§ Order for Committee read.
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clauses 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Clause 6 (Officer of Health to report as to Condition of Streets).
§ MR. HARVEY LEWISobjected to its terms as giving too much power to medical officers of health.
§ MR. SERJEANT GASELEEagreed with the hon. Member for Marylebone (Mr. Harvey Lewis), and said that in legislating on this subject they must take care not to introduce continental despotism.
§ MR. LEEMANsaid, this was one of the most useful clauses of the Bill.
MR. HENLEYcomplained that as the clause was now drawn the report of the officer of health could be carried out without giving the owner of the premises notice, and his only remedy would be by an appeal. The clause ought to be amended so as to give him notice in the first instance, and allow him to be heard upon the complaint made of the state of his property.
§ MR. GOLDNEYsaid, this clause merely provided how the Act was to be put in 673 motion. The subsequent clauses provided for carrying into effect the medical officer's report. The objection might more properly be taken upon the 8th clause.
§ MR. THOMAS CHAMBERSobjected to the clause and to the whole scope and substance of the Bill, on the ground that it would lead to an enormous extent of taxation. Knowing that in Marylebone the limit of endurance had been reached with reference to local taxation he hoped the House would reject the clause. The medical officer was not only to inspect streets and premises, but to report if their condition, state, and situation were injurious or prejudicial to health. There was not a town in the kingdom where exception might not be taken to the situation of houses; and were they on the mere report of the officer of health to have them swept away? This Bill was not required; for more had been done during the last ten years to improve the dwellings of the labouring classes than had been done in the previous 100 years.
MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENSthought it was not within the province of the Committee to renew the discussion on the policy of the measure. The Bill had been twice read a second time, and would have gone through Committee but for want of time. He defended the provision contained in this clause as beneficial and necessary.
§ MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, there was hardly a street that might not be swept away under the clause. A medical officer might have reported at one time against that House on the ground that its situation in proximity to the Thames was prejudicial to health, and have had it swept away.
§ MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he would remind the Committee that the clause was identical with that in the Building Act; so that it was not new. All the clause imposed was that the medical officer should report; and as the principle had been previously affirmed by the House, it was their duty to endeavour to bring the Bill into such a shape as that it should be just to the ratepayers and beneficial to the inhabitants of these miserable and wretched dwellings. This clause, after all, merely provided for a report which need not be carried out. The question of increasing the rates was a material one, and deserved consideration.
§ SIR J. CLARKE JERVOISEsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Marylebone (Mr. Harvey Lewis) would divide the Committee 674 on the clause. They ought to use very great caution before adopting it. He thought it would be very difficult to find an officer of health whose discretion would warrant their intrusting to him the carrying of this clause into operation.
§ MR. GREENEthought the objection of the hon. Member for Marylebone (Mr. Harvey Lewis) should have been taken at an earlier stage of the inquiry. He had no respect for any man who dared to get up in the House and say the dwellings of the poor were not a disgrace to the country. It was all very well to talk about sweeping away districts—that was all clap-trap. He was in favour of the Bill in the main, and he feared that, if it were now thrown over, legislation upon this important question would be for a long time delayed. He was surprised at the opposition of the hon. Member for Marylebone (Mr. Harvey Lewis) to the measure; and he thought that hon. Gentlemen who went to the hustings with professions of anxiety for the welfare of the working man on their lips ought to carry out those professions practically in the House.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, he trusted the opposition to the clause would be withdrawn. All it did was to carry out to a further extent than had hitherto been done the policy of the Act of 1855. It simply provided that if a house was in a certain bad and unhealthy condition it should be brought under the notice of the local authorities. That, he considered, was a very necessary provision in order to rescue the poor from the consequences of the past neglect of the Legislature. As to the expense he trusted the House would put the expense incurred for the metropolis on the metropolis.
§ SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsuggested a modification in the terms of the clause. He was friendly to the measure; but he thought that the scope of the duties assigned to the officer of health was too wide, and he wished to restrict the duties of the surveyor by leaving out the word "prejudicial." "injurious" or "dangerous" was quite sufficient.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, other parties besides the inhabitants of Marylebone had petitioned against the Bill, and the clause under discussion would be so exceedingly expensive in the carrying of it out that practically it would be inoperative. He thought a clause ought to be introduced into the Bill to provide that a certain, number of cubic feet of air should be provided 675 for each person by the construction of the dwelling.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 7 agreed to.
§ Clause 8 (Officer of Health to deliver Copies of Report to Clerk of Local Authority and Clerk of Peace).
§ MR. CANDLISHmoved an Amendment to the effect that the contents of the report of the local officer of health affecting the premises of any person should be communicated to that person, in order that he might have an opportunity of removing the nuisances complained of, without the necessity of his being summoned in the first instance before the quarter sessions or the magistrates.
§ MR. GATHORNE HARDYthought that until the Committee had determined by whom the orders were to be made, they were not in a position to go on with the Bill.
§ MR. LEEMANproposed an Amendment which he thought would meet the view of the hon. Gentleman—namely, that a copy of the inspector's report be delivered to the person whose premises were reported to be unhealthy.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
§ Clause 11 (Local Authority to prepare Plan and Specification of required Works).
§ MR. CANDLISHsuggested that an alteration should be made, for the purpose of giving a discretion to the local authorities. As the clause stood the local authorities would have to carry out the suggestions of the local inspector.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
§ Clause 14 (Owner to execute specified Works, or sell Premises to the Local Authority).
§ MR. CANDLISHmoved an Amendment that would substitute "fourteen days" for "three calendar months," with the view of preventing owners postponing the execution of works for too long a period.
§ MR. GRAVESsaid, the clause as it stood was an exact copy of one which had for some years been working in the most satisfactory manner in Liverpool.
§ MR. CANDLISHsaid, that as this was the case he would withdraw his Amendment.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 15 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Clause 24 (Local Authority to pay Compensation when total Demolition required).
§ MR. POWELLmoved to omit the words "subject to the provisions of this Act with reference to the use thereof," his object being to leave the owners of property interfered with under the Act in the same condition as other owners of property.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause amended, and agreed to.
§ Clauses 25 and 26 agreed to.
§ Clause 27 (House to be improved may be taken down).
§ MR. POWELLobjected to the effect it must have upon the disposal of the ground from which premises should be removed. It would, he contended, if adopted, impose a restraint upon the use of the land even for purposes that might be desirable for the public good or for the private advantage of the owner. By various local Acts, in force in almost all the large towns, there was ample power given to the local authorities to regulate the erection of buildings, he proposed to omit certain words, to get rid of the objectionable effect of the clause.
§ MR. GOLDNEYobserved that the clause was simply conditional, and could not be acted upon without the previous assent of the local authorities.
§ MR. GRAVESremarked that the point under discussion was one with reference to which previous legislation had failed. It happened that, after the ground was cleared, there were instances of warehouses and sheds being erected on the site, thus preventing the free circulation of the air, and causing an evil as great as the one intended to be redressed by the clearing of the ground. In fact, a very high price was paid for improvements by the local authorities, and when the money was paid, the site was turned to private and individual purposes, This was a point that required very careful consideration, and he suggested its postponement to enable them to go carefully through it.
MR. HENLEYcould not see on what principle severe restrictions should be placed upon a man who, having pulled down his old property, was about to rebuild it.
§ MR. LOCKEdid not think there could be any objection to the local authorities exercising powers to prevent any deviation from the rule they may lay down as to the erection of buildings.
§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSONthought that all the requirements of the case could be met without the operation of this clause, and if his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell) persevered with his Amendment to strike it out, he should go into the Lobby with him.
MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENSthought that the operation of this clause would be very useful, especially in many districts of London, where the powers of the local authorities were far from sufficient to cope with cases which this clause was framed especially to meet.
MR. HENLEYthought the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, and which had been accepted by the author of the Bill, would answer every purpose; and therefore he hoped the hon. Member for Cambridge would withdraw his Amendment.
§ MR. POWELLsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
§ Clause amended, and agreed to.
§ Clause 28 (Appropriation of Property acquired by Local Authority).
§ MR. POWELLmoved an Amendment enabling building companies, as well as the local authorities, to erect dwellings for the labouring classes.
§ MR. HIBBERTproposed the omission of the words after the word "first" in line 5, down to the word "authority" in line 8, for the purpose of inserting the following words:—
Dispose of by way of absolute sale or exchange — or for a lease for a period of not less than ninety-nine years—any part of the premises acquired by them under this Act, so as to provide thereby for the construction of new buildings or the repair or improvement of existing buildings thereon suitable for the occupation of the labouring classes.
COLONEL SYKESthought that if power was given to the local authorities to turn working people out of their dwellings on the ground that they were unhealthy, the local authorities ought to be compelled to provide better dwellings for them.
§ MR. LOCKEsaid, if the object of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) was not to prevent the local authorities from being obliged to erect new dwellings for the poor, there was no necessity for the Amendment. He apprehended that the hon. Member's object was to relieve the local authorities of that responsibility, and therefore he should oppose the Amendment.
§ MR. HIBBERTdenied that that was his object.
§ MR. AYRTONthought there was no necessity for the Amendment. The local authorities within seven years would be obliged to divest themselves of all property which they had acquired under this measure.
§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 29 to 34, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Clause 35 (Expenses of Local Authority).
§ MR. CHAMBERSmoved an Amendment to restrict the maximum rate to 1d., instead of 3d., in the pound.
§ MR. GRAVESpointed out that the power to go up to the maximum was permissive, and not compulsory.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 36 to 38, inclusive, agreed to.
§ House resumed.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday, 21st of April.