HC Deb 11 June 1855 vol 138 cc1778-80

Order for Committee read.

House in Committee, commencing with Clause 48, which was agreed to, as were also Clauses 49 to 53 inclusive.

On Clause 54, requiring notice of the intention to build to be given to the vestry or district board, before commencing such operations,

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, he proposed that the blank in the clause should be filled up with the word "seven," so as to make the notice one of seven days.

MR. CUBITT

said, from his experience of building operations he was convinced that a notice of seven days would involve great delay and practical inconvenience to builders in opening the ground to lay their foundations. The existing Act regulating building in the metropolis only required forty-eight hours' notice to be given, and that period, he considered, would also be amply sufficient for the purposes of the Bill. An extended notice of seven days was quite unprecedented in such cases.

MR. HENLEY

said, he considered that forty-eight hours' notice would be quite sufficient hi this case if the vestries had a proper staff of officers, and such a map of the levels of the different districts as they ought to possess prepared beforehand.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, he thought two days would be inadequate for the surveyor to inspect and make his report, and then for the board to sanction his recommendation.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, that the notice provided by the City Sewers Act was one of fourteen days, and he had already reduced that notice by one-half. However, he would further consider the point; and if the notice could be fixed consistently with the public interests below seven days, he would have no objection to insert words to that effect.

MR. HENLEY

said, that, according to the clause as it stood, any house, building, or drain commenced without the specific authority of the vestry or district board would be liable to be pulled down. Surely there should be a limit to the time within which such authority should be given.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, he proposed to introduce words requiring the authority of the vestry or district board to be given within a certain prescribed period.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

On Clause 66, which relates to the various powers given under local Acts,

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, that nothing could be more easy than to repeal all the local Acts, but there were some of them which it might be desirable to continue. He, therefore, hoped that the Committee would agree to the clause as it stood. It proposed merely to transfer the powers of the different Acts to the new boards. He looked upon this Bill as the commencement of good legislation for the metropolis, and he thought it would be better to postpone the consideration of the local Acts until they had the opinions of the representatives of the different boards on the subject. If the clause was passed, he had no doubt that the time was not far distant when there would be some measure brought in to deal with these local Acts.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he had no objection to upset all the constituted authorities of the metropolis provided something better could be substituted; but that something ought to be stated. He objected to the little consideration shown to the owners of property, and on that ground he would suggest that the clause should be postponed until some statement was made.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, he would consider, before the Bill was passed, how far it was desirable to repeal the local Acts.

VISCOUNT EBRINGTON

said, he thought it advisable that the clause should be postponed, inasmuch as it was desirable to get rid of the conflicting terms of the local Acts as soon as possible.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 67 to 69 inclusive were then agreed to.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, he did not propose to proceed any further with the Committee that day, but as the measure was one of very great importance, and expedition in its passing was most desirable, especially with reference to the present advanced season, he trusted that the House would allow him to go on with the remaining clauses at a morning sitting to-morrow.

MR. HENLEY

said, he understood that morning sittings had already been appointed for Thursday and Friday next, and although it was no doubt desirable that this measure should be proceeded with without delay, nevertheless, it was to be remembered that there were limits to human endurance, and flesh and blood could not sit there day after day from twelve o'clock at noon till two in the morning.

House resumed; Committee report progress.