The Sun.
London, England, 1867-03-02 00:00:00

ARTISANS AND LABOURERS DWELLINGS BILL.

The Works and General Purposes Committee re-
ported that they were of opinion that as the Artisans
and Labourers Bill involved new principles of taxa-
tios it required theserious consideration of theboard.
Mr. SHAW said he agreed with the committee that
a very serious question was raised by the bill, as the
question was whether this board should tax the rate-
payers to supply the funds for building houses f..r
artisans and labourers. Ther3 were persons who bad
various plans for this purpose, and if carried out he
thought they might not only be profitable, but wry
beneficial; but as there was a proposition for them to
build houses at the expense of the ratepayers, he
hoped the board would have nothing to do with the
bill.

The CHAIRMAN said the feeling of the ,committee
was that the bill proposed a new system of taxation,
for it was such an enlargement of the statute of
Elizabeth that it might become a serious matter to
the ratepayers. If they were to charge the rate-
payers for building these houses for artisans and la-
bourers, then it was a question that demanded seri-
ous consideration on the part of the board. The ma-
chinery pointed out on the bill to be used he considered
to be most objectionable, as the board was to be set
in motion by the grand Jury. Ile did not consider
that this was a proper body to originate proceedings
to rate the metropolis. The first question was, was
that a mode of taxation consistent with the statute
of Elizabeth and the general municipal government
of the metropolis ? There was no doubt that a large
number of houses were unfit for human habitations,
they were dens of fever and disease, and the inhabi-
tants of then► suffered a great civil wrong ; but it
was the duty of Parliament to step in and put a stop
to the occupation of houses till condition of which
rendered them unfit for human habitations. They
ought to bring about a practical remedy, either I,y
sacrificing the property, or compelling the owners to
put them into a proper condition and fit for the use
of the poor. Therefore the committee were the
more desirous to call the attention of the board to
the bill. If they thought the bill was not offensive
in principle, and that its details could be amended
in committee, then they could vote that the subject
should be referred back to the committee ; but if
they did agree to the principle, then it would be
their duty to oppose the preamble. The board had,
therefore, then to determine what course they would
pursue.

Mr. SAUNDERS believed that the principle of the
bill was a good one, and only required a little care-
ful arrangement of the details.

Mr. LE BRETON moved that the subject be re-
ferred back to the Works and General Purposes
Committee to petition for such modifications in the
bill as they may consider to be advisable. If the
board were to set their faces against the bill in tote
they would get into great disgrace with the public.
Mr. ROCHE seconded the motion.

Mr. TURNER thought it would be precipitate to
assent to the principle of the bill, and for it to be
supposed that they only objected to the details. lie
for one was not at present prepared even to assent
to the principle of the bill.
Mr. FREEMAN said the principle was not a new
one, but one that had been long acted upon by the
board in the making of parks for the recreation of
the people ; and even their sewerage works were for
the public benefit. This was a sanatory improve-
ment for the purpose of giving a healthy, decent
dwelling place for the poor man to live in. Two-
thirds of the poor rates went for the relief of the
poor, the halt, the lame, and the blind, and the other
third went to relieve those who suffered by disease
engendered by unwholesome dwellings, as they iu
their sickness were thrown for support upon the poor
rates. He therefore supported the principle of the
bill.

CoLiaNsorr also supported the bill.
Mr. ELT said if this bill was passed the board
would become speculative builders on a large scale,
or jobbers for extensive repairs, add there would be
no end of their liability.
Some other members having expressed their views
upon the consequences of the passing of this bill,
The CHAIRMAN put the motion, which was carried
with two dissentients.