Second report of Her Majesty's Commissioners for inquiring into the housing of the working classses : Scotland.
- Great Britain. Royal Commission on Housing of the Working Classes
- Date:
- 1885
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: Second report of Her Majesty's Commissioners for inquiring into the housing of the working classses : Scotland. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service. The original may be consulted at London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service.
88/352
![3L: J. E. Kmmy, L.R.C.r., L.A. 36 May 1885. whisky or other strong liquor on an empty stomach it flies to his head immediately, and the depressed con- ditions under which the people live provoke them to drink in the mornings, especially when a man perhaps cannot taste ordinary food ; and at such times there is generally a tendency in the human race, and in other animals too, to take something very stimulating. Some fly to tea, and tea is, I believe, a potent cause of ill health from the way in which it is drunk; others fly to something much stronger than tea, and although I have a strong objection to alcoholic liquors both by training and by experience and inclination, I have no doubt that if I had to live in the depressed con- ditions in which the poor of tliis country live, I too should become a drunkard. 23.210. {Mr. Lyulph Stanley.) I understood you to express the opinion that where the ownership of a property is divided between two persons, the life tenant and the person in succession to him, subject to tliose two interests, the property should belong to the municipality ?—I do not say in all cases, but I say that it should in many cases where the public good seems to <lemand it. 23.211. Any property which the municipality wish for ?—Not which they wish for, but which they find on inquiry it is necessary to take. 23.212. Then are they to be the judges ?—Yes. 23.213. Then any property which the municipal authority, after inquiry, find they need, they are to be .allowed to take sulyect to those two interests, that of the life tenant, and that of the remainder man ?— Yes. 23.214. Supposing those two interests are united in one person, and the man in possession is the owner in fee, would you then say that on his death the property should belong to the municipality?—Under such conditions as T have already predicated. 23.215. That is to say, where the municipality find they need it ?—Where the municipality find they need it for the public good. I am of course aware that that is a veiy radical proposal indeed. 23.216. Then it comes to this, that subject to the determination of the life interest of the first owner in fee, the municipality should have the power to take, without compensation, any property which, after inquiry, in their judgment they need ?—I think so, where it is clearly for the public advantage. 23.217. Would you apply that to any purpose, either to the housing of the poor or to the making of recreation grounds or to the making of new streets ? —I would apply it to all purposes directly for the public good. 23.218. Whether for new streets or recreation grounds or cemeteries or for any other public pur- poses ?—Anything for the public good. 23.219. {Sir Richard Cross.) A,nything which in the opinion of the municipality was for the public good ?—Exactly so ; provided always, that the body so dealing with it are representative in character. 23.220. {Mr. Lyulph Stanley.) Then when you got outside of a municipal body you would give that power to the rural local authorities ?—Quite so. 23.221. And therefore although you take the Pem- broke property as an illustration, that would be ir- relevant ; you do not care what the origin of the ownership was, you are content with the fact that the municipality wants the property ?—I think that where people acquire property by purchase there might be some limitation to it, but I am not prepared to say what limitation I would put to it. I would state it as a general proposition which may have exceptions. 23.222. And you look forward, you say, to diminish- The witness ing the disease and death rates in towns, and generally to improving the condition of the poor in this country through the establishment of a popular representative local authoriry which should be able to develope manufactures ?—Yes, and to develope the resources of the country generally, tiiat is to say, which should govern the country for the benefit of the people. 23.223. But I think you mentioned the develop- ment of manufactures ?—I mentioned that as one special cause, inasmuch as it is an obviously present cause with us. There are no real manufactures in the country. 23.224. Would that development of manufactures be effected by means of protective duties ?—It might be done by bounties, not by protective duties. 23.225. By subsidies ?—By subsidies. 23.226. Would those subsidies be raised by taxes or by taxing the land ?—I would look to the land as the source from which all these 1)enefits would be de- veloped, but whether by a tax on land or by some other means of taxation I am not prepared to say. 23.227. I suppose in lands you include houses built upon land?—To a limited extent, yes. The house, in my opinion, differs considerably from the land. 23.228. But in proposing to take urban property you proposed to take it with all that stood upon it ?— No, I would except the house property which was in the possession of those who actually built it, or their successors in title. 23.229. Of course every house is the property either of the person who built it or of his successor in title, and that limitation of yours would practically exclude all houses ?—Very nearly so. Every house must, as you say, be owned either by the actual erector or by his successor in title. 23.230. Then that would rather limit your original proposition, and what you Avould aim to take would be not the whole value of the property, but either the ascertained or the conjectural ground rent ?—I would take the ground principally, but it might be necessary to take the house as well. 23.231. But you would recognise the principle of compensation for houses ?—I would compensate for houses. 23.232. Would you allow the municipality or the local authority when once it had acquired the land to alienate it for a valuable consideration ?—Not to alienate it from any public purposes ; I would enable them to give a limited ownership, the benefit of wliich would be sent into a public channel. If they took land for given purposes, say for the clearing of an area and the erection of dwellings thereon, and making re- creation grounds and schools, and so on, and if they had a surplus of land which they could not use them- selves for that purpose they might grant leases for limited terms to peojde for erecting manufactories or other things, and allow private enterprise to be de- veloped iu that way ; but I would not allow them to entirely alienate the property. 23.233. Always keeping the ownership of the fee in their own hands ?—Yes. 23.234. And the profit of what we may call the ground ?—The profit to be always devoted to public purposes. 23.235. Then you are in favour of what is po])ularly known as the rrationalizatiou of the larrd ?—To a certain exterrt, I am. 23.236. You hold Mr. Davitt's viewh ? — Mr. Davitt's views and Mr. George's views, so far at least as tirey r'clate to matters having in view some un- doubted public advantage. withdrew. The Uev. IIobert Conlan and the Rev. Abraham Plunkett examined. 23,237. {Mr. Gray to the Rev. Robert Conlan.) th.at parish ?—Ther-e arc about 48,000 inhabitants in ou'are the administrator of the cathedral parisli ?— the parisli belonging to our Coombc Union. It. Conlan, Rev. A. Plnnkett. You Yes. 23,239. You have had a vcrycousidorablc experience 23,238. Wiiat number of inhabitants arc there in in that parish, I believe ?—lliave had about five years](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b24398329_0088.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
