§ Order for Committee read.
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDmoved that the Chairman report Progress with the view to the framing of a clause to protect the interests of reversioners, which, as 1064 the Bill at present stood, had been altogether overlooked. The interest of the reversioner might be confiscated if the lessee neglected his duty.
§ MR. GOLDNEYsuggested to the hon. Baronet to withdraw his Amendment until the clause framed by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell) to meet his objection was considered.
§ SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, he would withdraw his Motion to report Progress.
§ MR. POWELLthen proposed a clause providing that—
Application may be made to justices where more than one owner of premises included in order under Act, and any one owner neglects to comply with such order.
§ SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDdenied that this clause would meet the difficulty. There might be half-a-dozen lessees, and finally the freeholder, and all those delicate interests required very careful consideration. He therefore hoped that the Chairman would be allowed to report Progress, in order that an opportunity should be afforded for the preparation of a new clause that would effectually protect the interests of reversioners.
§ MR. POWELLsaid, he thought that in the clause he had proposed he had saved the interest of the reversioner.
§ MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he was of opinion that the clause under consideration had been carefully drawn, and would meet the object of the hon. and learned Member for Reading (Sir Francis Goldsmid). Every class of interest in property was protected.
§ SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, the description given did not tally with the printed words of the clause.
MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENSsaid, there were no other powers in this Bill to take land than were contained in the Lands Clauses Consolidation Bill.
§ SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, the effect of the Bill, even though including the proposed clause, would be to cause a forfeiture of the interests of reversioners, without their having any opportunity to prevent it.
§ MR. AYRTONthought that some one should be responsible for the clause. The hon. and learned Member for Reading (Sir Francis Goldsmid), who was a good authority, told them the clause did not meet the wants of the case. It seemed to him it was necessary to have a well-considered clause.
§ MR. HARVEY LEWISthought that the discussion showed the necessity of not 1065 dealing with the rights of property in the off-hand manner proposed.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he thought it would be a very great pity if the Committee were to lose this chance of getting through with the clauses of the Bill. There would be ample opportunity at its next stage to discuss the important subject which had been raised by the hon. Baronet.
§ SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, they would not have an opportunity of discussing the matter fully when the Bill was reported, because at that stage hon. Members had only the privilege of addressing the House once. However, he would not further press the point.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDmoved the following new clause, which he said was designed to obviate one of the many disadvantages which he believed would attend the working of the Bill if passed in its present form:—
This Act shall not apply to any premises as to which the owner of the freehold has instituted proceedings under the covenants contained in the lease under which the premises are held, in order to compel due performance of such covenants, as to repair or for forfeiture of such lease by reason of breach of any such covenants, provided such proceedings are bonâ fide and duly prosecuted, and provided that such owner shall succeed in obtaining judgment therein, and provided also that within three calendar months after such judgment obtained, such owner shall properly repair such premises so as to render them fit for healthy occupation, or pull down and demolish the same, at his option.
§ MR. AYRTONsuggested that this clause should not be pressed; but that the matter should be allowed to remain in the hands of the Government.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSthought it would be only right for the Government to undertake some responsibility in connection with the Bill, and by the next stage attention would be paid to this matter.
§ SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, on this understanding he would, for the present, withdraw the clause.
§ MR. POWELLproposed a clause providing that, in case of leaseholds, the owner of the reversion have power to determine the lease, compensation being paid to the lessee.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDmoved another clause— 1066
This Act shall not apply to any case in which the defective state or condition of the premises is attributable to or occasioned by the act, neglect, or default of the local authority, to put in force the powers for remedy of such defects already vested in such local authority.
§ MR. GOLDNEYobjected to the clause.
§ SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDmentioned the case of mischief being done by the authorities raising a road.
§ MR. POWELLsaid the clause was inapplicable.
§ Clause negatived.
§ SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDnext moved the following new clause:—
In any case where any lessee shall refuse or neglect to execute the works required by the order of the local authority made under this Act, and the owner of the freehold shall elect to execute the same, such refusal or neglect of the lessee shall operate as a forfeiture of his interest in such premises, and if within one calendar month after such refusal or neglect the owner of the freehold shall commence such works, and he shall execute the same without delay, he shall be entitled to hold the said premises free from the interest of such lessee but subject to the payment by the freeholder to the lessee of the value of the interest of such lessee, according to the mode of valuation provided in the nineteenth Clause of this Act.
§ MR. POWELLsaid, he did not see any objection to the clause.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ First Schedule.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, he observed that the corporation of London had made its influence felt in reference to the Bill, for by a note appended to the Schedule it was declared that the metropolis should not include the City of London; so that the result would be that the most wealthy portion of the metropolis would escape contributing towards the improvement of the dwellings of the poorest classes within the metropolis. Such an arrangement was most inequitable. He should move the omission in the Schedule of all words relating to the City of London, so as to make the metropolis at large, as defined by the Metropolis Local Management Act, liable to the charges for carrying this Act into operation.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out from the words "The City of London," in line 7, to "c. 91," in line 12, inclusive."—(Mr. Ayrton.)
§ MR. GOSCHENopposed the Motion. There was a great deal of work to be done in the City of London of the nature contemplated by the Bill, and the City did not 1067 wish to escape from its fair share of public burden, but it desired to pay for that which was to be done within its own area.
§ MR. HARVEY LEWISthought that the City had no claim for the exemption which was claimed. The metropolis should be regarded as one area for the purpose of carrying out all sanitary arrangements.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
§ The Committee divided: — Ayes 26; Noes 19: Majority 7.
§ House resumed.
§ Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 83.]