§ Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
§ Bill, as amended, considered.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, that, in fulfilment of a promise given last evening by his right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), he would, as an Amendment, move to omit the latter part of Clause 3, in order to insert the words "at a fair market price." The effect of the Amendment would be that the Local Authorities would have to pay for the land at its current value, the arbitrators having no power to take into consideration the purposes for which it was to be used.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 4, line 37, after "works," leave out to end of amended Clause, and insert "at a fair market price."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman opposite had very fairly met the objections of the minority on the subject.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that, on the contrary, he was very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should have surrendered in this matter to a minority, which, however well-meaning and respectable it might be—and it undoubtedly was both—was still an insignificant minority of the House. He was an admirer of the Bill, thinking it a very good one, and he was glad that it had been extended to Scotland. He had no wish in any way to obstruct it; but he must say he deeply regretted that more favour had not been shown to the poor of London, who were very inadequately provided for. By the operation of the Amendment these prison sites would not be devoted to the benefit of the poor of London, unless Local Authorities competed with the rich for the purchase of land. Had the Bill stood as originally introduced, it would 1889 have been an important step towards the "municipalization" of the land.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ MR. PICTONsaid, he would suggest that a similar Amendment should be made in a later clause relating to Municipal Corporations, who, in justice to ratepayers, ought not to part with land at less than "a fair market price."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the power given in that case was only a permissive one, and Town Councils might be trusted to exercise their powers properly. The difference in the case of London was that it was the Treasury, and not a representative Body, that had to part with the land.
§ MR. BROADHURST moved, as an Amendment, to strike out the Proviso in Clause 14, to the effect that the annual value of gardens attached to "cottages" should not exceed £1.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 9, line 14, by leaving out all the words from the word "acre" to the end of the Clause.—(Mr. Broadhurst.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he could not consent to the Amendment; but he would consent to the Proviso being amended by the substitution of £3 for £1.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause amended, and agreed to.
§ Queen's Consent signified.
§ Bill read the third time, and passed, with the Amendments.