HC Deb 19 July 1866 vol 184 cc1137-43

(Mr. Milner Gibson, Mr. Monsell.)

[BILL 205.] COMMITTEE.

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 63 (Prohibition of sending Sewage &c. into River where not so sent at passing of Act).

MR. AYRTON

said, that that clause did not carry out what the metropolitan Members understood to have been the intention of the Committee upstairs—namely, that all sewage flowing into the Upper Thames might be stopped by the new Board of Conservancy, on their giving notice to do so; for, as he read the clause, all drains now in existence through which sewage flowed would continue to be legalized by the Bill.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, that the first clause regarded the future, and the second the present. He was at a loss to understand the objection of the hon. Gentleman. There were two ways of bringing the sewage in future into the Thames; one by making new sewers, and the other by using the existing ones; and the clause provided that the existing sewers should be stopped after notice.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, that the first of the two clauses prohibited for the future the conveyance of any new sewage into the Thames, while the second was intended to give power to the Conservators to stop all sewage at present flowing into the river. It having been pointed out that there was some ambiguity in the language of the 64th clause, be should propose additional words for the purpose of making it quite clear that power was given to stop the existing sewage.

MR. AYRTON

said, that upon that understanding he should be willing to allow the clause to pass.

MR. HENLEY

said, that taking the two clauses together, their effect would be to prevent the flow of sewage from any individual cottage or farm house into any tributary within three miles of the Thames. He thought that would operate as a hardship in many cases in which there was no nuisance whatever, and pointed out that in the case of the overflow of the river it was almost impossible to prevent the return water from carrying off a portion of the existing sewage. He hoped the clause would be modified.

MR. LOCKE

said, that it was obvious that the clauses applied to new sewage works. The Conservators were aware that some sewage now flowed into the river, and Clause 64 could not apply to sewers that were legalized and now in existence. He did not see why there should be any difference made in the case of those who lived higher up the Thames and those who had houses lower down. The main drainage system had been created at the cost of £4,000,000, and the restrictions which were to be made should apply equally to all.

MR. SHAW - LEFEVRE

said, this clause was much opposed by the town which he had the honour to represent.

SIR CHARLES RUSSELL

drew attention to the fact that the river which ran past Aldershot into the Thames received the drainage of the Camp, and yet water was taken from this river for the use of the Camp. He thought that the Government should at once cease to pollute the Thames in this way.

MR. HENLEY

pointed out that the proprietors of the small cottages and farm houses to which he referred could not possibly avail themselves of the main drainage system. The small amount of drainage issuing from those houses did not create any nuisance whatever, even in the tributaries into which they drained, much less in the Thames. He repeated, that unless there was some modification made in the clause great hardship would be created.

MR. LOCKE

said, if the existing cesspools were not deep enough they ought to be made deeper. At any rate, it would be a great nuisance if they were allowed to be emptied into the brooks.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 64 (Notice for Discontinuance of existing Sewerage Works).

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

moved the insertion, in the thirteenth line, after the word "case," of the words— Whether any such sewage or other matter aforesaid has or has not been so caused or suffered to flow or pass before the passing of this Act. It was desirable, he thought, that the principle should be laid down in the broadest manner, that the Conservators should have the power of putting a stop to all such nuisances as that to which the clause related. There was, at the same time, no reason why they should not exercise a discretion in those cases where the inconvenience to the individual whose drain might be closed by their order would be very great, while the nuisance of allowing it to continue open might be, as far as the public was concerned, very trifling. To introduce any further relaxations into the clause would be, he thought, greatly to mar its beneficial effect. A Bill would probably be introduced next year dealing with the powers of the Conservators below Staines, and it might be possible to have inserted in it words to meet the case of small occupiers.

MR. HENLEY

contended that the privilege of having drains in connection with their houses, unless a nuisance to the public was thus created, was as much the right of the small occupiers in question as any other which they possessed. Where a nuisance was proved to exist he was perfectly willing that it should be put an end to, but the case was entirely different where no injury to others was done. The result of the operations of the clause would be to drive people to make filter-beds, which would create pestilence in their immediate neighbourhood, while as large an amount of objectionable matter would be conveyed into the river as at present. The principle embodied in the clause was one, he might add, which the Government dare no more try to carry out in the North of England than they dare fly.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 65 to 67, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 68 (Right to prosecute to be in Conservators only).

MR. AYRTON

moved, as an Amendment, the insertion of words with the view of giving the Metropolitan Board of Works also the power of instituting a prosecution.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

had no objection to the Amendment. He did not see any object in the clause, inasmuch as he thought no one should be prevented from enforcing the Act; but if it was to be retained he thought the right to prosecute might be extended to "any local Board," as well as to the Metropolitan Board of Works.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, the object of confining the right of prosecution to the Conservators was to prevent malicious prosecutions and divided jurisdiction. The matter was one with which the Metropolitan Board of Works had nothing to do.

MR. YORKE

thought that either the clause ought to be omitted or the right to prosecute extended.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 69 to 76, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 77 (Collateral Security on Conservancy Fund).

MR. AYRTON

asked whether it was intended to give the Conservators unlimited borrowing powers?

MR. MILNER GIBSON

explained that it was not so intended. The Conservators might borrow from the Public Loan Commissioners, provided the Commissioners were satisfied of the security they offered.

MR. GLADSTONE

suggested that some clause should be added, either when the Report was brought up or when the Bill was re-committed, imposing some limit upon the borrowing powers of the Conservancy.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, that he would undertake to bring up a clause to limit the borrowing powers.

MR. CANDLISH

suggested that the clause should be postponed.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

could see no reason for postponing this clause, seeing that the amount the Conservators should be allowed to borrow could be discussed and determined afterwards.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 78 to 82, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 83 (Power for Conservators to redeem existing Debt).

MR. AYRTON

said, he did not know whether the construction he put upon the clause was correct. He understood that the tolls levied upon the shipping and steamboats at the port of London were to be applied to the liquidation of the debt of £88,000 contracted by the Commissioners.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

stated that this was what the framers of the Bill intended.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 84 (Clause S. Additional Payments to Conservators).

MR. AYRTON

observed, that the Commissioners ought not to have made the demand here stated, and he contended that the sum now paid to them was sufficient.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

explained that the additional money would not go to the present Commissioners, but to the five new Commissioners for the appointment of whom the Bill provided.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 85 (Clause T. Compensation for Loss of Emolument).

MR. AYRTON

asked how it was possible to give remuneration out of an insolvent undertaking, for unless the money came from without it would be impossible to do so. There had been no receipts, and nothing to do, yet those people who had brought the Thames into its present state wanted to be compensated for their mismanagement. It was the most impudent proposition he had ever known, and he could only account for it by considering that his right hon. Friend must have been in that state of good nature that he was sometimes seen in when he would give himself away to gratify the persons who asked.

MR. NEATE

said, that these gentlemen had done all that they could do to keep the Upper Thames in good order, and as they would lose their emoluments by this Bill they would be entitled to some compensation.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

thought it would be very unjust not to compensate those who had lost their offices.

SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID

did not think they had any claim to compensation, considering the way in which they performed their duties.

MR. LOCKE

was opposed to compensation in this instance.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

believed this clause was agreed to in Committee. There was great force in the argument of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

considered that when persons were deprived of their offices under circumstances like those presented by the present case, they had a right to have their claim for compensation considered. That was the general rule when persons holding offices for life were deprived of them.

MR. HENLEY

wished to know to whom the term "officers" applied. Would it comprehend lock-keepers?

MR. CHILDERS

thought it would be desirable to define the word "officers" in the interpretation clause.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

said, as there were only two officers—the clerk and the surveyor—it would be better to insert those words in the clause.

MR. NEATE

submitted that the word "officers" ought to include the lock-keepers, and that if compensation was given to the higher class of persons it ought to be given to the lower also.

Clause negatived.

Clauses 86 to 88 agreed to.

Clause 89 (Application of Capital).

Mr. AYRTON

had an Amendment on the paper and rose to move it, but before he had the opportunity of doing so,

The CHAIRMAN

had put the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill, which was carried in the affirmative.

MR. AYRTON

said, that it was the first time in his experience since he had been in the House that the Chairman had put the Question when a Member had risen to address the House for the purpose of moving an Amendment. It was extremely inconvenient.

THE CHAIRMAN

Did the hon. Gentleman move an Amendment?

MR. AYRTON

Yes; but the Question had been put, and there was no opportunity of my putting it.

MR. CHILDERS

moved a clause making it lawful for the Commissioners of the Treasury to inquire whether any and what compensation was due, and also to determine out of what fund such compensation should come?

New Clause (Treasury to determine compensation,)—(Mr. Childers,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

The Committee divided: — Ayes 62; Noes 24; Majority 38.

House resumed.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.