§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he wished at the outset to express his regret that any observations he used on the previous evening had been understood by hon. Members to reflect on the hon. and learned Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley) and give him pain. Nothing was further from his intentions than to use observations which could have been interpreted or understood in any such sense.
§ Ms. CAWLEYsaid, though he admitted that the observations of his right hon. Friend did for a moment give him pain, and were noticed by other hon. Members, he most cordially accepted the explanation which he had given. He was sure, from his personal knowledge of his right hon. Friend, that he could not have had any intention to cause pain or annoyance to any hon. Member.
§ Clause 3 (Local authority on being satisfied by official representation of the unhealthiness of district to make scheme for its improvement.)
§
On the Motion of Mr. KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH, Amendment made, in page 2, line 18, by inserting after "local authority," the words—
That any houses, courts, or alleys within a certain area under the jurisdiction of the local authority are unfit for human habitation or.
On the Motion of Mr. KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH, Amendment made, in line 23, after "area," by inserting—
or to the want of light, air, ventilation, or proper conveniences, or to any other sanitary defects.
MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 29, to leave out from "if satisfied," to "shall," in line 32, inclusive, and in- 115 sert "shall, unless they show cause to the contrary," said, he objected very much to the manner in which the clause was drawn, which, in his opinion, would make it inoperative. If a local authority were to have a debate, on the proposal of a resolution in favour of an improvement scheme, as to whether the official representation made to them was true, as to the practicability of applying a remedy, the sufficiency of their resources, and the advantage to be derived by the locality from the application of the proposed remedy, there would be serious risk that no resolution would ever be passed.
§ MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsupported the Amendment as necessary against recalcitrant and reluctant local authorities. When a nuisance was ascertained, the local authority ought to be required to remove it, at whatever cost.
§ MR. GOLDNEYthought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Kay-Shuttleworth) was much too extensive, as the Bill sufficiently provided otherwise against hostile efforts by unwilling vestrymen and others. The whole country would be thrown into a state of confusion if local authorities were compelled to apply a remedy without satisfying themselves that it was feasible.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSKbelieved the hon. and learned Member for Poole (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) was wrong in supposing that local authorities did not care a farthing about sanitary improvement. The local authorities throughout the Kingdom, he believed, did care for the health and the general well-being of the people in their districts. As to the metropolitan authorities, he knew they devoted a great deal of time and trouble to the well-being of those around them. He was against the Amendment.
§ MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsuggested that the only condition which the clause need express was contained in the words "if satisfied of the truth thereof," which might be left standing and the other conditional passages omitted. The question of sufficiency of resources was a consideration which the local authorities were certain to entertain sufficiently.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the clause had been drawn with great care, and, in his opinion, the terms of it were correct. He thought the confirming authority should be at liberty to 116 exercise all moral, but not legal pressure, in the first instance, and that it should have every opportunity of making the necessary inquiries respecting the state of a given area. He should be quite willing to strike out the third "if" and the passage in which it occurred. In the metropolis he believed very great action would be taken under the Bill, and, although, of course, the effect would not be immediate, he expected that after a few years London would be quite a different place from what it was at present. He was disinclined, in the first instance, to compel the law to be carried out irrespective of any judgment as to resources.
§ MR. EVELYN ASHLEYremarked that the Labouring Classes Lodging House Act, passed in 1851, had been carried into effect by only one local authority—namely, Huddersfield.
§ MR. MACGREGORfelt inclined to support the Home Secretary. In the three burghs he represented, great things had been done by the municipalities in regard to drainage and the improvement of the public health.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHwas happy to be able to testify to the remarkable readiness of sanitary authorities, speaking generally, to undertake works of improvement.
MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, that as the Home Secretary had met him half-way, he would withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. CAWLEY, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 36, after "area," to insert—
And if it shall appear necessary or expedient to purchase any or all of the lands and buildings within such area, or to alter, vary, or stop up any steeets within such area, or to make any-new street therein, they shall apply for a Provisional Order for the same in the manner provided by the Local Government Acts, and the scheme shall he deemed to be an undertaking under those Acts,said, he proposed the addition with a view of simplifying the working of the Act, unless some reason could be shown for adopting a Provisional Order other than the Provisional Orders which could now be obtained. At present local authorities could obtain powers to purchase lands, make new streets, and otherwise improve a town. It was now proposed to re-enact what was enacted by other Acts, and he could not see the necessity 117 of establishing a new form of Provisional Order differing only slightly from that which already existed. Such a multiplication of Acts was quite unnecessary.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the Amendment would no doubt shorten the Bill, but it would not accomplish the purpose which the Government had in view as to the object of the Bill. In the first place, these Local Government Acts did not apply to the metropolis. In the second place, if the Amendment were adopted, it would give to the Bill too much of the character of a Towns' Improvement Act. This might seem a technical, but it was really a substantial, distinction. He did not wish this Bill to be dealt with as one passed for the purpose of beautifying towns. It was simply a Bill for improving the wretched and unhealthy rookeries which were to be found in towns, for re-building them in such a form as would be least expensive to the ratepayers, and, above all, for providing proper accommodation for the people who were displaced. One thread ran through the Bill, and he did not want to break it. Moreover, it was desirable that all the provisions of the Bill should be contained within the four corners of the Bill itself. Although he knew his hon. and learned Friend took a great interest in the Bill, yet, if his proposal were adopted, it would break through the arrangement, and for that reason he could not accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, he rose to move an Amendment which would bring within the scope of the Bill spaces cleared under the provisions of Torrens's Act. These spaces frequently remained a long time unoccupied, and became an eyesore and a nuisance. A space of this kind belonging to the Foundling Hospital had been for some time unoccupied. He was happy to say that within the last few days it had been disposed of to the Peabody Trustees. Under his Amendment such a space might be made available for the purposes of the Act. He would move, in line 36, at end of Clause, to add—
Where, under the provisions of 'The Artisans and Labourers Dwellings Act, 1868' (31 and 32 Vic. c. 130), any houses occupied wholly or partly by persons of the working class have been or may hereafter be demolished, and an 118 area has been or shall have been thus cleared, the local authority may, if they think fit, pass a resolution to the effect that an improvement scheme ought to be made in respect of such area, and after passing such resolution they shall forthwith proceed as aforesaid.
§ MR. GOLDNEYsaid, it was impossible to accept the Amendment without going beyond the scope of the Bill. It was equally impossible for the local authority to say that a vacant space was a source of injury to the public health; and to take that ground for the purpose of the Bill would be an unwarrantable interference with the rights of property.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the Bill carefully avoided touching property which was not pronounced injurious to the public health; and owners of these cleared spaces might naturally say—"Why take this building land from us, when the nuisance you complained of has been removed?" He argued that the Amendment would interfere unduly with the rights of property, and he must therefore oppose it.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, that people ought not to be tied down in the way proposed. Unless a man was at liberty to let his land in a way commercially advantageous, no matter what theories they might hold, they would fail.
§ MR. SHAW-LEFEVREwas of opinion that the object of the Proviso—namely, that an alternative should be left to the local authorities to proceed either under the Act of 1868 or the present Bill—was desirable and should be carried out, if possible.
§ MR. CAWLEYwas of opinion that the Bill would not work satisfactorily, unless it gave power to take more land than that it was immediately dealing with. He, however, did not think it would be wise to effect that object in the form proposed by the hon. Member for Hastings.
MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, his object was that the very worst places should be dealt with by the Bill. Obviously, the local authorities would see the advantage of putting Torrens's Act into operation with respect to those places; but when they had done so, they would have no power to build under this Bill. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would re-consider the matter before the Report.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
119
§
On the Motion of Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON (for Mr. DUNDAS), Amendment made by adding at end of Clause—
Provided always, That no person being beneficially interested in any lands within such area shall vote as member of the local authority upon such resolution, or upon any question relating to the purchase or taking of lands in which he is so interested.
On the Motion of Mr. Secretary CROSS (for Mr. STANSFELD), Amendment made by adding at end of Clause—
Provided always, That any number of such areas may be included in one improvement scheme.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 4 (Official representation by whom to be made).
MR. ASSHETON CROSSmoved, as an Amendment, in page 2, lines 39 and 40, to leave out—
To such board or vestry, who shall forthwith forward the same," and insert "or by such medical officer as is hereafter in this Act mentioned.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSKobjected to giving so much power to medical officers, who, although well educated and intelligent, were often crotchety and defective in judgment. Why should they ignore the vestries and other local authorities? In his own constituency he knew that the members of the vestries were men of great intelligence and ability. They were elected by their fellow-ratepayers, and were therefore representative men. He thought that the House of Commons should be very careful in setting aside the authorities, who represented the principle of local self-government, and who were the proper persons to decide on questions which affected those who elected them. Taxation and representation should go together, and whatever might be said against vestries, they were at least as much to be trusted in such matters as a medical officer with a salary of £100 or £200 a-year, whose opinion might happen to be biased by a variety of causes. Those who elected the vestries would have to pay the costs of any improvements, and ought to have a voice in the matter. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able in some way so to shape the clause as to give that power.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had a very high opinion of local self-government and of the general intelligence of local authorities, who though 120 undoubtedly doing a great deal, yet did not at all times do what one wished them. For the purposes of the Bill they must take things as they found them, and he would point out to the hon. Baronet that he did not by the Bill in the slightest degree interfere with the principle of local self-government, or sever taxation from representation. In the early part of the Bill the Committee had settled that the Metropolitan Board was to be the authority to put the Act in force, and there would be no use in having an intermediate authority. As the Bill was originally drawn, the medical officer was required to report to the local authorities. Some of the vestries had objected to this, and seeing that the Metropolitan Board was elected by the metropolitan vestries, they constituted, though not directly, a representative body. They were to be the local authority for the metropolis without the boundaries of the City, and what was now proposed was simply to do away with the Report to an intermediate body. The vestries would not be charged with the removal of rookeries; the Metropolitan Board would; and it was better to fix the responsibility on the body which would have to take action in these matters. So long as it existed as it was, it was the authority which ought to administer this Bill.
§ Amendment agreed to; words substituted.
§ SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 2, to leave out "twenty" and insert "six." Its object was to obviate the cumbersome nature of the quantity of persons named in the Bill to be able to make a complaint to the medical officer.
COLONEL BERESFORD, who had given Notice of a similar proposal, said, it would be extremely difficult, as it was unnecessary, to get so large a number as 20 ratepayers to lodge a complaint.
§ MR. HARDCASTLEthought the Amendment which he would propose better than the one under notice. It was in page 3, line 2, to leave out "twenty," and insert—
Two or more justices of the peace acting within the jurisdiction for which he is medical officer, or twelve.His object in putting two or more justices of the peace was in order to give additional support to the medical officer upon 121 whom devolved an important duty in carrying out the Act.
§ MR. HERMONsaid, he thought six were too few for the purpose desired.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, after consideration, he would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for South-East Lancashire. He approved of 12, but had not put down any Amendment, because he could accept that of which Notice had been given.
§ Amendment (Sir Sydney Waterlow) by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment (Mr. Hardcastle) agreed to.
MR. KAY-SHUTTLE WORTHmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 7, after "officer," to insert "within three weeks from the date of such complaint."
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had no objection to insert the word "forthwith," in lieu of the words proposed.
§ Amendment agreed to; word inserted.
MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 10, at end of Clause, to add—
The Local Government Board may, at any time when they deem it necessary to make a special inquiry into the sanitary condition of any part of any urban sanitary district, send one or more medical officer or officers to make such inquiry, who, after making such inquiry, may make an official representation to the Local Government Board, who shall forward it to the local authority, and such representation shall have the same incidents as if made by the medical officer of health of such authority.
§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIRhoped the Home Secretary would accept the Amendment. There was the utmost variety of medical officers in regard to qualification and salary. In many cases the salary was merely nominal, a medical officer of health being appointed just to comply with the Act. It was wise to empower the Local Government Board, when some great scandal occurred, to send down their own medical officer to institute an inquiry.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the proper time to discuss this proviso was on Clause 9, which related to the metropolis.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
COLONEL BERESFORDmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 10, at end of Clause, add— 122
Every registrar, when required by a vestry or district board, shall transmit by post or otherwise a return, certified under the hand of such registrar to be a true return, of such of the particulars registered by him concerning any death as may be specified in the requisition of the sanitary authority.The sanitary authority may supply a form of the prescribed character for the purpose of the return, and, in that case, the return shall be made in the form so supplied.The registrar making such return shall be entitled to a fee of two pence, and to a further fee of two pence for every death entered in such return, which fee shall be paid by the authority requiring the Return.
§ MR. GOLDNEYthought that such a provision would be to encumber the Bill, and was really a clause amending the law relating to the registration of births and deaths.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, although fully aware of its importance, he had not dealt with the question in this Bill, because he thought it should be dealt with in some other measure, such as the Public Health Act now before the House, and it was in that way that he proposed to do what was necessary. He hoped the hon. Member would withdraw the Amendment, and he would consult the Local Government Board about it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 5 (Requisites of improvement scheme of local authority).
MR. ASSHETON CROSSmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 12, after "estimates," to insert—
It may exclude any part of the area in respect of which an official representation is made, or include any neighbouring lands if the local authority are of opinion that such exclusion is expedient or inclusion is necessary for making their scheme efficient for sanitary purposes, it may also provide for widening any existing approaches to the unhealthy area, or otherwise for opening out the same for the purposes of ventilation and health. Also.
§ MR. CAWLEYmoved an Amendment with the object of providing for "lands" instead of "neighbouring lands," as proposed by the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentlemen was endeavouring to do that which would be absolutely impossible in many towns, and if his proposal were carried it would defeat the object of the Bill.
§ MR. SHAW-LEFEVREproposed to amend the Amendment by inserting words, the object of which was to enable the local authority to add other lands 123 and houses to those already condemned by the medical officers, on the ground that such additions were necessary to develop fully the valuable building sites for the purpose of this Act. The difference between the Amendment of the Home Secretary and his Amendment was this—the right hon. Gentleman bore in mind sanitary considerations only, but he (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) added other considerations.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was bound to stick to his original Amendment, as this was essentially a sanitary measure, and ought not to be made use of for building and speculative purposes.
§ MR. WHITWELLthought the Amendment solved the difficulty, and would provide for the accommodation of the persons who might be displaced by improvements. He was quite willing to give a dispensing power to the proper authority in this matter. He had introduced in the Bill a provision of the Lands Clauses Act, which enabled persons to take lands, and unless it be absolutely necessary, he did not desire to make the power compulsory.
§ Amendments (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre and Mr. Cawley), by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment (Mr. Secretary Cross) agreed to.
MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, he would admit that the clause was greatly improved by the addition just made to it by the Home Secretary. There were cases, however, in which it would be most undesirable that houses should be rebuilt upon the particular area cleared, which might be in itself unhealthy from its situation near a river or otherwise. Or again the local authority might be able to show that sufficient dwellings existed already for the accommodation of the people who were displaced. It was desirable to lay down on what grounds, and on what grounds alone, the sites might be allowed to be elsewhere than on the areas which had been cleared. He begged, therefore, to move the Amendment which stood in his name—namely, in page 3, line 13, after "compulsorily and," leave out to end of Clause, and insert—
(Except as hereinafter provided) shall, within the limits of the area included in the scheme, or in the vicinity of such area, afford a site or sites for suitable dwellings capable of housing as many persons of the working class as may be 124 displaced, and shall make provision for proper sanitary arrangements. Provided, That the site or sites for suitable dwellings as aforesaid may be afforded on any lands to be taken by agreement within the district of the local authority, that the scheme may prove to be equally or more desirable, having regard to the wants of the working classes, to health, and to economy. Provided also, That if the scheme shall prove that sufficient and suitable dwellings already exist, capable of housing the said persons, no site or sites as aforesaid need be afforded.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that his objection to the Amendment was, that it might relieve the local authorities of the burden of providing houses for those displaced, which they knew would be the least productive part of the scheme, and he doubted, in the next place, whether the local authorities would undertake the responsibility of providing lands. He should be willing to give the confirming authority power to class these restrictions to a reasonable extent.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, the object of the Bill professed to be to provide suitable buildings for the working classes, but the place should be an open question. He had passed many years of his life in the City of London, and he and almost all merchants were glad to get away from the City in the evening for the beneficial effects of fresh air. Then why should they wish to confine the working classes to the City? To do so would be to expose them to damage and deteriorate their health, and render them the little, puny people such as those whom they daily saw in the streets. He should like to see the working classes get out into the fresh air, and to have the physique of their forefathers. People seemed to forget what London was—a metropolis comprising many miles of streets; and was it, he asked, a place to confine the working classes in if it could be avoided?
§ MR. FAWCETTwished to put a question to the Home Secretary. He wanted him to tell the Committee why there should be this special provision for the working classes, who were quite capable of taking care of themselves? He had read throughout this Bill that if the working classes were displaced accommodation must be provided for them. Now, why should the working classes have accommodation provided for them more than for any other class of people? There were small tradesmen 125 whose conditions and wants should be thought of, and for whom suitable accommodation should be provided—
THE CHAIRMANI beg to remind the hon. Gentleman that he is not in Order in discussing the general principle of the Bill on the Amendment. The question before the Committee is the Amendment requiring such legislation as would provide suitable accommodation for the working classes.
§ MR. FAWCETTsubmitted that the question he had addressed to the Home Secretary was perfect relevant.
MR. ASSHETON CROSS, with respect to the question of his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), submitted that if the hon. Member had the least notion of the great displacement of the dwellings of the working classes in London by railway companies' works and for other improvements, and of the miseries which they suffered, he would admit that the Bill was necessary to provide suitable dwellings for their accommodation in lieu of those pulled down.
§ MR. KINNAIRDdid not concur with the hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury (Sir Andrew Lusk) that it would be either convenient or accommodating to the working classes to be borne away from London to the Arcadia which the hon. Member wished to see provided for them. He would take, for instance, the class of printers, and it was well known that it would not be convenient for them to live far away from their work.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, he was not satisfied with the answer given by the Home Secretary to his question, and he would raise the question again on the Report of the Bill. The Home Secretary seemed to think that he (Mr. Fawcett) had not considered the miseries of the working classes; but he begged to state to the right hon. Gentleman that he was as anxious as any man could be to alleviate the sufferings of those classes. That did not, however, affect the point he had raised. He should be glad if the words "working classes" could be left out, and the words "those who have been displaced" substituted.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWmoved that the words "at the least" should be added to the Proviso requiring that any 126 improvement scheme should provide for the accommodation "of as many persons of the working classes as may be displaced." His own experience had proved that it was possible to provide by new buildings for even more persons than had before occupied the particular area.
§ MR. CAWLEYthought cases might occur where it would be impracticable to accommodate the same number.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. FAWCETTmoved, with regard to the same provision, that the words, "of the working class" should be omitted with the view of substituting "those who earn wages." There were others besides working men, such as clerks and those of small means, who might be displaced, and who were entitled equally with them to the consideration of the Legislature.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 14, to leave out the words "of the working class."—(Mr. Fawcett.)
§ MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, that the objection of the hon. Member to the clause as it stood was one that went to the principle of the Bill, and ought to have been made on the second reading.
§ MR. STANSFELDthought that the Government ought to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), which was quite consistent with the principle of the measure.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSwas afraid that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had not apprehended the principle of the Bill at all. If he would be kind enough to read the Preamble he would find that it recited that the object of the measure was to provide accommodation for such of the working classes as might be displaced from their dwellings under the provision of the Bill.
§ SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWsaid, that where houses were removed the "working classes" were understood to be persons who occupied under weekly tenancies, and therefore the definition would include poor clerks and other people of slender means. Quarterly tenants, on the contrary, would receive compensation. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) were accepted, the unfortunate ratepayers might be called upon to provide accommodation for any Members of Parliament who might be turned out of 127 their houses in consequence of this measure being put into operation.
§ MR. STANSFELDsaid, he could not accept the reproof of the right hon. Gentleman, who was too much in the habit of administering reproofs to those who thought differently from himself. The right hon. Gentleman assumed that no hon. Member who sat opposite to him had read the provisions of this Bill, but he begged to inform him that he had read them most carefully. As to the Preamble of the Bill, to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred, he wished to remind him that it had not yet been passed. The object of the Bill, as he understood it, was to provide accommodation for the same number of persons, whether they belonged to the working classes or not, who were deprived of their houses under the provisions of the measure.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, he felt bound to take a division on his Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman had stated last night that the object of the Bill was to abolish rookeries; but the measure had grown considerably since then, and it was now a paternally patronizing Bill for the provision of habitations for the working classes.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERhoped the Committee would not proceed to a division before knowing more clearly on what it was about to divide. He could not agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) that the Home Secretary, in seeking to remove a very crying evil, desired to make the Bill a piece of class legislation. If, however, he wished to retain the clause as it was, he ought at least to give the Committee a definition of the words "working classes." For his own part, he thought that the term might be omitted without interfering with the beneficial operation of the Bill.
§ MR. J. S. HARDYconsidered that the question which had been raised as to what was meant by the working classes was an idle one. No one could doubt the meaning of the proposal, which was to the effect, where a number of houses and small shops were pulled down, and the tenants displaced, they should, within the same area, be provided with houses and small shops, or else they could not have suitable dwellings. With regard to the expression "working classes," it comprehended not 128 only artizans, clerks, translators, but even the Solicitor General; in fact, every person who earned his income by industry.
§ MR. MACDONALDhoped that the words objected to—and which would lead to invidious distinctions, which would be well understood outside the House, as he thought they were inside it—would be struck out by the right hon. Gentleman having charge of the Bill.
§ MR. BROGDENconsidered the retention of the words "working classes" would lead to difficulties being placed in the way of the working of the Bill. The local authorities who would have to carry out the provisions of the Bill would be unable to discriminate between who were the working classes and who were not, unless they were provided with a definition.
§ MR. HARDCASTLEcalled upon hon. Gentlemen opposite who objected to the definition "working classes" to suggest some words to be substituted which, being inserted in the Bill, would be likely to effect the object which they all had in view. That object was to secure suitable dwellings for those persons, and not throw upon the local authorities the responsibility of ascertaining to what particular class the persons inhabiting the houses to be pulled down belonged.
§ SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, the object of the clause was to provide a substitute for displaced buildings, and he saw no reason why they should raise difficulties by the use of the words "working classes." If it was meant to provide houses for the poorer classes, the words ought to be left in a general sense. At all events, it was not a question whether they should supply licensed victuallers with new shops or supply small shops in the place of those which might be pulled down. It was simply a proposal to provide suitable dwellings for those destroyed in the way of a numerical replacement. He hoped the Home Secretary would give the Committee a definition of the words "working classes."
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it was only the preceding evening that he was asked to change the title of the Bill to the designation of the very class it was now proposed to strike out. The term "working class" was no new one. It was to be found in the Standing Orders, which were passed annually, and in which no definition of the words were 129 given. Beyond that it was made use of as far back as 1866 in the Edinburgh and Glasgow Improvement Acts, and was perfectly well understood. The authorities who had the carrying out of those Acts were not allowed to pull down dwellings unless they obtained a certificate from the sheriff that accommodation had been provided for such and such numbers of the working or labouring classes, and no difficulty had ever arisen in the matter.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 191; Noes 93: Majority 98.
§ MR. GOLDNEY (for Mr. GREGORY)moved, as an Amendment in page 3, line 18, after "area," to insert—
It may also provide for such scheme or any part thereof being carried out and effected by the owner or with the concurrence of the owner of any property subject to the same, under the superintendence and control of the local authority, and upon such terms and conditions to he embodied in the scheme, as may be agreed upon between the local authority and such owner.He understood that the Home Secretary had consented to the insertion of this Proviso.
§ MR. FAWCETTwished to know whether the Home Secretary had any reasons for not inserting a Proviso of this sort in the Bill originally; and if he had, what were the arguments that induced him now to consent to the insertion of this Proviso?
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, one great object of the Bill was to relieve ratepayers from all unnecessary expense. Surely, if owners wished to effect improvements of their property, they should be allowed to do so.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, the question could not be settled in that offhand way. Under the Proviso corrupt arrangements might be made between the owners of tumble-down houses, by which extravagant compensation would be given to the latter, and the expense of building houses in lieu of the houses that had been taken down would be thrown on the ratepayers.
MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had put an Amendment on the Paper for a long time similar to this Proviso. He hoped it would be accepted, for there were 130 many landowners in London anxious to improve their property, like the Dukes of Bedford and Westminster, who were now prevented by the temporary interests which other persons had acquired.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, be agreed to?"
MR. FORTESCUE HARRISONpointed out that the provision by which the re-building of houses could be carried out on areas which extended beyond the municipal boundaries might have the effect of disfranchising some of those who were evicted under improvement schemes. The Bill applied to some of the boroughs in which he was interested, and he hoped the Home Secretary would consider whether or not the effect that he had referred to might follow.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, as the clause required that the local authorities should carefully ascertain the number of the working classes who would be displaced by a proposed scheme of improvement, it was essential to define what persons belonged to the working classes. Did the phrase include persons in reduced circumstances, a curate living on £100 a-year, a clerk whose salary was £80 a-year, or simply a labourer who worked for daily wage, or an artizan earning weekly wages? If a mistake was made last Session in inserting the phrase in a Standing Order without defining its meaning, that was no reason why a similar mistake should be made now.
SIR JAMES HOGGsaid, that as representing one of the local authorities who would have to carry out the Bill, they knew perfectly well who were meant by "the working classes," and it was unnecessary further to define the meaning of the words.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that as the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) wanted Parliamentary authority, it should be borne in mind that between the year 1851 and the present time a long series of statutes had been passed bearing such titles as the "Labouring Classes' Lodging House Act," the "Working Classes' Dwellings Act," and the "Artizans' Dwellings Act." Surely, these statutes afforded sufficient Parliamentary authority for anybody.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
131§ 2. Confirmation of Scheme.
§ Clause 6 (Improvement scheme by provisional order to be confirmed by Parliament. Publication of notices. Service of notices. Petition to Secretary of State or Local Government Board), verbally amended, and agreed to.
§ 3. Execution of Scheme by Local Authority.
§ Clause 7 (Duty of local authority to carry scheme when confirmed into execution).
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Fawcett.)
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, that the clause was a most vital part of the measure, raising as it did the question whether the carrying out of the scheme should be obligatory. As he had pointed out at the previous Sitting, the local authorities might by that clause adopt either of three courses—namely, first, sell or lease the land, when cleared, to private individuals for the carrying out of the scheme; secondly, sell or lease it to a body of trustees for the same purpose; or, thirdly, with the consent of the confirming authority, they might carry out the scheme themselves. But there was no absolute security that the scheme would be carried out at all after the land had been cleared. In that state of things the hon. Member for Maidstone (Sir Sydney Waterlow) had given Notice of an Amendment to the effect——
THE CHAIRMANinterposed, and said, that it was not in Order to discuss a prospective Amendment on a Motion to report Progress, though the hon. Gentleman might refer to it if he wished merely to indicate his grounds for supporting that Motion.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, what he wished to do was merely to show that his Motion to report Progress was reasonable. In case neither of the three courses to which he had referred was adopted, the hon. Member for Maidstone proposed that if any person offered a price for the ground and that price was refused by the local authorities, the person who had made the offer might appeal to the con- 132 firming authority, who would appoint an arbitrator to say whether the price was a reasonable one or not. That Amendment raised a question too important to be satisfactorily discussed at half-past 12 o'clock, and it was for that reason he had moved that the Chairman do report Progress.
§ MR. DISRAELIsaid, that as with the exception of some eccentric assumptions of the hon. Member for Hackney the Government had no cause to complain, having made reasonable progress, he would consent to the Motion.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ House resumed.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.