[BILL 126.] THIRD READING. (Hansard, 30 April 1875)

§ MR. W. HOLMS
, in moving that "the Bill be read the third time upon this day month," said, he was not actuated by any hostility to it, but by a belief that it required still further amendment. He feared that its machinery was so defective that it would prove as great a failure as the Act of 1868. The hon. Member made a detailed comparison between the Act of 1868 and the present Bill, and contended that the former offered greater inducements for the local authorities to carry on operations for improvement of artizans' dwellings than the latter; indeed, some features of the former Act offered the highest inducements to local authorities to make use of it. It had been in operation for seven 1942 years, and yet from a Return issued since this Bill passed through Committee, he found that during that period only 10,600 houses had been demolished or improved in England and Wales, and the greater part of them—upwards of 9,000—were in three towns. The Act of 1868 had been almost a total failure from two causes—first, from its permissive character, and secondly, from the fact that upon the medical officer rested the responsibility of putting the Act in motion. He would be glad to learn from the Home Secretary in what respect the Bill of 1875 differed from the Act of 1868, so far as related to any inducement being offered to the local authority to carry on operations under it. In some respects the present Bill was retrograde. It was one of those showy but feeble measures so defective in the means by which its objects were sought to be accomplished, that practically the mischief to be remedied would remain unaltered. He would conclude by moving his Amendment.

MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH
said, he regretted that his hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. W. Holms) had thought it necessary to make such a Motion, for he (Mr. Kay-Shuttleworth) had hoped that the House would have been unanimous in passing the Bill. But as his hon. Friend had a right to speak with experience and authority on the subject, and as he had referred to opinions expressed by him (Mr. Kay-Shuttleworth) and by the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir Sydney Waterlow) on the Motion for leave to introduce this Bill, the House would permit him to say a few words in reply. It was quite true that he had on that occasion remarked on the objections to a Bill the whole operation of which "hinged on the action of the medical officer." But those objections had been to a great extent removed by the alternative modes of action secured by Amendments in Committee. As regarded London, the Metropolitan Board of Works would now have their own officer, who could put the Bill in motion, if the local medical officer failed to do so. Moreover, any medical officer might be called on to act 1943 by two justices, or by 12 ratepayers; and the latter need not in London be residents in the district of the medical officer, but might be any 12 ratepayers in London. Again, if their representation failed of its object, they could appeal to the "confirming authority," who could institute an inquiry that might result in an improvement scheme. At that late hour—nearly 1 A.M.—he would not weary the House by detailing the great improvements in the Bill made in Committee, but would only refer his hon. Friend to Clauses 4, 12, 18, and 14, in the amended Bill. His hon. Friend founded his complaints on what he termed the "miserable and almost total failure" of the Act of 1868. But although, thanks to its mutilation in the House of Lords, it had not accomplished the expectations of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens)—that Act had been productive of considerable results in certain places, as he could show from the Return moved for by the hon. Member for Paisley, and from which he had quoted. In some districts of London, many of the worst houses and groups of houses had been improved, or taken down, under Torrens's Act, But the Return, whilst it showed the number of reports made by medical officers under that Act, did not always specify the number of houses affected, and thus. might mislead. Moreover, no Return of that kind could show more than a part of the results of such an Act. Local authorities could use and had used it as an engine for putting pressure on owners of property, to execute improvements or repairs; and in that way an Act might do a great deal without being actually put into operation. He must take advantage of the opportunity now afforded to thank the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cross) for the fair manner in which he had accepted numerous suggestions and alterations, proposed from that side of the House, both in Committee and on the Report. The Bill had been greatly improved. And though he was perhaps not quite so sanguine as the right hon. Gentleman as to the amount that it would accomplish, he hoped it would do good work in London and other places, and, at least, it was a step that might be followed by others in the same direction.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he had no fault to find with the Motion, or 1944 with the spirit in which it had been submitted; but he did not think that any real ground had been shown for postponing the third reading of the Bill, which he believed was justified by the circumstances of the case, and would answer the purposes which it was intended to serve. Some of the great corporations of the Kingdom were prepared to put the Bill into operation immediately it was passed into law, and he anticipated that it would prove beneficial. Should the reverse be the result, it would be easy to remedy its defects when those defects had been ascertained.

§ MR. STANSFELD
said, he concurred generally in the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, and would express a hope that the hon. Member for Paisley would not press his Motion to a division. He was not very sanguine that the Bill would prove of much good, but he should be glad if he was disappointed.