CHELTENHAM AND GLOCESTERSHIRE WATER BILL—(by Order.) (Hansard, 21 February 1865)

§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGU
said, he rose to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. The object of the Bill was to divert 1,000,000 gallons of water daily from the Thames, and take it into the valley of the Severn. This would seriously affect the health, 491 cleanliness, and comforts of all the towns and villages, including the metropolis, which were supplied by the Thames. They should be warned by the extent to which they had allowed the evil to grow up in other quarters. The supply of water to the town of Cheltenham was entirely insufficient, and it was now sought to obtain an additional supply from the springs which fed the Churn, which, in its turn, ran into the Thames. When a town within the limits of the water shed of the Thames took water from the river and afterwards returned it, though in a polluted state, the volume of water in the stream was not diminished. In this instance, however, Cheltenham proposed to take 1,000,000 gallons of pure water daily from the sources of the Thames and not to return a drop of it. The consequences of that would be that the volume and scouring power of the stream being diminished, shoals and flats would be created, and the proportion of sewage to pure water would be seriously increased. For these reasons, although he did not wish to be unfair to the people of Cheltenham, who it was said obtained only about four gallons of water per head per day, and who complained that the Severn was so foul that they could not draw a supply from it, he felt it his duty to move that the Bill should be read a second time that day six months.

§ MR. NEATE,
in seconding the Motion, said, that although he was not instructed by his constituents to oppose the Bill, which probably arose from their not being aware of its importance, he was informed that the University authorities at Oxford greatly objected to it on the ground that it would interfere with the supply of pure water to that city. The Thames Conservancy Board had petitioned against the Bill, and he had no doubt that a similar step would have been taken by the Thames Navigation Commissioners had it not been for the circumstance that they were in a state of bankruptcy, and had, in fact, thrown up their trust. The time was coming when towns and landed proprietors must look to other sources than rivers for their supply of water, and when it would be necessary to create in different parts of the country large reservoirs to retain the rain and winter water.

§ MR. DODSON
said, he must admit that 492 the Bill was in many respects one of a peculiar character, inasmuch as it took extensive powers of water supply over a large area of ground and for a numerous population. The noble Lord (Lord Robert Montagu) had urged that it would deprive the Thames of a considerable amount of its water supply, and the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate) had taken a similar line, but these statements were disputed by the promoters of the Bill, who denied that the Thames, if at all, would be seriously affected. They asserted that the water which they proposed to abstract from that river would be infinitesimal in quantity, and in no way prejudicial to the towns and villages along its course. With such diametrically opposite statements before them he thought that the best course would be to pass the Bill on to the Committee, where alone all the facts of the case could be carefully investigated.

§ MR. HUTT
said, that the Bill involved some very important questions which probably had hitherto been overlooked by the Legislature—namely, whether a commercial country should be permitted to abstract from its streams and rivers any quantity of water that might be deemed necessary for commercial purposes, and without providing any compensating supply to those who were interested in the preservation of the water. He thought that such powers should never be given lightly or gratuitously to any parties or persons whatever. But of this he was especially convinced, that the House would make a great mistake if, in the present condition of our rivers and streams, it allowed such powers to be taken. The present condition of our rivers and streams was a matter for very serious consideration, and perhaps had not been sufficiently looked after by them whose duty it was to guard and foster the cleanliness and wellbeing of the people. The comforts and health of our population would be seriously compromised if all persons who were desirous of establishing water companies should be permitted to divert large portions of our water supply from the natural water courses of the country. Under these circumstances, he had felt very much disposed to support the Motion of the noble Lord, but having heard the reasons given by his hon. Friend the Chairman of Committees, perhaps the better course would be to send the Bill to the Committee, whose Members having heard the opinions of the House would no doubt give the main question their most serious consideration.

§ SIR GEORGE BOWYER
said, as a Member of the defunct Thames Navigation Commission, there was no doubt that if that body had not been in the unfortunate condition which had been described by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate) it would have petitioned against this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Hutt) had given reasons which must have convinced every one that this Bill ought not to be allowed to proceed; but, unfortunately, he had failed to convince himself. As to the reasons given by the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Dodson) that the facts were controverted, and that the quantity of water to be taken from the Thames would be infinitesimal, he (Sir George Bowyer) replied that he did not understand that the promoters denied that they were about to take 1,000,000 gallons of water a day from the Thames; he did not think that such a quantity could be treated as an infinitesimal one, and if it was infinitesimal, it could do no good to the people of Cheltenham. The state of the river Thames was such that no water, however small the quantity, ought to be abstracted from it, and therefore the best thing that the House could do would be to reject the Bill.

MR. J. J. POWELL
said, that the bankruptcy of the Thames Navigation Commission, although a reason why it should not engage in an opposition before a Committee, was none why it should not petition against this Bill; and, therefore, in the absence of any petition from that body, he had a right to assume that they did not seriously object to it. It was important that the House should understand the real state of this question. Cheltenham, a town with something like 40,000 or 50,000 inhabitants, had for years been suffering severely from the want of a proper supply of water, and two schemes had been suggested for supplying the deficiency. One, which was put forward by the old water company, was to take the water from the river Severn; but the state of that river was such as to render any other measure preferable to this. The Severn had become the sewer of the Midland district, and drained an area of not less than 6,000 square miles, with a population of 1,000,000. The cities of Glocester and Worcester, Tewkesbury, Kidderminster, Bewdley, Shrewsbury, and other places, drained into it; dye works, tan works, and works of all descriptions poured their abominations into the stream, and the con- 494 sequence was that salmon and other fish were often found floating in it, either sick or dead. One proposal was to take this water and give it to the inhabitants of Cheltenham, and certainly if any other scheme could be suggested it deserved consideration. Another scheme had been proposed, and it was to take from the hills which surrounded Cheltenham a portion of the water which was found there in great abundance and allow it to flow into the town. What possible harm could that do to any one? The springs were on the ground of the promoters, who were, of course, anxious that these works should be carried out; and what harm could this measure do to the Lambeth Water Company, whose petition had been presented by the noble Lord (Lord Robert Montagu)? The springs yielded at present, he was informed, 166 cubic feet of water per minute, or about l,500,000gallons daily; of which 1,000,000 now found its way into the Thames. Even if this quantity were abstracted by the Bill the consequence would be merely infinitesimal. At Lechlade there flowed into the Thames from 43,000,000 to 48,000,000, and at Staines from 350,000,000 to 400,000,000 gallons of water daily; and, therefore, in what possible manner could the Thames or the Lambeth Water Company be injured by taking 1,000,000, gallons a day to supply the necessary and immediate wants of the people of Cheltenham? The noble Lord said they were about to drain the Thames, but he might as well accuse them of setting fire to it. The Vice President of the Board of Trade intimated that private companies ought not to be allowed to take water for the supply of towns from public springs; but where else were they to look for it? The principle of permitting such application of springs had already been recognized and acted upon in the case of Swansea and in that of Liverpool. He submitted that, however strong a case the noble Lord and those who thought with him might make out before a Committee, this was not a matter which ought to be disposed of without full and complete inquiry, of the necessity for which a striking proof was to be found in the incorrectness of some of the statements contained in the petition presented by the noble Lord.

MR. HENLEY
said, his constituents took a considerable interest in this matter. The Bill professed to take the Thames water into the Severn valley. The metropolis had been compelled to pay 495 £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 to get rid of its sewage. Oxford, Reading, Abingdon, and other towns were drained into the Thames. No man could tell how long the natural disinfecting processes furnished by the earth, weeds, and fish, would keep the water sweet down to Teddington, whence we obtained our drinking water. Occasionally even now the water came to Teddington in a state unfit for use. It was said that the water proposed to be taken by this Bill was infinitesimal in quantity. But it was 1,000,000 gallons a day; and if this were allowed, another town would make a similar request, and so on till the river was spoiled. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Trade had laid down principles so Bound that he (Mr. Henley) could not understand how he could support the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had stated, with the greatest truth, that the question of the pollution of streams was one that forced itself on the public attention, and one that must be dealt with, although it was difficult to find a remedy for the evil; and, under these circumstances, the House ought not to permit such a step as this, which might materially affect the whole of the valley of the Thames. If the Bill got upstairs, there would be no one to protect the interests of the public. He would, therefore, vote against the second reading of the Bill.

§ COLONEL KINGSCOTE
said, the inhabitants of Cheltenham were all but deprived of water. There were two schemes now before the House for giving them a supply, one from the Severn, the other from the Thames. Cheltenham lay close to the hills in which rose springs, some of which were said to be the source of the Thames; but it was a mistake to suppose that the large quantity of water mentioned would be abstracted from the Thames, for there were springs from which a supply might be derived without touching the Thames at all, as everybody acquainted with the position of Cheltenham must be aware. He hoped, therefore, the House would allow the Bill to be sent to a Select Committee.