Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

35 articles on this Page

AMERICAN SINGER IN SPAIN.

------------OUR PRINCESSES…

CAPE ELEOTIONS.

-.---------.--------ANOTHER…

THEGASPESIIAT

The Philippines. .

- THE SAMOAN DIFFICULTY.

------• THE PEACE CONFERENCE.

--..........-..----------…

[No title]

MR HOOLEY'S AFFAIRS.

--AN USKSIDER'S PREFERENCE.

THE POLICE COURTS.

RACECOURSE REFRESHMENTS.

Advertising

The Far East. .

DREYFUS AFFAIR.

._--ANGLO-AMERICAN ALLIANCE.

Small Houses. 'Purchase .Bill.…

News
Cite
Share

Small Houses. Purchase Bill. DEBATE IN THE COMMONS. Second Reading Passed. In the Housa of Commons on Monday, On the second reading of this Bill, Mr MdBuEUNA moved the following amendment: —" That; in any measure for facilitating the acqoisitfon of the ownership of small houses, public money should not be advanced except upon the terms that the freehold should vast in public bodies and not in the individual, and that it is undesirable to discuss any such mea- sure until the recommendations of the Local Taxation Commission on the subject of the taxa- tion of ground values have been received." He said the Colonial Secretary in speaking at Birmingham in the year 1894 said that the pri- mary object of the programme, one to which he attached as much importance as to any other item, was the housing of the artisan. But in this Bill there waa no compulsory power for purchase. The tenant might by falling in with the landlord sell if he wished to, and the local authorities might if they were so disposed purchase. So far it might be heM to be a justificaton of the measure that it might prove to be innocuous. If the right hon. gentleman really intended to say that the Irish Land Purchase Acts were to bo a precedent for legislation in England, he did not think there would be much opposition from that side of the House provided that in the first instance judicial rents were fixed. (Bear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman also justified the measure on the ground that it would improve the buildings of the people and encourage thrift, and that the local authority would make a net profit out of the transaction of about 43 per cent. The right hon. gentleman in introducing this Bill had abandoned the idea of making any pro- fit at all. He estimated that far from having any pirofit there would be a penny on the rates for expenses. Mr CHAMBERLAIN Certainly not. In order to meet the objections 1 have put a clause into the Bill showing that the expenses shall not in any case exceed a penny. My own belief is that there will be no expenses at all. Mr McKBNNA said the right hon. gentleman put the maximum cost at a penny. The rate might be enormously exceeded under this Bill, and the only lemedy would be that it would not be put into operation again for live years. Bat there were also in this country institutions carry- ing on operations oi enormous magnitude which did provide directly for every purpose of this Bill, and encouraged thrift far better than this Bill did. It must be remembered that persons who lent money to building societies and the share- holders themselves were the thrifty poor. Build. ing societies had now a capital of iE4,000,000, which employed and served a double purpose in the promotion of thrift and encouragement of ownership. There was no definition in the Bill of what was meant by a small house." At present it was not clear whether money could be lent on a house of above the valne ot f.300 or not. A clause provided that the period for repayment of advances and interest should not exceed thirty years. The experience of the beat building societies was that a period with a margin of one-fifth a total value was too long. By another clause six months were allowed to any would-be tenant before be went into residence—that was to say, any person who wished to buy a house under this Bill might not only buy the house, but might bnild the house, and he had then six months in which the house might be built. Building societies found that lending money on houses be. fore they were built was so unsatisfactory, and so likelv to lead to loss, that they had given it up. Mr CHAMBERLAIN There is no intention to lend money on houses in process of building. Mr McKENNA I am very glad to hear that, It is a relief to my mind. For a breach of condi- tions an oocapier oould be sold out by aaotton or by the local authority at a valuation. The occu- pation of a house under the terms of the Bill might be made the means of political pressure. Employers themselves might either induce the authority^ to put the Bill in force or they might themselves. There was nothing in the Bill to prevent it advancing the money for the erection of hohses for their workmen. This might happen in mining districts, and when the mines were worked out then the property, no longer of any valno. would fall upon the hands of the local authority. A Royal Commission was now sitting on the question of local taxation, and there was good reason to hope that the Commissioners would report in favour of the principle of the taxation of ground values, and therefore it was not advis- able to pass a measure of this kind at the present time. They knew that the right hon. gentleman at Birmingham had talked of the expansion of the Empire and the establishment of new markets. They did not pay much attention to grandiose language of this description, but when he went into details and said that the intention of the Government was to benefit working men and their families, those people knew what was promised. Did anybody believe that the Bill would improve the homes of th £ poor — (Sir Howard Vincent: Certainly)—that it would do -tway with the misery and distress which crowded our busy streets ? In making such a proposal Parliament was guilty of something like a fraud upon the electorate. The Bill could only result in dissatisfaction and disappointment, because it would not carry out one of the great social reforms and promises made to the country by the right hon. gentleman opposite. The hon. member then. moved his amendment. Mr LOGAN seconded the amendment. Mr GALLOWAY could not understand in what way the measure could interfere with the sphere of influence of building societies, and he was satisfied that it would tend to the promotion of thrift. The mining and shipping interests of the country were in his opinion sufficiently well established to afford security to the persons aiD. ployed in them. Sir J. PEASE said it seemed to him that there was no demand for such legislation. Mr BARTLEY had always advocated that in every possible way facilities should be given to the poorer classes to become the- owners of the houses m which they lived and carried their business, and as far as the Bill had that tendency it had his best wishes, but he did not think it desirable or necessary to bring legal authority Into competition with building societies, which were doing excellent work, or that enconra^em.gnt should be given to local authorities to embark in land speculation. (Hear, bear.) Mr URE opposed the Bill because it pro fessed to supply a-want which had never been felt. Sir HOWARD VINCENT turged the House to support the principle of the Bill by agreeing to the second reading. Mr JONATHAN SAMUEL remarked that the first Bill of this kind was brought in by Mr Wrightson, the former member for Stockton, avowedly as something with which to capture the working classes." Mr KEARLEY'S principal complaint against the Bill was that it would be inoperative in the most overcrowded districts, where, as in Devon- port, land being a monopoly reached a fictitious value. To make a scheme of the kind successful it was necessary to give local authorities compul- aoiy powers to acquire land at a fair market valno. Mr ASQUITH bad no objection to what he conceived to be the principle of the measure. The real criterion of the Bill was not that it brought in a new set of formidable powers to be entrusted to municipalities, but that the scope of its operations would be so restricted, and the problem with which it dealt was such an infinitesimal administration of the problem of the housing of the working classes that the advantage of takiug up time with its discussion was doubt- ful. (Hear, hear.) He was of opinion that even by far the greater part of the kingdom there was no demand for such legislation. (Hear, hear.) Thon again for the demand existing there were in operation the means of supply. There were building societies, I-Ind societies, and other means by which working men, who were in the comparatively prosperous position contemplated by this Bill, were able to obtain, though not on such favourable terms, aU that it was proposed to provide for them. (Hear, bear.). He admitted that the measure was an enormomr: improvement upon those of former years, but it undoubtedly imposed a number of restrictions which must largely curtail the already narrow sphere of its operations. He should not, how- ever, vote against the second reading. (Minis- terial cheers.) The Government of which he was a member accepted the principle of legislation of this kind, but he could not •help saying, in the strongest and moat emphatic language, that he deeply regretted that the Government had not taken the opportunity of going to the very crux of the problem of the housing of the working classes. (Hear, hear.) In the first place the local authorities had not got compulsory powers to the extent they ought to have; and, in the second place, they had not got the power of resorting for local purposes to the rating of ground values. (Cheers.) He thought he might cle-im a share in the paternity of this measure, for if it had not been for the notice taken last year of the conspicuous slackening of zeal on the subject by the author of the Birmingham programme he doubted whether they would now be discussing the ques- tion. /Hear, hea.r.1 Mr CHAMBEKLAIN did not introduce the I measara as a party or controversial sobject, but ¡ relied upon the pà.at history of the subject to justify him in anticipating that it would receive the support of the vory divided parto opposite. (Laughter and hear, heat.) A Bui ahnoat identical in principle was introduced m 1893, and received not merely silent support, bat the warm and enthusiastic support of some of the members who had been speaking in hostility to the present Bill. The hon. member who moved the amendment had indicated the principle that to his mind the measure might be admirable if the freehold was retained in the hands of the local authority, but he was convinced that the vast majority of the working classes would be opposed to the scheme. (Hear, hear.) They destraa to have full possession of their property, and he certainly did not think it would be to the advantage of the State to prevent them from enjoying it. He could not conceive anything worse than to make the local authorities freeholders on a great scale. (Cheers.) What were the objections brought against the details of the Bill ? He was told on the one hand that there was no need for the Bill, and that no use would be made of it. Bat on the other hand it was sai^ the Bill would be no much used by the working classes that it wonld rain the building societies. (Cheeim4 TheÐ another gentis- got up and said, Why, the building societies will beat, you—they will walk round the loco authorities. In regard to all mmsipal legislation of this kind his chief fear was that the local authorities would be too timid to carry out such legislation, and he did not at all agree with the hon. member opposite who sugcested undue pressure wonld be brought to bear upon local to jEarae tham to enter >nta aosenlfttirw*. against their will. Mr Ure had described the Bill as an electioneering strategy, while the member for Stockton said it was a vote-catching policy. (Opposition cheers.) Then Mr U- said no municipality would look at the Bill, no workman would take advantage of it, no business man would interest himself in it, and that he considered to be a vote-catching policy (Ministerial laughter.) If that was a vote-catching policy the leaders of hon. gentlemen opposite only six years ago supported exactly the same policy. (Ministerial cheers.) No donbt Mr Asqtuth would have been better pleased if the Government had brought on a Bill of 300 or 400 clauses dealing with the whole question ot the housing of the working classes, and no doubt he would have helped the Government to earry it. (Ministerial laughter.) It might be the Govern- ment were too modest. (Opposition laughter.) They were content with doing things in their own little way. (Cheers and laughter.) They were proceeding gradually with these great re- forms, a.nd they did not take so low an opinion of this first step as Mr Asquith. It was argued that the Bill would involve heavy costs to the rates. This again was absolutely inconsistent with the argument that the local authorities would never put the Bill into operation. The people who spoke most confidently and dogmati- cally about local government were the very Eeople who had never in their lives been a mem- er of any local authority and never had any ex- perience of the work. (Loud Ministerial cheers.) Local authorities generally erred if at all on the side of timidity, and they would not be forced either by their constituents or anyone else to do what they thought was imprudent. All that local authorities had to do was to place some confidence in their own discretion. Corpo- rations would not lend monay where there was likely to be a loss. The legal and other expenses would be infinitesimal, and would not come out of the pockets of the Corporation. It was said— and the charge came from those who professed to be the friends of local government—that the Bill would lead to jobbery. If they could not trust local authorities in this, how could they trust these bodies in larger matters ? Authorities dealing with millions a year,"and doing it without the slightest suspicion of jobbery ox corruption, were not likely to be influenced by such paltry motives as Mr McKenna suggested. These wete absurd charges, and showed the extreme weakness of the case against the Bill. (Cheers.) A rather more serious argument was an objection raised by Mr Bartley that the measure would injure building societies. Admitting only for the sake of argument that it would injure building societies, would that be a fatal objection ? When the Government ad- vanced money to the Irish tenants they were not told, You are injuring the money-lenders," and building societies were more money-lenders than builders. (Cheers.) But he did not believe the Bill would injure the bnildingllOCieties in the slightest degree. He had communicated with some of the largest building societies in his own neighbourhood, and the manager of one of the biggest said the Bill would help to extend business with the class of property most desirable. In answer to the contention that the Bill would not be an advantage to working men. he would ask was it an advantage to a working man to be the owner of his own house ? Certainly it was an advantage to the community, because it tended to thrift and independence, and was calculated to make the workman a better citizen in the best sense of the word-a. Conservative, (Ironical Opposition cheers.) He did not mean by that a supporter of the present Government. It was distinctly good for the working man himself, because a man who had his own cottage lived more happily, more comfortably, put more into th3 house and made it more his home, than the man who did not know when he might have tt. turn out to give place to a better paying tenant. The restrictions were very light and would not press unduly. The workman would have to be regular in his instalments, pay his own insur- ance, and reside in the house, because the only excuse for using public funds was that they were creating a race of occupy- ing owners. (Hear, hear.) There was noth- ing in the Bill against taking in lodgers and nothing against shops. On the contrary, he thought it most desirable to assist small shop- keepers as well as working-men, and this Bill, unlike its predecessors, would not be confined to the one class. He would conclude in the words of Lord Rosebery, who, in speaJdug on a similar measure in the House of Lords, said :—" I am of opinion that whatever difficulties may arise in carrying out this proposal they must be reso- lutely faced, because the experiment ought to be tried in the interest of the working-olsais population." (Loud cheers.) Mr JOHN BURNS quoted statistics showing the change and n obility of labouring popula- tions. The members ol tho Hearts of Oak Society were a cilasa most likely to avail themselves of this Bill. and out of 220,000 members in the society 156,000 moved in one year. It was impos- sible to resist the tendency of labour to move. He objected to municipalities playing the role of moneylenders with the rates, and he should vote against this pettifogging and ridiculous Bill. (Opposition cheers.) Sir W. WEDDERBURN declared that the fault of the Bill was that; it trifled with a "rea.c question. Mr STANLEY LEIG-IITON, while recognis- ing the good intentions of the Government, was unable to support the Bill because it would not stop overcrowding, and would weaken the sense of indepoulence among artisans, discourage thrift, a.nd associate enterprise a.nd impose unjust burdens upon the poor. He did not mean to vote against the second reading, but when the division took place would walk out of the House. Colonel HUGHES admitted the possibility of the Bill interfering with the business of building societies to some extent, but he failed to see why a working man should pay 5 per cent. for a loan when he conld get it for 3 £ per cent. Mr BAINBRIDGE regretted that building societies, which had done more than any other organisations to form thrift among the working classes, should have been spoken of by the Colonial Secretary as money-lending societies. Mr KIMBER feared that the Bill would benefit the builders more than the nominal purchasers. Sir W. FOSTER was sure all would heartily agree with the principle of the Bill as enumerated by the Colonial Secretary. He regretted, though, that the Colonial Secretary should have let slip the opportunity of doing something to improve the housing of the working classes. If the Bill had proceeded on other lines, and given to loeaJ authorities the power of aoquiring land, compul- sorily if necesaary, it might have been-which it could never be in its present shape—a great blessing to the working community. (Hoar, hear.) At the same time he did not intend to vote against the second reading. (Ministerial cheers.) Mr LOWLES supported the Bill. Mr BATTY LANGLEY would vote for the Bill, though without any pleasure or satisfaction, and he hoped that in a few years' time a Liberal Government would carry the principle contained in it to its logical conclusion. Sir J. BLUNDELL MAPLE conld not support the Bill, because he did not think that it would ¡ benefit the class it was intended to benefit, and woald do injury to building societies. Mr W. ALLAN (Gateehead) had listened to all the speeches for and against the Bill, and while fullv appreciating the efforts of the Seoretary for the Colonies for the ameliora- tion of the condition of the working man, wanted to ask the right hon. gentleman whether he could guarantee employment to the men in the vicinity of the house they bought. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) He should like every working man to own his house, but under circumstances that would not beiantagonistic to his interest. Under this Bill the men who bought would be driven to submit to redactions of wages, and would ba brought to the condition of house-held serfs. (Cheers.) The way to treat the working classes was to give them good wages, and let them do with them what they liked. (Hear, hear.) This Bill would prove false and inoperative. (Hear, hear.) Mr MADDISON opposed the Bill, which he characterised so an insult to the class that needed help the most. THE DIVISION. The House divided, and the numbers were:- Jfor the amendment 69 Against 249 Majority 180 "are The amendment was thardo d. I The Bill was then read a second time.

MANNESMAN TUBE WORK8.

[No title]

,Duke of Devonshire at Presteign.…

SARDOU AND PINERO.

-"----.---------------WHOLESALE…

FALSE PRETENCES AT CILFYNYDD.

EX-MASTER MARINER IN TROUBLE.

A'UHAWA Y HORSE.

A LONDON FIRE.

----'_-----THE UNDER-SECRETARY…

RUSSIAN STUDENTS' AGITATION.…

rSOUTH WALLS NEWS. .,

ACCIDENT AT PORTHKERRY VIADUOT.

POLICE SEIZURES.

COMPENSATION ACT.

CHARGE OF CRUELTY AGAINST…