View report page

115
17,529. At all events Mr. Ross moved the adjournment of this
question and the reference back to the Committee, did he not?—
I think not.
17,530. He moved the rejection of the clause, did he not ?-
I think, if my memory serves me rightly, that when the regulations
first came up it was Mr. Brighty, a member of the Sanitary
Committee, who moved the reference back.
17,531. I am taking the statement from Mr. Jennings, who says
that Mr. Ross moved it?—It was Mr. Brighty who moved that it
be referred back for further consideration, and that in the meantime
the clerk obtain information as to what other parishes
were doing.
17,532. But when it came back it was Mr. Ross who moved the
rejection of the clause, was it not?—The rejection of one
particular clause. That one clause having been rejected no
further steps have since been taken.
17,533. But you are not aware that that has changed Mr. Ross
opinion as to the desirability of having such regulations; you do
not think that Mr. Ross is in favour of them?—Probabty not
unless they are somewhat modified. I think he was like some of
the other members and thought that the regulations were rather
too inquisitorial.
17,534. Do you think that Mr. Ross, owning this large
amount of doubtful property and being interested in other doubtful
property as rent collector, both in Clerkenwell and in other
parishes, would be likely to be very friendly to regulations of this
kind?—I do not see any reason why he should be averse to them,
if they were of such a character as would not be objectionable in
certain particulars, but some of the regulations appear to be of
rather too inquisitorial a character.
17,535. Mr. Broadhurst.—What was that clause?—Unfortunately
I have not a copy in my hands, I forgot to put it in my
pocket; but I think it was the clause with regard to houses let
out in tenements and occupied by more than one family; that
all houses, two thirds of which were occupied by lodgers, should
be included; all houses let out entirely in tenements, where the
landlord was not residing on the premises; and all property not
exceeding £20 rateable value under the Assessment Act of 1869.
17,536. The Chairman.—All property not exceeding £20 in
value, provided that it was occupied by lodgers?—No; all
property.
17,537. But the regulations only apply to houses let out in
lodgings?—Or occupied by more than one family.
17,538. But you said all property under 20l.; it would not