Exemption of premises of Railway or Canal Company having no communication with street.)
No Railway or Canal Company shall be liable to any expenses under this Act in respect
145
of any of their premises fronting, adjoining, or abutting on any street, if such premises are used solely for the purposes of their Railway or Canal undertaking, and have no communication with such street, but in the event of a communication being made with such street at any time after the expenses of any private street works in respect thereof shall have been apportioned under this Act, the Railway or Canal Company making such communication shall pay to the sanitary authority the amount which, but for the provisions of this section, they would, in the first instance, have been liable to pay, and the sanitary authority shall divide such amount among the owners for the time being of the other premises, according to the proportions in which the original expenses were divided amongst them in the final apportionment made under this Act,—(Mr. F. S. Powell.)
—brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ MR. DODDS (Stockton)I regret that I cannot accept this clause; and I venture to suggest to the Committee that there is no absolute necessity for it. It would not be fair to exempt either railways or canals from contribution. Clause 7 already contemplates the consideration of the degree of benefit derived by the premises from the works carried out. The question will be the amount of any benefit derived, so that any Railway Company will have the right to say—"Our property is very slightly benefited; therefore we object to have any of the apportionment put on us, or, at any rate, none but a nominal amount." I know a case at the present moment where a Railway Company purchased land for a siding. Stipulations were made that they should not have access to a road that it was intended to make, but should have means of exit from and access to their platform at two particular points agreed upon on two public roads. Well, very recently, within the past few months—during the present year, in fact—the Company have altered their plans; and now that a roadway adjoining the railway has been formed and dedicated to the use of the public, they have placed three gateways in the fence by the side of the road, and they will derive as much benefit from the road as people on the opposite side of the street, who had to contribute to the expenses. I submit that Clause 7 provides adequate relief for Railway Companies, and to omit to charge them altogether would 146 be an injustice to the owners of other property on the estate, especially as many circumstances may arise to render the land that now forms the site of the railways, or may hereafter form the site of the railways, available for other purposes. We had an instance of that in the conversion of Regent's Canal into railways. I think Clause 7 deals adequately with the case of railways and canals.
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)I think there is something in what the hon. Gentleman says as to the alternative contained in Clause 7. But I would point out that that clause gives an extraordinarily large discretion to the Sanitary Authority. It will not lay them under the necessity of considering whether any reduction can be made, but will leave it to their sense of justice whether or not they shall consider what justice is.
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. STANSFELD) (Halifax)If the hon. Member will refer to Clause 4, Sub-section (c,) he will find the following ground for objecting to the proposal of a Sanitary Authority:—
That certain premises ought to be excluded from or included in the provisional apportionment.That, I think, entirely meets the case.
§ MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)I withdraw the Amendment. I have raised the point, and I must remain content with that.
§ COLONEL E. HUGHES (Woolwich)The effect of this clause would be that possibly the owners on one side of a street might have to pay for the paving on both sides. If the clause were limited to streets made after the canal, perhaps it would be right; but with regard to streets made, though not paved, before the canal was made, I think it should not apply. The Companies ought to bear burdens that may possibly fall on the land they take.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ CAPTAIN COTTON (Cheshire, Wirral)a: The new clause I rise to propose was the subject of an Instruction before the Bill went into Committee. It repeals Clause 156 of the Public Health Act of 1875, by which it was enacted that it shall not 147 be lawful in any urban district to bring forward any house or building forming part of any street. I have used the words "to erect or bring forward" so as to make the clause apply to new as well as to existing buildings. This has been found necessary on account of certain decisions that have been given on the subject by the Law Courts. I may add that I looked into the Burgh Police and Health (Scotland) Bill, and that, so far as I can make out, this clause is fully provided for in that measure.
§
Amendment proposed, after Clause 22, to insert the following Clause:—
(Buildings not to be brought forward.)
Section one hundred and fifty-six of 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' is, save as hereinafter mentioned, hereby repealed, and in lieu thereof it is hereby enacted that it shall not be lawful in any urban district, without the written consent of the urban authority, to erect or bring forward any house or building in any street, or any part of any such house or building, beyond the main front wall of the house or building on either side thereof, nor to build any addition to any house or building beyond the front main wall of the house or building on either side of the same.
Any person offending against this enactment shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding forty shillings for every day during which the offence is continued after written notice in this behalf from the urban authority.
Provided, That the repeal by this section enacted shall not affect anything duly done or suffered, or any right or liability acquired, accrued, or incurred, or any security given under the section hereby repealed, or any penalty, forfeiture, or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against such section, or any investigation, legal proceeding, or remedy in respect of any such right, liability, security, penalty, forfeiture, or punishment, as aforesaid; and any such investigation, legal proceeding, and remedy may be carried on as if this Act had not been passed,"—(Captain Cotton,)
—brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. STANSFELD) (Halifax)It may save time if I at once state that I shall be happy to accept the clause, which will be a great improvement in the Bill.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Clause added to the Bill.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE (Chelsea)Would the Government undertake to consider whether a new clause could not 148 be brought up to deal with what is a very hard case indeed? At the present moment, if a scheme is prepared for the laying out of a new district in which there are a great number of new streets—sometimes as many as 20 or 30 being dealt with at once—the expense of laying down a new sewer may be charged to one particular street. The sewer may have been laid down for the benefit of the whole of the streets, and not for one only. The point is a technical one that ought, I think, to be dealt with by the promoters of the Bill.
§ MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)That point is dealt with in the power which is given to deal with adjoining property.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEI do not think the point is dealt with. You might throw the whole expense of several streets on one street. You can throw a portion of the expense on the whole district for which the authority serves, no doubt.
§ MR. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)I do not think that the clause the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wigan refers to could be understood to meet the case mentioned without a great deal of straining. I trust the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Stansfeld) will give us an undertaking to consider the point raised by the right hon. Baronet.
§ MR. DODDS (Stockton)I should be glad to consider the point. If the right hon. Gentleman would prepare a sketch clause of the matter in his mind, and would send it to me, I should be happy to give it every consideration. If I am to give an opinion upon it upon Report, it would be a great convenience to me to have the suggestion put into writing, and sent to me in the course of the present week. I propose to take the Report stage some time next week, so that I think, in the interest of expedition, it will be well to follow the course I point out.
§ Amendment proposed, in Schedule, page 16, line 25, to leave out the word "can."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. STANSFELD) (Halifax)I beg to propose the Amendment on the Paper relating to the 149 Schedule after line 28. The second part of the Schedule defines the notices to be given, and it does not appear to me to be sufficient. I propose that the notice, or a copy of it, shall be served on every owner or person in occupation of the premises, and, where there is no one on the premises, that it shall be posted up on some conspicuous part of them. I also provide for the notice being sent by post. It appears to me that my proposal will materially improve the Bill and the law on this subject.
§
Amendment proposed,
In Schedule, page 16, after line 28, insert—"Any notice required by this Act to be given shall be served on every owner affected thereby by delivering the same, or a true copy thereof, to him, or at his residence, or to some person on the premises in respect of which the notice is given, or, where there is no person on the premises who can be so served, by fixing the same on some conspicuous part of the premises. It may also be served by post by a prepaid letter addressed to the owner at his last known or most usual place of abode, or at the premises, and, if served by post, shall be deemed to have been served at the time when the letter containing the notice would be delivered in the ordinary course of post, and, in proving such service, it shall be sufficient to prove that the notice was properly addressed and put into the post.
Any notice required to be given to the owner of any premises may be addressed by the description of the 'owner' of the premises (naming them) in respect of which the notice is given, without further name or description."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. DODDS (Stockton)I do not at all like this clause, and, objectionable as it is to me, it is still more so to friends associated with me in this matter. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman who has moved it will promise between this and Report to consider the matter fully in the light of representations that will be made to him, I will not resist the introduction of the Amendment.
§ MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)May I be allowed to say a concluding word? I hope the Committee will sanction the insertion of these words. I do not think the Schedule as it stands in the Bill is at all sufficient. The Bill may involve the payment of a considerable sum on these expenses—a sum which, if not considerable in itself, will be found considerable when you consider the position of the owners, many of whom will be, 150 comparatively speaking, poor persons. It appears to me that the notice which would have to be given under Part II. of the Schedule, as it stands, would be very insufficient. The Schedule says the notice shall be—
publicly posted in or near the street to which it relates once at least in each of three successive weeks.Such publication cannot be sufficient, for the notice may be destroyed by a shower of rain, or pulled down by a mischievous child.
§ MR. JOHNS (Warwick, Nuneaton)I would suggest that the notice should be required to be sent in a registered letter, instead of an ordinary prepaid letter
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§
On Motion of The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Stansfeld), the following Amendments made:—Schedule, page 16, line 29, leave out "shall," and insert "may also;" page 17, line 2, leave out from "and such publication" to "in such street," in line 4; leave out from line 10 to line 12, inclusive, and insert—
Where several notices are given in respect of the same works, and are not given on the same day, the date of the giving of the last of such notices shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be the date of the giving of all of them.
§ Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman report the Bill, as amended, to the House."
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)I should like to know whether, between this and the next stage, there will be time for the Bill to be reprinted?
§ Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday 3rd June, and to be printed. [Bill 230.]