HC Deb 27 May 1850 vol 111 cc387-9

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."


would move, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. He did so for this reason—all the bonâ fide schemes for supplying the metropolis with water had been put off because the House was not in a condition to legislate, inasmuch as they were daily expecting some report from the Board of Health of some general scheme. This Bill did not propose to remedy the great defects of the existing systems of supply, but simply proposed to bolster up the existing companies, by diverting a large portion of the River Lee for the purpose of supplying the New River Company. It was supported on the false grounds of remedying the navigation of the River Lee, it being notorious that the River Lee, so far from not being in the position of affording sufficient accommodation, already furnished accommodation for three times the amount of traffic it could ever possibly have.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."


said, that only one out of the forty-seven clauses of the Bill related to the supply of water.


said, if that clause was struck out, he would withdraw his opposition.


contended that the objection to the one clause was the best reason for allowing the Bill to go before a Select Committee. He denied that it was a Bill for regulating the water supply; its great object was the improvement of the navigation.


said, the lowering of the bed of the river, and other improvements, would create a great surplus of pure river water, which the clause in question would empower the company to sell. It was in no respect a Bill for supplying the metropolis with water, like the Henley Bill, or the Watford Bill, to which reference had been made. The money received for the sale of the water would be applied to the improvement of the navigation. No ground whatever had been shown for interfering with the regular course pursued with private Bills. Should this Bill be carried in its present form, it would not at all interfere with any measures which the Sanitary Commissioners might adopt for the water supply of the metropolis.


saw no valid reason for opposing the second reading of this Bill. While improving the navigation of the Lee, it would give a better supply of water to the metropolis.


said, the Bill appeared to have come before the House under false pretences. Only a majority of two in a meeting of fifty trustees had agreed to promote this Bill; and of those present fifteen were ex officio trustees, and a great number took no active part in the business of the trust. The owners of mill property on the Lee complained that they would be seriously injured by the Bill in its present form. He should therefore second the Amendment.


, as one of the trustees, said, he should support the Bill. He denied that so large a number of ex officio trustees had been present at the meeting referred to.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read 2°, and committed, and referred to the Committee of Selection.