§ Order for Committee read.
§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. SPEAKER do leave the Chair,"
§ SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, that he had made various alterations in the Bill, in accordance with what he understood to be the wish of the House on the second reading. He had given the controlling power to the Land Drainage Commissioners, and he had decreased the amount to be charged upon the estate in respect to each cottage to £120, which it appeared to him would be sufficient.
§ House in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ On the proposal that the Preamble be postponed,
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he was unwilling to oppose the progress of the Bill, but he wished to call attention to the fact that there were already several private companies which were entitled by Act of Parliament to make advances for the purpose provided for by the Bill. There was also in existence an Act, 12 & 13 Vict., c. 100, which was well considered, and which enabled private individuals to make advances for the drainage of land under the sanction of the Enclosure Commissioners. He thought if that Act had been extended to labourers' cottages it would have effected all that was required.
§ Preamble postponed.
§ Clauses 1 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
§ Clause 8 (Notice of intended application to be given),
MR. HENLEYsaid, there were other 1618 persons besides encumbrancers who might be interested in estates, and he should move the insertion of words requiring that special notice should be given to every person interested in an entail or settlement.
§ SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, he had no objection to the notice being given, but hardly saw how it was to be accomplished when the parties might be in America, Australia, or other distant parts of the world.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he did not think it fair that a landlord who had been unwilling to spend his money on the improvement of cottages on his estate should have the power after his death of charging his successors. It reminded him of the course pursued by persons who used to be called "generous churchwardens."
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the provisions of the public Act with regard to advances were incorporated in the private measure. Persons having a charge upon an estate in the end were thereby empowered to signify their dissent within two months, and in case they did so the certificate of the Commissioners was not to issue.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he did not want to carry his objection to the extent of stopping improvements. He was only anxious that some proper notice should be given.
§ MR. G. HARDYsaid, he thought the object in view would be best accomplished by the insertion of these words—"And notices shall be given to mortgagees and all parties interested, in such form and mode as the Commissioners shall require."
§ Words added.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 9 (Application to Inclosure Commissioners by Landowner intending to build, &c., Cottage),
MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought a question might arise, how far the powers given to remove existing buildings were to be construed so as to protect the owner of the reversion against the consequences of waste. The power in the clause seemed to be unlimited; but it would be a very great sweep of legal alteration if a proprietor were allowed to pull down all the buildings on his estate, to drive out the population, and to lay down all the land in grass. He thought that the words "add to, on-large, or otherwise improve," ought to be struck out of the clause.
§ MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, he felt some difficulty with regard to the 1619 words "enlarge or otherwise improve." If the operation of the clause were not confined to building or rebuilding, it might be Extended in practice so as to include ornamental works, with the expense of which it could never have been intended that the remainder man should be saddled.
§ SIR LAWRENCE PALKexplained that the intention was to give the power of surrounding dwellings with the comforts and decencies of life, such as drainage, &c., without which building operations would be comparatively of little value. He would not object to the omission of the words "enlarging or otherwise improving," but he trusted they would allow him to retain the words, "add to."
§ MR. SLANEYsaid, it was often desirable to add a sleeping room to a cottage which did not need alteration in any other respect.
SIR GEORGE LEWISremarked that additions such as those contemplated might be conducive to the health and morality of the inmates, but he did not think the charges which they would entail ought fairly to be placed upon the inheritance.
MR. HEYGATEsaid, he hoped the words would be retained. The great object of the Bill was to enable landlords to improve the present class of cottages.
MR. EVANSsaid, the question was not confined to a single cottage. It often happened that several were built at the same time, and were deficient in the same points. The enlargement or improvement of all Blight be a serious matter, where in the individual instance the cost would be trifling.
§ MR. WALTERsaid, he altogether objected to the retention of the words alluded to. The object of the Bill was to facilitate further improvements in the building of cottages, both for the sake of the labourer and the landowner; but it ought not to be allowed to shift from the tenant in possession to the tenant in tail the duty of making small improvements. His experience of cottage-building—a subject in which he took much interest—led him to believe that the retention of those words would do great mischief, as they would tempt landlords to make additions to bad cottages, which ought rather to be pulled down and rebuilt. As he was not in favour of giving facilities for tinkering up bad cottages, he would suggest that the words "add to" be struck out of the clause. The same objection applied to the power' to "enlarge and improve" cottages, 1620 the words being of such an extensive character, as to include making drains, putting down a wooden floor, or almost any improvement which could be conceived.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he could not agree with his hon. Friend who had last spoken that the enlargement of a cottage might not be a permanent improvement. In the north of England the stone cottages, which were very substantially built, frequently had a storey added to them. He thought it would be better to retain the words.
§ SIR CHARLES BURRELLreferred to the improvement which was capable of being effected by putting down plugs, so as to make one well answer for four or five cottages.
MR. HENLEYsaid, the maximum amount to be spent on any cottage was fixed at £120, and it consequently became necessary to specify the minimum amount. But the cost of some of those enlargements and additions would be absurdly small, and, therefore, it would be better to exclude them from the Bill.
CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, he also objected to the words, which might tempt landlords to incur foolish expenses. His experience of cottages was that the walls were usually proportioned to their height, and would not be capable of bearing up an additional storey.
§ In reply to the CHAIRMAN,
§ MR. WALTERsaid, it was not his intention to press the Amendment which he had proposed.
§ The words "add to" were accordingly retained. The words "enlarge or improve" were struck out.
MR. HENLEYcontended that the "particulars" of the intended improvements required to be furnished to the Commissioners were not sufficiently explicit, and suggested that the words "plans and specifications" should be added.
§ SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, he had no objection to the proposed alteration, but he by no means anticipated that the Commissioners would be satisfied with any plans and specifications which might be forwarded to them.
§ Words were accordingly added.
§ MR. G. HARDYproposed, in lines 26 and 27, to insert these words—"and the Commissioners may require the removal of existing buildings and dwellings, if they consider such removal necessary for purposes of the proposed improvements."
SIR GEORGE LEWIShad considerable doubt whether it would not be better to leave out the words with respect to the removal of cottages. It was possible that cottages might be cleared away and no new ones built.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought that it would be well to strike out the words at the end of the clause, which would give owners a power of applying for liberty to demolish cottages, without making them undertake to build others in their place. He did not think the Committee wanted to give a power to demolish cottages. What they wanted was to have them enlarged and improved. He did not believe there was any occasion to give power to pull down cottages, for they came down fast enough. The words "unfit for human habitation," which were proposed to be used in the clause, were very wide, and he was afraid that it would not be difficult to find a great number of houses which might come within such a description. It would be a wrong step in the way of improvement to pull down cottages and allow the occupants to find lodgings in the hedge-sides.
§ SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, that his object was to enable the Commissioners to sanction the removal of cottages which were unfit for human habitation, in order that better habitations might be erected in their stead. As amended in the manner which he proposed to amend it, the latter part of the clause would stand thus—
And the Commissioners may require from time to time existing dwellings to be removed if they shall consider such dwellings to be unfit for human habitation, or from any other cause likely to be injurious to life, and shall not sanction the erection of any greater number of dwellings than they shall consider sufficient for the accommodation of the labourers required for the proper cultivation of the estate.
§ SIR JERVOISEJERVOISE thought the words would delegate a very odious task to the Commissioners.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that persons might get a professional order to pull down cottages without building hew ones. The power of removal should not be given at all unless on the condition that the whole of the improvements were carried out.
§ MR. G. HARDYsaid, he considered the objection of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey) to be a serious one, and he would suggest that it would be better for his hon. Friend who had change of the Bill to strike out the last part of the clause, and bring up a well-considered clause to Effect the object which he proposed.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 10 to 14 agreed to.
§ Clause 15 (Inclosure Commissioners to grant Charging Order to Landowner who has obtained Provisional Order),
MR. HENLEYsaid, he objected to its retrospective or rather retroactive provisions. It provided that where a landlord, not having obtained a provisional order sanctioning a proposed cottage improvement, but having built or rebuilt, added to, enlarged, or otherwise improved any cottage on the land of which he was landowner, desired that the inheritance of the lands proposed to be charged should be charged with the expense of making the improvement, he might, within two years after the completion of the cottage improvement, apply to the Commissioners for a charging order under this Act in respect thereof. Rather than that such a power should be given he would move that the clause be omitted.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he did not think it was desirable that there should be any retrospective legislation contained in the Bill. One security seemed to him most essential if they passed the measure, and that was that the Commissioners should have the power to see the work was properly executed during its progress. The clause did not provide that security, and he should, therefore, support the Amendment.
§ SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, he believed that the omission of the clause would go far to render the Bill inoperative. Gentlemen had a great objection to attend at public offices for the purpose of complying with preliminaries in cases where the object to be achieved was a small one. The inheritance would be sufficiently protected by the power of inspection.
§ MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, he was of opinion that, if the clause passed, several other provisions of the Bill would be useless, for no one would take the trouble of going through the preliminaries which those other clauses provided.
§ Clause struck out; as were also Clauses 16, 17, 18, and 19.
§ Clause 20 (Limit of Amount to be Charged),
LORD HENLEYsaid, that there was a limitation as to the outside sum to be laid out on any one cottage. There might also be a limitation as to the smallest amount to be so expended. He would move that the sum should be "not exceeding £120, or less than £80."
§ SIR LAWRENCE PALKobjected to the Amendment, and thought they might safely leave these matters of detail to the Commissioners.
§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he thought the maximum of £120 would in many cases be inadequate, and suggested that it should be £150.
§ MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, he thought £120 had better be retained just as it stood in the Bill.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that such an Amendment as that proposed by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Griffith) would render the Bill inoperative, because an agricultural labourer would not be able to pay a rent equivalent to the interest on so large an outlay.
§ MR. JACKSONsaid, that a good cottage could be constructed for £100.
§ SIR JOHN TRELAWNYbelieved that a roomy and even handsome cottage might be erected for £95.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the Commissioners were to judge to what extent the inheritance of the lands to be charged would be durably benefited by the erection of cottages. He asked how the Commissioners would be able to judge of the pecuniary benefit conferred upon an estate by the erection of such cottages? He questioned whether any direct pecuniary benefit would accrue from their erection.
§ SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, he wished to explain with reference to the introduction of the words as to an estate being pecuniarily benefited, that they had been introduced on the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley). If the erection of cottages did not directly benefit an estate it did so indirectly, by improving the condition of the people, morally and physically. It was well known that the cottages built by the late Duke of Bedford at Tavistock had such a result. That was the first experiment made in the country on the subject, and since then the question of labourers' cottages had gradually forced itself on the attention of the community.
§ MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, the point had been already settled in Clause 10, where an applicant for building was to state to the Commissioners what the estimated increase of the value of the lands was to be. If it was not stated that the lands would be improved, the Commissioners would not grant the application, 1624 and, therefore, there was no necessity for the words proposed in Clause 20.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought the restriction quite necessary, or otherwise there might be a great charge put upon an estate without any benefit whatever. Clause 10 only laid down what information the applicant was to give to the Commissioners, but that did not render the restriction in Clause 20 unnecessary.
§ LORD LOVAINEdid not see by what standard the pecuniary benefit could be judged.
§ SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, he would move the omission of the latter part of the clause after the words £120.
§ SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEthought it very necessary to make it incumbent that benefit arising from the building of the cottages should be shown.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the clause involved the chief difficulty in the Bill. The principle of the Drainage Act and other Acts of a similar nature was that the pecuniary benefit should be derived by the estate; and that meant benefit to the reversioner as well as the tenant for life. Every one knew that the building of labourers' cottages did not improve the rent of an estate, although it might be indirectly beneficial to an estate, by supplying more labour or improving its quality; but it was necessary to have some tangible standard which a court of equity would recognize; and it was impossible to resort to any better one than the standard of increase to the rental. He, therefore, thought that the words at the end of the clause should remain.
MR. HENLEYsaid, the Bill for the first time enabled a tenant in fee simple to make a charge on the land which would have priority over other encumbrances. If the power were given without the guard of pecuniary benefit, the Bill would be inoperative.
§ SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, if it were the wish of the Committee he would retain the words at the end of the clause, though he thought they would be detrimental to the usefulness of the Bill.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ House resumed; Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.