View report page

143
I should say that ho would bo decidedly to blame. But then
there is another side to even that question, and that is how
far the tenants encourage an owner to do what you seem to
shadow forth that they ought to do, and whether the owners
are not too often discouraged by the conduct of their tenants.
17,753. I fear that we have had very little evidence of their
doing too much, and of the tenants not appreciating it. However,
you admit all I want, namely, that a man who is guiltily
aware of the condition of property of this kind, and does not
take steps to improve it, is not a fit man to take part in the
parish affairs; is that so?—It is all a question of degree; it is
a question whether the neglect amounts to guilt or not. It is
all a matter of opinion. One man may go into a house and say,
"This house requires doing up from top to bottom; "another
may be of a very different opinion, and may say, "This will last
"for another six months or twelve months before it requires
"doing up." This is all a matter of opinion, and I could not
pronounce upon it positively.
17,754. The question whether the room is in good repair or
in bad repair does not affect the fact of there being more persons
in one room than any decent owner of property would like to see
crowded into his property ?—No.
17,755. You said that Mr. Ross objected to a clause in the
proposed regulations; is it not a fact, from your general description
of the clause, that this was the special clause that would,
above all others, affect the class of property owned by Mr.
Ross, Mr. Hill, Mr. Ball, and others?—Yes, if you say "others."
17,756. The other 12 or 14?-I rather object to answer a
question applying to this man or that man or the other. If you
will put the question with reference to the class of property of
which there is a good deal more than is held by Mr. Hill, or Mr.
Ball, or Mr. Ross, then I will deal with it, but I cannot be made
to cast a slur on this or that member of the Yestry when they
are no more guilty than are owners of the same class of property,
perhaps nearly all over the parish.
17,757. I have only been led to mentioning their names, because
their names have been very prominent?—I am aware that
their names have been made very prominent elsewhere, but I
object to being made the medium of making them prominent.
17,758. This particular clause which was objected to was the
very clause which would have affected this class of property,
was it not?—The clause was open to modification, and they
might have accepted the class with modification, but no modification
was ever proposed. The clause was moved for adoption,
but on being put to the vote its adoption was negatived. Nothing