[BILL 255.] CONSIDERATION. (Hansard, 7 August 1882)

§ MR. WHITLEY
said, it seemed to him that to introduce an Amendment of this kind in the Bill, when it was not applied to Improvement Bills, which were generally of a kind in which a clause of this description could be inserted, was very prejudicial to the interests of owners of property. This Bill would apply chiefly to very poor property and very poor localities, and, in all probability, the property would belong to very poor owners indeed; and to introduce a clause of this kind, without any notice to the community, or to those affected by it in the large towns, was not the best course to take. If this clause was to be introduced, he thought it ought to be introduced after notice had been given to those whom it affected. He was persuaded that this Amendment would meet with very much opposition in all the great towns of the United Kingdom, because it was a new kind of legislation, and only applied to a new kind of property, and did not apply to Public Improvement Acts. He thought it unwise, when no discussion had taken place in Committee on the Bill, at that moment to introduce this Amendment, and he should feel bound to oppose it.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, he thought the hon. Member could hardly be aware that an Amendment similar to this now proposed had been on the Paper for many days in the name of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley). The Amendment would not apply generally to all property or to general matters, but only to those houses which came under Clause 8 of the Bill, and were in an unsanitary condition. Therefore, the Amendment would have a very limited application; and, limited as it was, he had agreed to substitute for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Oldham the Amendment now before the House.

§ MR. WARTON
regarded this new Proviso as one of far too great importance to be dismissed in a cursory and cavalier style. This was a much more important Bill than any the House had been discussing for weeks past. It was all very well for the hon. Gentleman to speak of this proposal having been before the House for some days; but he himself had not seen it for more than a couple of days, though whether it had been before the House 10 days or two days did not alter the proposal. The fact was there was a difference of opinion as to what improvements of this kind should be charged upon. He thought the bright idea had struck the hon. Member for Oldham that he would make the holders of small properties pay for the improvements after all. It was very well to talk in an abstract manner about a house being improved; but it was unpleasant for a man to have to pay for the value, or supposed value, of improvements to which he was no party. A man had a right to enjoy his property without being subject to a constant demand to pay for improvements which somebody supposed increased the value of the house. The adoption of a provision of this kind would discourage the holders of property.

§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he must say he did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down understood the Amendment. He (Sir R. Assheton Cross) differed from the hon. and learned Member, and hoped the House would pass the clause.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, he would move that the Bill be read a third time, and, in doing so, would take this opportunity of thanking the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross), as Chairman of the Committee, for the assistance he had rendered him in passing the Bill.