SECOND READING. (Hansard, 3 July 1874)

§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY
, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, its object was to encourage the erection of dwelling-houses suitable for persons employed in manual labour, to afford facilities for the acquisition of sites for such dwelling-houses, and for their cheap and easy transfer. Their Lordships were well aware of the great hardships inflicted on the labouring classes—particularly in largo towns—by the difficulty of obtaining healthy and decent habitations. It seemed impossible to expect that this great evil could be remedied by any amount of individual exertion—it must be encountered by operations on a large scale. This had been done successfully at Edinburgh, and Glasgow, and other places. There were two classes of artizans—those who had fixed employments, and fixed places and hours of work—the others were without these advantages. Now, it would undoubtedly be an advantage to the better class if they could be provided with, or provide for themselves, an improved class of dwellings in country districts, where, in addition to the advantages of a better dwelling at a cheaper rate, they could also have the benefit of fresh air. This the Bill was intended to promote—and it should be remembered, further, that if this could be done, and the working classes of the large towns could be removed to country districts, the closely packed dwellings of the towns could be improved and turned to the advantage of that other and less fortunate class of workmen. The Bill provided, in the first place, to authorize the town council of any borough to direct that lands vested in them should be laid out in sites for dwelling-houses suitable for the occupation of persons employed in manual labour, in accordance with plans to be approved at a public meeting of the burgesses of such borough and by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. It provided a Register Book, in which was to be entered a concise description of each separate parcel 983 of land delineated in the plan of sites. It authorized such corporations to make the necessary roads, walls, drains, and other works, to fit the property for use as building lands; and to put the land when so improved up for sale by auction in separate parcels to be conveyed to the purchasers by a simple form of conveyance under the corporate seals; such sales to be subject to the condition that a dwelling-house should be erected on each plot within the term of three years from the date of the purchase on pain of forfeiture. On the completion of a dwelling-house in compliance with the plans the registered owner would receive a certificate, after which the site could not be forfeited. The Bill, while it registered the site, and gave to the owner a registered title, proposed also a simple form of conveyance, on the execution of which the transfer of ownership would be recorded on the register. In like manner, all leases or agreements respecting any site were to be produced to the proper officer, and placed upon the register. The site could not be subdivided, but several persons might become joint owners. He thought this measure would meet an urgent and daily-increasing want, by increasing the number of dwellings for the poorer classes, and would afford the working classes a means of investing their savings profitably and securely, which they did not at present possess. Under these circumstances, he trusted their Lordships would read the Bill a second time.

§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSET
pointed out that the Bill gave the freehold of the sites to those who became possessed of them. How would it be possible to prevent those parties from dealing with them in any way they might think proper? There would be no security that the dwellings would be continued as those of the working classes. The Bill was very well-intended, but it was very defective, and, in his opinion, would prove impracticable.

LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK
said, the noble Duke had, he thought, pointed out a weak place in the Bill, and he thought some security should be required that the powers given by the Bill should not be diverted to purposes alien from the principle of the measure. According 984 to the Bill the plan of the houses to be built must be approved by the Municipal Council; and, no doubt, under their supervision, only those would be built which were essentially working men's houses. But, in his opinion, it would be necessary that the builder or purchaser of the houses should not be able to dispose of them, or make any change in their construction, without the consent of the Council that had sanctioned their construction, so that a control might be exercised in the future in this respect. It was provided by the Bill that after the land had been once marked out and appropriated, the "sites" could never again be divided. That seemed to him unreasonable, and he thought a clause might be introduced permitting, with the consent of the Municipal Council, the division of the sites, should it appear advisable. He thought there were imperfections in the Bill; but they were imperfections which could be remedied in Committee, and the Bill might be made a very useful measure.

THE MARQUESS OF BATH
said, the object of the Bill was a very good one—namely, to allow municipal corporations to dispose of land in their possession for the purpose of erecting dwellings suited for the artizan and labouring classes. He did not, however, see that a Bill of 46 clauses was required to effect that object; a short Act simply giving power to corporations to sell the land for a term of years, with a reservation of a certain rent—a nominal rent if they pleased—and with the condition attached that houses built on it should be of a character suitable to working men, and, further, that those conditions should not be departed from without the consent of the corporation, would effect all the noble Earl desired.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, he thought that the objection raised by the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) required some answer. He did not very well see how the difficulties suggested in the course of the discussion were to be removed.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, the object sought to be attained was of so desirable a character that he was unwilling to say a word that would throw a doubt on the possibility of the working of the Bill. He confessed he was surprised to hear that there were corporations which had got any amount of land 985 they would be enabled to dispose of in this way. No doubt, there might be some corporations in such a position; but, as a rule, they generally sold their land, or applied it to other purposes. But, assuming there were a number of places in which the Bill could be brought into operation, no doubt the size and description of the dwellings to be built upon the sites might be determined in the manner provided by the Bill; but then there would arise the question of title. How could they dispose of land in fee-simple without giving to the owner all the rights incident to ownership in fee-simple? There was a provision in the Bill which made the town clerk an agent for registering these properties, and which placed him in the position of a Land Registrar. Now, the provisions of the Land Registry Bill would be seriously interfered with, if the town clerks throughout the country were made Land Registrars. If it were desirable that corporations should be allowed to parcel out their land for dwellings for the labouring classes, the only way was to give them the power to grant leases. A building lease for 99 years was in London thought to be almost as good as a freehold, and the corporations might insert covenants as to the way in which the land should be used. He did not wish to offer any objections to the second reading, but the Bill would require considerable revision in Committee.

§ LORD REDESDALE
said, that the Bill only allowed a single house to be built upon each parcel of land, and it might thus be unfavourable to the ulterior improvement of those dwellings. There might be a difficulty in dealing with the land for the very purposes contemplated by the Act. He would not oppose the second reading, but he doubted whether the details would be found practicable.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
desired to point out that a site which might in the first instance be convenient for working men's dwellings, might not be so at a subsequent period. A few years might change the whole character of a neighbourhood, and the land thus divided and appropriated might be required for other purposes. But, as the sites were devoted in perpetuity to the purpose of working men's dwellings, they would possibly create impediments to great improvements; or the particular industry 986 which had made those dwellings desirable might depart from the neighbourhood, and they would thus become useless for the purpose for which they were intended, and would not be applicable to any other.