CONSIDERATION. ADJOURNED DEBATE. (Hansard, 6 May 1868)

§ MR. AYRTON
said his hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Sir Francis Goldsmid) who was now absent from the House, had no desire to press the clause.

MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENS
said, he had some new clauses on the Paper, 1876 intended to give greater security to owners of property. The effect of them was that all intermediary, as well as the primary owners of property should receive notice of any operations intended under this Bill. He reminded the House that on the last day the Bill was discussed the Attorney General suggested that it required some additional provisions in the direction suggested by the hon. Member for Reading. He (Mr. Torrens) had received a communication from the Attorney General, and he was authorized by him to state to the House that the Amendments which stood in his (Mr. Torrens's) name on the Notice Paper were prepared under the direction of the Attorney General by the Government draftsman, and submitted to him for final approval; and the Attorney General had requested him to move them on the Report. He hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Reading would agree with him in thinking that the changes which he now proposed to introduce, by the authority of the Attorney General, were sufficient substantially to accomplish his object. Taking into consideration the period of the Session, and the mass of business before the House, he hoped he would be allowed to take the Report without any material changes except those to which he had alluded.

MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENS
moved, in Clause 3, line 12, to leave out from the word "lessee" to "premises," and insert— The expression 'owner,' in addition to the definition given by the Land Clauses Act, hereafter incorporated with this Act, in reference to any premises, shall include all the owners, if more than one, of any premises or estate, or interest in any premises required to be dealt with under this Act.

§ Mr. GOLDNEY
moved to insert at the end of Clause 4— And for the purposes of this Act the term 'the promoters of the said undertaking' used in those Acts shall mean the local authority as defined by the Act.

§ MR. AYRTON
moved to leave out from "The city of London and the Liberties thereof" to the end of line 10. The matter had been discussed on a previous occasion, and as the attendance in the House was now so small he should not press his Motion, though he wished to 1877 have it put from the Chair, in order that his dissent from the proposed mode of legislation might be distinctly recorded.

§ MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCE
said, that originally the City of London was a walled city, and consequently contained a greater number of lanes and alleys than any other part of the metropolis, and there could be no injustice in allowing the City to put the Bill in force themselves.

§ MR. CRAWFORD
said, it was a mistake for the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets to say that the City of London would save anything by not being subject to the rate which would be levied by the Board of Works.

§ MR. HARVEY LEWIS
thought it was hardly just that the whole of the metropolis should be taxed throughout, with the exception of the City of London, for improvements effected under the Bill.

MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENS
said, the Amendment had not originated with him, but with the Select Committee. In no part of the metropolis did he get so much support for his Bill as in the City of London.

§ MR. LOCKE
said, it was the City of London that really created the working classes of the metropolis, as it was the great employer of labour. The City supplied poor to the whole metropolis, and it should not therefore seek to be exempted from the general rate.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he would confine his Amendment to the question of authority, leaving untouched the question of taxation.

§ MR. LOCKE
said, it was simply a question whether the Board of Works or the Corporation should carry out the Act. It was not a question of taxation; but a fanciful one, of pride, on the part of the City, which did not like to be interfered with.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
said, that the effect of the Amendment evidently was to increase the taxation of the City of London.

§ MR. CANDLISH
took the same view as the right hon. Gentleman.

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, it seemed to him that the Amendment would have this effect — that improvements undertaken beyond the limits of the City of London 1878 would, after the alteration proposed, affect the taxation on the City of London. In that case it would effect an alteration of taxation which should have originated in a Committee of the Whole House, and could not be proposed on consideration of the Report.

§ MR. AYRTON
disclaimed any intention of interfering with the taxation of the metropolis. His object was to declare that the Metropolitan Board of Works should have the authority for carrying out the Bill throughout the whole Metropolis. It was his intention to move that the Bill be re-committed.