HC Deb 02 August 1866 vol 184 cc1905-10

(Mr. Bruce, Mr. Chichester Fortescue, Sir George Grey.)

[BILL 202.] CONSIDERATION.

Order for Consideration read.

Bill, as amended, considered.

MR. THOMAS CHAMBERS

moved a new Clause (Nuisance authority may require payment of costs or expenses from owner or occupier, and occupier paying, to deduct from rent.)

Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.

MR. AYRTON

moved a new Clause— If any person suffering from any dangerous infectious disorder shall enter any public conveyance without previously notifying to the owner or driver thereof that he is so suffering, he shall on, conviction thereof before any justice be liable to a penalty not exceeding five pounds, and shall also be ordered by such justice to pay to such owner and driver all the losses and expenses they may suffer in carrying into effect the provisions of this Act; and no owner or driver of any public conveyance shall be required to convey any person so suffering until they shall have been first paid a sum sufficient to cover all such losses and expenses.

Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.

Clause 16 (Power of Police with respect to Nuisances.)

MR. AYRTON

moved to add the following proviso:— Provided always that no officer of police shall be at liberty to enter any house or part of a house used as the dwelling of any person without such person's consent, or without the warrant of a justice of the peace, for the purpose of carrying into effect this Act.

MR. WALPOLE

said, that the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets had misunderstood the clause, the object of which was to put the nuisance authority in motion when it had neglected its duty.

MR. POWELL

considered it would be better to get rid of the clause altogether.

MR. HENLEY

thought they ought not to make these powers too stringent, or they might be resisted, and consequently not do half the good they would if put into a more reasonable shape. The police ought not to have powers to enter these tenements at all hours of the night.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, it would have the effect of making the police spies on their masters or neglect their duties, and would move to strike out the clause.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 16, as amended.—(Mr. Lusk.)

Question, "That Clause 16, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 19 (Addition to Definition of Nuisance.)

MR. AYRTON

moved an Amendment to strike out the words exempting private houses from penalties in the event of the chimney sending out black smoke.

Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 14, to leave out the words "not being the chimney of a private dwelling house."—(Mr. Ayrton.)

MR. WALPOLE

opposed the Amendment. They, had not arrived at a time when they could interfere with private houses, there being no provision in use for the better consumption of their coal.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

MR. AYRTON

thought that when they declared that a house was overcrowded they ought to fine the owner, and not to turn the inmates into the street. He would therefore move the addition of a Proviso to that effect.

Amendment proposed, At the end of Clause 19, to add the words "Provided, That it shall not be lawful to remove any person from any dwelling house on the ground that such dwelling house is overcrowded, but the owner of such dwelling house shall be proceeded against in the manner provided by the twenty-ninth section of the Act of the eighteenth and nineteenth Victoria, chapter one hundred and twenty-one."—(Mr. Ayrton.)

MR. POWELL

thought that power ought to be granted to effect the removal of some of the inmates in houses that were overcrowded, and unless such a power were granted the nuisance could never be abated, on account of the incredible obstinacy which was too often observed among the poorer members of society.

SIR GEORGE GREY

opposed the Amendment as tending to render the Act inoperative.

Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.

Clause 25 (Removal of Persons sick of infectious Disorders, and without proper Lodging, in any District.)

MR. AYRTON

moved the addition of a Proviso that no order of removal should be made without notice being given to the sick person, so as to give the opportunity of objection. As the clause stood, a patient might be carried off to a hospital without notice.

Amendment proposed, At the end of Clause 26, to add the words "Provided, That no order shall be made without sufficient notice of the application for the same being previously given to such sick person, to enable him, or any one on his behalf, to appear and oppose the same."—(Mr. Ayrton.)

MR. WALPOLE

said, the object of the clause was to remove a person suffering from an infectious or contagious disease from a house where there was insufficient accommodation, and the Amendment would defeat that object.

Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.

Clause 39 (Evidence of Family in case of over-crowded Houses.)

MR. AYRTON

said, it would be competent for a policeman to seize persons living together as a family, and unless they could give legal proof of relationship they would be liable to fine or imprisonment. This was a very strong step on behalf of morality, which the louse would not be willing to apply to the upper classes of society, where there was often as much necessity for it. He proposed the omission of the clause.

Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 39.

MR. THOMAS CHAMBERS

said, nothing could be easier than for the parties charged to show that they were one family, while it would be an impossibility for the police to prove the negative.

MR. J. STUART MILL

said, the only proof that would be required would be repute.

MR. WALPOLE

said, that if a proper statement were made explaining the relationship of the parties, they would not be interfered with.

Question, "That Clause 39 stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 47 (Clause H. Mode of Proceeding where Sewer Authority has made default in providing sufficient Sewers, &c.)

MR. AYRTON

said, that under this clause the Secretary of State would be entitled to appoint some person to perform any duties imposed by the Bill upon the nuisance authorities in the event of the latter neglecting to discharge them, and to recover from them the costs incurred by reason of their default. He thought such an arrangement very unjust towards the ratepayers, who would be compelled to pay for the improvement of the property of those who had neglected to comply with the provisions of the Bill. He would therefore propose a Proviso to be added to the clause.

Amendment proposed, At the end of Clause 47, to add the words "Provided always, That no nuisance authority shall be required to pay any costs or expenses incurred by any other person acting by order of the Secretary of State or officer of Police without the consent of such authority where by this Act, or any other Act, such costs and expenses are imposed, in the first instance, on the owner or occupier of property, or on any other person violating the provisions of this Act."—(Mr. Ayrton.)

MR. WALPOLE

said, that the clause proceeded upon the assumption that the nuisance authorities had neglected to perform their duties.

SIR GEORGE GREY

remarked that the fact of the Secretary of State recovering the costs of the improvements from the nuisance authorities would not prevent them from obtaining repayment from the owner of the property improved.

Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.

Another Amendment proposed, At the end of the Clause, to add the words "Provided, That all such costs and expenses shall be recoverable by the local authority from the owner or occupier of property, or from any other person violating the provisions of this Act."—(Mr. Thomas Chambers.)

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 50 (Clause L. Description of Vessels within Provisions of 6 G. 4. c. 78.)

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

moved the following addition:—

Every Vessel having on board any Person affected with a dangerous or infectious Disorder shall be deemed to be within the Provisions of the Act of the Sixth Year of King George the Fourth, Chapter Seventy-eight, although such Vessel has not commenced her Voyage, or has come from or is bound for some Place in the United Kingdom.

SIR ROBERT COLLIER

thought that the powers proposed to be given to the Privy Council were too large. As he understood the words, they would give the Privy Council power over all persons labouring under the cholera and infectious diseases on land, in sea ports, and on board ships.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, it was not intended to give powers of too wide a character to the Privy Council in the matter, and if the words should be capable of too wide a construction the Government would insure that they were revised.

MR. M'LAREN

asked whether it was the intention of the Government to make the clause apply to Scotland? The clause was defended on the ground of the existence of cholera, and if with regard to the great ports of England it was necessary that such a power should be given to the Privy Council, why not also with regard to Scotland? If this clause were required for England it was wanted also for Scotland.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, that the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) would receive consideration, and there would be an opportunity in the other House of Parliament of making the clause applicable to Scotland, if it should be found necessary to do so.

Amendment agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Bill read the third time and passed.