The Express.
London, England, 1867-08-02 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-(THIS DAY.)

The SPEAKER took the chair at 25 minutes past 12 o'clock.

UNIVERSITY EDUCATION IN IRELAND.
Mr. vAwerrr said, in consequence of the answer given
to his question on the previous evening by the
ehowellor of the Exchequer, he would, on Friday
ueNt, on the motion for going into committee of supply,
p,vixr,e the following resolution :—" That in the 014111 On
„f this house it would be unadvisable that the government
should advise her Majesty to grant a charter for a new
university in Ireland, or to carry out Any scheme affecting
u„,,,ersity education in that country, until parliament shall
13. we had an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the
subject."

COniTS OF LAW FEES, Le., BILL.
This bill WAS read a third time.
INLAND REVENUE BILL.
Tlii, bill was read a third time.
DOMINICA LOAN BILL.

This bill was read a third time. ---
LoVAL GOVERNMENT
ILLSUPPLEMENTAL (No. 6)
B.
This bill was read a third time.
PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT BILL.
biU was read a third time.
NAVAL STORES (No. 2) BILL.
This bill was read a third time.
AWDZANS AND LABOURERS' DWELLINGS BILL.
the order of the day for going into committee on
this bill,

Mr. BAZLEY moved, "That, in the opinion of this
bone, it is not expedient that the provisions in this bill,
by which it is proposed to impose upon the local authority
the obligation, if and when required by the owners,
to purchase condemned properties at prices to be
ascertained under the Lands Clauses Consolidation
Act. should receive the assent of this House."
The bon, member contended that the clausesto which he ob-
jected would on the one hand bean unjustifiable interference
with the rights of prope.rty, and on the other enhance the
value of property of an inferior description. The property
to which they applied should be disposed of in the ordinary
way. He thought at that lateperiod of the session it would
be well to withdraw the bill and leave the question to be
dealt with next year. It was totally impracticable for
municipalities to become large financial agents and
managers of cottage property.
Mr. POWER hoped the house would not, by passing this
abstract resolution, do away with the effect of what had
been already done towards legislating.
Mr. serjeant GARELEE said it appeared to bim that
the amendment was a very practicable mode of getting
rid of an objectionable measure. He did not see why the
representatives of the ratepayers should be called upon to
perform such duties. They would next be called upon to
provide the poor with proper clothes and with carriages to
give them an airing. (laughter.)
Mr. HARDY concurred in the objection raised by the
hon. member for Manchester, but slid not see why it
should not be dealt with in committee.

Mr. M HALLEY considered that the bill was an exten-
sion of the principle of centr►lisation in the most objec-
tionable form in which it had yet been proposed for adop-
tion.

ilk J. LOCKE thought that that mud be almost
the first time the honourable members who sup-
ported the amendment could have directed their
attention to the subject. It was admitted that
at present many of the dwellings in question were not fit
for human habitation, and the objection made by phi.
lanthropists to a remedial measure was that
it might raise the rates. When was the dis-
tinction in principle between making a sewer for the
protection of the public health and pulling down houses of
the worst description In order to erect suitable ones!
(Hear, hear.) Moreover, there would ultimately be no
lose to the roteyers from the beneficial change now pro-
posed. The object could only be carried out 13y the local
authorities. In Liverpool the local authorities already
pulled down houses which were not fit for the poor to
reside in ; and, so far from the ratepayers being looses,
the town clerk of that town had given evidence before a
committee that they were great gainers through the con-
sequent diminution of the poor rate. Even in an economi-
cal point of view the argument was in favour of the bill.
He admitted that • compensation question was • diffi-
cult one. The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act was not
applicable.' and in that respect the bill might be amended ;
but let them not loss this opportunity of getting rid of
nests of fever and misery.
Mr. GREENE supported the bill, which he said was
intended to substitute healthy dwellings for houses in
which they would not put • sporting dog.
Mr. CANDLISH thought the house should guard against
an owner of bad property being enabled by the bill to
compel the local authorities to purchase his property ; so
that it might be tobis interest to let it fall into bad condi-
tion. He thought that objection might be removed by
amending the 20th clause.
Hr. 'TORHENS, in reply, said he thought it was incon-
ceivable that the promoters of the bill would have intro-
duced it if the effect would be loss to the
ratepayers. Such • result would tend to pre-
vent any success in future. The corporation of
Manchester wanted, through the hon. member (Mr. Baxley),
to get rid of the bill, having always been strong opponents
of such legislation as he proposed. Under the very
nose of that corporation there were dwellings of the
worst possible description. He regretted that the support
of the Home Secretary was not more cordial. He should
not press the bill if the house were against his doing so ;
bat he implored the house to deal with the question as it
deserved to be dealt with.
_ _

Mr. LEEMAN while giving credit to the hon. member
for Finsbury for his object, considered the machinery pro-
vided unsuited to carry it out. If this bill ware pawed, it
would be a perfect sager plum to architects
and surveyors to advise the owners of old pro-
perties to let them go to ruin. Ultimately the
question of oompeneation would, under the provisions of
the Land Clauses Consolidation Act, go to arbitration, arid
the costs which would be incurred would in many asses
exceed the value of the house. He protested wind this
mode of compelling town councils to buy property at an
excessive rate.

Yr. W. E. FORSTER said that the Town Council of
Bradford were in favour of the principle of the bill, and
theytthev would meet the objeetten of the hon. member who
had just spoken by mew pf amendments which would pre.
Teat so owner of property from profiting by his own neglect.
Re should be prepared to move in committee that the
question et compensation should be left solely to juries, and
that the amount to be paid should not be increased by the
compulsory purchase of the property.
Sir J. FERGUSSON observed that the government was
m favour of the objects of the bill, and thought that
amendments might easily be made in committee.
Br. JVIAREN supported the bill.