§ Order for Committee read,
§ House in Committee.
1861§ Clause 69 to 75 agreed to, with verbal amendments.
§ In Clause 76 an Amendment was introduced on the Motion of Sir Benjamin Hall, requiring the owners of property or the builders, in laying out new streets, to bear the expense of paving them in the first instance, instead of leaving the charge to be borne by the parish. When the streets were once paved, the keeping in repair would be transferred to the hands of the local authorities, and the expense defrayed from the rates in the ordinary way.
MR. LLOYD DAVIESsuggested that it would be unjust when an owner expended a large sum in paving a new street, and when, consequently, no charge for repairs would be incurred probably for eight or ten years, to make him liable by charging the whole of the houses in the street with the repair of the paving in the other parts of the parish.
§ SIR WILLIAM CLAYmade a remark to the same effect.
§ MR. CHARLES BUTLERsaid, that in some parishes arrangements existed whereby exemptions were allowed from the paving rates in such cases as had been referred to.
§ SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he would introduce words to define the meaning of the word "paving" in this clause which would meet the objection.
§ Clause as amended agreed to.
§ Clauses 77 and 78 agreed to.
§ On Clause 79, which gives power to vestries to regulate the taking up pavements for laying down water pipes or gas pipes.
§ MR. HENLEYexpressed an opinion that the gas companies were subjected by the clause to restrictions which he did not consider just.
§ SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that the gas companies obtained Parliamentary powers to light whole parishes, but they were in the habit of picking out certain portions of a parish the lighting of which would pay them well, and of refusing to light other portions of the parish which would not yield them any profit. For instance, take the thoroughfare of Piccadilly, they would lay down pipes to light that street and the shops that were in Piccadilly, but they would not light the streets running out of Piccadilly. This clause would enable the local authorities to say to the gas companies, "You shall not pick out any particular part of the district to light; but you shall be required to extend your pipes to all the streets in the district."
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, a case had occurred in the parish of Marylebone similar to the one supposed by the right hon. Baronet. There was a gas company, and parties wishing to compete with it established another gas company, but that company wished to select particular streets for lighting. The vestry opposed them and said, "If you will carry your pipes through the adjacent streets, we will allow you to break up the pavement, otherwise not," The company refused, and the consequence was that they were deprived of the power of supplying gas to the streets they had selected.
§ Clause agreed to. Clause 80 struck out.
§ Clauses from 81 to 86 were agreed to.
§ Clauses 87 and 88 struck out.
§ Clauses 89 to 96 agreed to.
§ On Clause 97, which imposes a penalty on persons interfering with the scavengers in the execution of their duty,
§ MR. CHARLES BUTLERthought that penalties ought also to be imposed on the scavengers themselves for neglecting their duty, as was very often the case.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, that the scavengers were only the servants of the vestry, who were bound to see that they did their duty, and the defect in the law was that the public had no remedy against the vestries. There was no remedy against vestries or local boards for neglect of duty in removing nuisances—a duty which they undertook voluntarily to perform.
§ SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that he was always in favour of giving local authorities great powers, and thought that where persons voluntarily undertook duties they should be compelled to perform them. In the Nuisances Removal Bill he had introduced a very stringent clause, which had been unanimously carried in the Select Committee, which compelled local authorities, under a penalty of 5l., to perform their duties; and, in addition to this clause, he would most willingly, if it was thought necessary, introduce a clause imposing a further penalty on the local authorities if they did not perform their duties.
§ Clause agreed to, as were also Clauses to 102 inclusive.
§ Clause 103 struck out.
§ Clauses 104 to 111 agreed to.
§ On clause 112, which relates to the powers of the Metropolitan Board of Works,
MR. B. BARINGobjected to the clause, because the powers given under it were too large, as they empowered the commissioners 1863 to make and widen streets, to throw down any number of houses, and to purchase property to any amount, and, if they deemed further powers necessary, they might appeal to Parliament for them at the expense of the ratepayers.
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he thought that a Board that exercised such great powers, ought to be under the control of some executive officer of high authority.
§ MR. HENLEYconcurred in that opinion. Under the operation of the clause as it stood the Commissioners might without check lay out money to any amount, and might, therefore, mortgage the local rates to any extent. He did not think it advisable when the Central Board wished to expend some 300l. or 400l., that they should be compelled to go before the Board of Works; but would rather suggest that when the cost of the works did not exceed 5,000l., or even a larger sum, the Metropolitan Board should be allowed to proceed on their own responsibility.
§ SIR BENJAMIN HALLintimated that in order to obviate that objection he was ready to introduce words into the clause, by which it should be provided that before the Metropolitan Commissioners should proceed with the construction of any work, the expense of which was estimated at over 20,000l., they should submit the plan of the intended work, as well as its probable cost, to the consideration of Her Majesty's Commissioners of Works and Public Buildings, whose approval of it should be obtained before it could be proceeded with. His object in suggesting this was, that the opinions of the best engineering talent might be obtained by the Chief Commissioner, before improvements of great importance were undertaken. In those cases in which the cost of the contemplated works was estimated at over 50,000l. he should propose that the sanction of Parliament should be obtained for their construction. If, however, the cost were under the sum of 20,000l. the Metropolitan Commissioners might proceed with them upon their own responsibility.
§ MR. CHARLES BUTLERobjected to placing the control in the hands of the Board of Works.
§ VISCOUNT EBRINGTONproposed that the sanction of the Metropolitan Board of Works should only be required where the amount to be expended exceeded 50,000l.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMS moved as an Amendment that the Central Board should be allowed on their own responsibility to 1864 undertake works the cost of which did not exceed 50,000l.; that when they exceeded that amount they should be obliged to receive the sanction of the Commissioners of Works; and that when the sum exceeded 100,000l. the sanction of Parliament should also be required.
§ Clause as amended agreed to.
§ Clauses 113 to 123 agreed to.
§ On Clause 124, relating to the collection of the rates under this Bill,
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that by this clause all the rates that were charged on the occupant of a house were thrown into one mass, and made payable altogether. This would operate most oppressively on many tenants. A man might be able to pay 20l. if divided into four or five sums; whereas if demanded in one single payment he might be wholly unable to pay it; and the consequences might be very serious to him. He objected to mixing up the poor rates with the rates to be paid under this Bill.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that there was a further objection to this clause. By the law a man must pay his poor rates before a certain date, in order to be placed on the register. Now, if those rates were to be mixed up with other rates the elector in many instances might be unable to pay the whole sum, and thus he would be disfranchised.
§ MR. CHARLES BUTLERwas of opinion that the poor rates should not be levied with the other rates.
§ SIR BENJAMIN HALLdid not think that the clause would interfere with the elective franchise. The parochial authorities had the power of levying the rates at any time in the year they pleased, and they might levy them, therefore, after that period of the year at which it was required that all rates due should be paid to entitle the voter to have his name placed upon the register. With regard to the collection of the rates in one sum, though in some cases it might occasion inconvenience, he saw no means of avoiding it, unless they incurred an additional expense in collecting the rates separately.
§ MR. HENLEYconsidered that the collection of all these local rates with the poor rates in one lumped sum would inflict great hardship upon the poorer class of ratepayers.
§ After some discussion,
§ SIR BENJAMIN HALLconsented to introduce an amendment providing that, while adhering to the principle of consolidating 1865 the rates, in levying the amount the collection might be divided.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ The House resumed; Committee report progress.