[BILL 204.] CONSIDERATION. (Hansard, 9 August 1879)

§ SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG
Perhaps the House, considering the lateness of the Session, will now allow the Bill to be read a third time.

MR. C. BECKETT-DENISON
I should like to make one observation, as this is the last opportunity which the procedure of the House will allow, and that is to remind my hon. and gallant Friend who has charge of the Bill that there is a process now going on, as is perfectly well known to all those who take an interest in these matters, whereby the Water Companies and Gas Companies of London—I will not say whether within their powers, or by a straining of their powers—are raising the value of their property by ways perfectly unjustifiable, their sole object being to increase the amount of compensation which they will have to receive whenever the question shall again arise of the Metropolitan Board of Works becoming the absolute owners of these undertakings. I mention this in public, because it is forced upon the attention of those who have to deal with these matters in connection with public institutions.

§ MR. MONK
Before the Bill is read a third time, I wish to state that though it has on two occasions been under discussion, it has never boon discussed till between 2 and 3 o'clock in the morning; and, therefore, the ratepayers of the Metropolis really know nothing of what has occurred. They know it has been brought in, and they will know to-morrow that it has been passed; bat that is all. The ratepayers of the Metropolis take a very great interest in the 651 Bill; they have petitioned the House against it; and the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Liverymen of the City have also held a Court and petitioned against the Bill, and they have stated that the conduct of the Metropolitan Board of Works in expending the money of the ratepayers in the promotion of Bills in Parliament, against the express wishes of the citizen ratepayers, is most unjustifiable. Not only have they said that, but they have stated what is equally true—that the Metropolitan Board of Works exceeded their statutory powers in promoting these Bills. There is no one in this House or out of it, I am sure, who is not anxious that there should be a good supply of water for the Metropolis, and I am perfectly certain that the Metropolitan Board of Works brought forward these Bills in good faith; but anyone who will read the Acts, and especially the principal amending Act—19 & 20 Vict. c. 112—will see that the Metropolitan Board of Works had no power to promote a Bill for the water supply of the Metropolis, or for purchasing the existing Water Companies' works. By having done so, and by having expended a large sum of money in preliminary and other expenses, the Board of Works have placed themselves in a very awkward position. They have come before Parliament, and have come to ask to be allowed to pay this sum of £15,000 or £16,000 which they have incurred in preliminary expenses. Well, having admitted their fault, as they have done in the Amendments which were inserted in the Bill last night, the House has consented to pass this measure, and, therefore, I shall offer no opposition to my hon. and gallant Friend taking the last stage of the Bill on this occasion; but I think it right that it should be known that the Bill which leaves this House is not the Bill which came into this House—that Parliament, having decided that the members of the Metropolitan Board should not be called upon personally to pay the costs which they and my hon. and gallant Friend incurred, those costs will now fall upon the ratepayers. But my hon. and gallant Friend has given a pledge to this House, at the instance of the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland), that he will bring in no more Bills of this nature, or of a nature to impose further bur- 652 dens upon the ratepayers, without first consulting the Government.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
I wish to say that I think the position of the Metropolitan Board is a very hard one. They are not like any other ordinary local authority—they are not able to bring in a Bill, and to treat it as a Private Bill, and get it referred at once to a Select Committee upstairs; but their Bills must be Public Bills, and the consequence is that any Member may, by a Notice of opposition, prevent their discussion or progress. In the case of any other local authority this would have been a Private Bill, and would have been discussed at the commencement, instead of at the end, of a Sitting; and the question would probably then have been referred to a Select Committee. The Metropolitan Board are in this difficulty—that their Bills are Public Bills. I very much regret that the Chairman of the Board should have given a pledge to a private Member not to introduce the Bill again without the consent of the Government; and I venture to question whether he was justified, in his public capacity, in giving that pledge. No private Member has a right to ask the Chairman to give a public pledge that he would not undertake a certain course without the consent of the Government. I regret that the Chairman gave that pledge, for I think that his position as Chairman of the Metropolitan Board makes him responsible to the whole House, and not to any individual Member. If he thinks it is his duty, as representing the Board, to deal with the question of water supply, the matter should not be made dependent on the will of a private Member.

§ SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG
I thank my hon. Friend for his kindness to the Board. Ever since I occupied the position I now fill, many and many a Session have I brought in Bills, and fought against the difficulties mentioned by my hon. Friend, and I have watched for a whole Session without being able to bring them on at all. As to the pledge I gave to the hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland), I am glad to be able to point out that I did not give that pledge without consultation with my Colleagues; I had last autumn brought the question of the water supply of the Metropolis before Her Majesty's Go- 653 vernment. I went myself and asked Her Majesty's Government whether they would assist us in bringing in a Bill for the purchase of the Water Companies; but they did not see their way to give that pledge. When I was asked by the hon. Member for Midhurst I consulted my Colleagues, and they said they thought that, considering we could not get a Bill without the aid of the Government, or unless Parliament would kindly put the question on a proper basis, I might give such an undertaking not to bring in a Bill without the consent of the Government. As to the observations which have been made by the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. C. Beckett-Denison), we have had many complaints as to the conduct of the Water Companies; we are fully alive to the matter, and we are anxious to get rid of the difficulties in our way. I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) for removing his opposition; but as to the Petitions sent in against this Bill I would say that, of the two sent in from the City, one was only signed by 18 persons resident in the City.

§ SIR ANDREW LUSK
The Aldermen never do meet in Common Hall. I hope the hon. and gallant Member will be able to bring in another Bill next Session for giving us a better water supply, and that he will prove more successful with it.

§ MR. MONK
I may point out that I hold in my hand an advertisement, signed "Monckton," which says— At a meeting and assembly of the Metropolitan Aldermen and Liveries of the several Companies of London in Common Hall assembled on the 24th Juno 1879, it was resolved to oppose this Bill.

§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCK
I hope the Government will give their careful consideration to this question of water supply during the Recess. The question is most important, not only as regards the quantity, but also the quality, of the water supplied.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
I may mention that the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) has, at my request, agreed to take Wednesday next for the discussion of his Motion on the Metropolitan Water Supply.