HC Deb 20 May 1879 vol 246 cc825-35

Order for Consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration."

COLONEL BERESFORD

, in moving, as an Amendment, that the Bill be considered upon this day five weeks, said, that his object in wishing to have the Bill postponed for that period was to secure that the measure should not be disposed of until the House had an opportunity of considering another Bill upon the same subject which was about to come before them. The Fivers Conservancy Bill, introduced by Her Majesty's Government, stood for second reading on the day to which he desired to have the consideration of the present Bill deferred. A further reason was that the House had not yet had an opportunity of considering the evidence taken before the Select Committee on the Thames River (Prevention of Floods) Bill. Indeed, it was not yet before the House, and would not, He believed, be in the hands of hon. Members before to-morrow. The object of the Bill was to deal with the incidence of taxation; and he wished to point out that, in all former cases, the whole of the riparian expenses had been paid out of the general rates, and not by the riparian owners. He was, therefore, at a loss to understand upon what grounds it was now proposed that some of the riparian owners of the City of Loudon should be mulcted in the expense of carrying out the instructions given by the Metropolitan Board of Works, fie had no desire to detain the House, especially as he believed that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. B. Williams) would second the Motion, and would explain the grounds upon which the present application was made he would simply move now that the consideration of the Bill be postponed for the period he had named.

MR. B. WILLIAMS

said, he rose with great pleasure to second the proposition of his hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Colonel Beresford), that the consideration of the Bill should be deferred until that day five weeks. He ventured to submit that there were very strong reasons why the consideration of the Bill should be postponed in the way suggested. The chief reason which he thought it was necessary for him to put before the House was that there was already in the House a Bill entitled "The Rivers Conservancy Bill," which had just come down from the House of Lords, and the second reading of which was fixed in this House for the 16th of June. Now, that Bill was based entirely on principles opposed to the principle of the Bill before the House, and he did not think it right, or conducive to the dignity of the House, that they should pass two Bills in the same Session, one of which was diametrically opposed to the principles of the other. Considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, perhaps the House would allow him, by one or two short observations, to explain the present position of legislation with regard to the subject. As hon. Members would be aware, the Bill now before the House was brought in with the object of preventing inundation by the River Thames within the Metropolitan area. That was an object which everyone would concur with; and the sole question for consideration was, what was the best way to carry it out? The Metropolitan Board of Works, in 1877, brought forward a Bill which was referred to a Select Committee of 11 Members, upon which his hon. Friend the Member for the Elgin Burghs (Mr. Grant Duff) sat as Chairman. After a long inquiry, that Committee reported in favour of imposing the charge for the construction of the necessary works upon the whole of the Metropolitan area. That was the result of a very careful investigation; but the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite—the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg)—and his Colleagues did not accept the decision of that Committee, and, accordingly, they withdrew the Bill in 1877, and introduced another Bill last year, and also introduced a Bill this year—the Bill which had just come down from the consideration of a Select Committee. Now, the two Bills which were introduced last year and this year were not based on the Report of the Committee of 1877, but were directly opposed to it. But a kind of compromise was suggested with reference to the incidence of taxation; and what the Committee suggested was this—that a portion of the expense should be borne by the Metropolitan area, and the other portion be borne by the District Boards, That compromise was founded on the idea that at the present moment the law imposed the liability upon the District Boards and the riparian owners to prevent inundation from rivers. He had no desire to weary the House by entering at length into the question. He only wished to make a few remarks, without raising any legal discussion on the point. He might, however, say this—that after carefully considering the matter, and with reference to the proper construction of the Metropolitan Management Act of 1855, following the authority of the well-known case of Hudson v. Tabor, which was decided by the Lord Chief Justice and his Colleagues, and affirmed upon an appeal, he freely asserted that there was no liability on the part of the riparian owners or the District Boards to prevent the inundation of rivers, as the law now stood. The Bill was based on the assumption that there was such a liability; and, after the investigation which had taken place, the House might be disposed to accept the decision of the Select Committee who had just reported, although it was not in accordance with the decision of the Select Committee of 1877. But if the House took that course, it would be in this difficulty. The Government were now promoting a Bill for the Conservancy of Rivers. It had been sent down to this House by the House of Lords, and it was proposed that it should be considered on the 16th of June. Now, what was the principle on which that measure was based? Was it based on the principle that the riparian owners and the District Boards were liable for the expense of the works necessary to prevent the inundation of rivers? No; it was based upon an entirely opposite principle, because it expressly provided, in a sub-section of Clause 11, that— No person shall, by virtue of this Act, be compelled to execute, at his own expense, any works which he would not have been compelled to execute if this Act had not been passed. That was entirely opposed to the principle involved in the Bill now before the House. The question now for the consideration of the House was, whether the House was going to commit itself to the principle of this private Bill before the principle involved in a public Bill had been thoroughly investigated and decided upon by the House? That was really the question. Was the Metropolitan Board of Works to have privileges given to it by this private Bill, which were denied by a public Act to every authority in England? What he ventured to suggest—and he made the sug- gestion not by way of defeating the passing of the Bill—was, that the House should not commit itself, until the proper time arrived, to any principle in regard to the prevention of the inundation of rivers; because, at the present moment, it had before it two separate and distinct Bills which wore sought to be passed into law—which were based on two inconsistent principles. He asked the House not to fix now a principle in regard to the Bill now before them, until they had full and ample opportunity of considering the principle involved in the measure, which Her Majesty's Government proposed to pass in regard to the conservancy of rivers. Under all these circumstances, he ventured to urge with respect, but, still, with some earnestness, the suggestion he desired to make, that the consideration of the Bill should be postponed until after they had had a discussion upon the public Bill. He, therefore, begged to second the Motion moved by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Southwark (Colonel Beresford).

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon Tuesday the 24th of June next."—(Colonel Beresford.)

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

SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG

did not think it was at all necessary to take up the time of the House in endeavouring to prove to them the necessity of the Bill which was now under their consideration. In fact, he might say that it was allowed, both by the Mover and the Seconder of the Amendment, to postpone the consideration of the Bill, that it was an important question, and one that ought to be speedily dealt with. The Mover of the Amendment, and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. B. Williams), who had just sat down, tried to found an argument for delay on the fact that Her Majesty's Government had brought a Bill down from the House of Lords—a Rivers Conservancy Bill—which dealt with floods in the various rivers of England. He was bound to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. B. Williams) that he (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) did not think the hon. and learned Gentle- man could have read the present Bill, or, if he had read it, he could not quite have understood the various clauses of it; because he (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) thought he was perfectly right in asserting that the Metropolis was expressly and absolutely excluded from its operation. Therefore, all the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and the hon. and gallant Member for South-wark (Colonel Beresford), which were founded on this assumption, at once fell to the ground. The hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen stated to the House that he did not wish to impede the progress of the Bill. But how could he hope to succeed in that object, when he proposed to postpone the consideration of the Bill for five weeks? The hon. and learned Gentleman must be perfectly aware that such a proposition must impede the progress of the Bill; because, if they postponed the consideration of it for five weeks, or until the Conservancy Bill could be considered, the Bill could not go through the House of Lords this Session, and all the time and money which had been expended upon it would be utterly lost. The argument, therefore, that the postponement of the Bill would not impede its further progress, entirely failed. And now, with regard to the facts of the case. The hon. and gallant Member for Southwark wished that the consideration of the Bill should be postponed. But he (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) would tell the House that the constituents whom the hon. and gallant Member represented, and who had petitioned against the Bill, every day received a copy of the evidence given before the Committee. Every day the hon. and gallant Member received two copies of the evidence—one for himself and another for his friends, so that they might specially study it; and if the hon. and gallant Member and his constituents had not done so, it was their own fault. Independently of that, the day after the Committee closed their labours a full copy of the evidence, and the speeches of counsel, and everything relating to the Bill, was placed in the Library of the House by the special direction of the Chairman of the Committee, and the Librarian who had charge of them would enable any hon. Member to peruse them who thought fit to do so. Under all these circumstances, he cer- tainly thought the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark, and the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen, had failed to lay before the House any satisfactory reason why the progress of the Bill should be further delayed.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he was anxious to say one or two words before the House came to a decision upon the Bill. He had been Chairman of the Select Committee, and thoroughly agreed with the decision of the Committee, although he never was called upon to vote. Indeed, no point ever got anywhere near the casting-vote of the Chairman. He trusted that the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark (Colonel Beresford) would not ask the House to divide upon the Bill. The hon. and gallant Member said he wished to have the consideration of the Bill postponed for five weeks. He had better have said at once for six months, because the postponement of it for five weeks would make it utterly impossible to carry it during the present Session. The ground on which the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark put the matter, and upon which he was supported by the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen, was this—that a Bill was coming, or had come, that had not yet been considered in regard to the conservancy of rivers generally. Well, but the Committee appointed by the House of Commons were told to consider the question of the incidence of taxation for the River Thames; and he thought he might say something on behalf of the general position of Committees of the House of Commons—namely, that the decision of such Committees was not to be overruled when it had been delivered on a subject specially referred to them, because there happened to come down, after their decision, a Bill from the House of Lords, which was supposed to deal with the same question. The Bill, however, really did not deal with the question it was supposed to deal with. The Bill which had come down from the House of Lords related to the question of the conservancy of rivers generally; but, as the hon. and gallant Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) had stated, the promoters of that measure—who were, he believed, Her Majesty's Government—were perfectly aware of the fact that the position of the River Thames was exceptional, and had, therefore, excepted the Thames from the operation of the Bill. The Select Committee upstairs found, when they came to consider the question, that the position of the Thames was very exceptional; and, after having gone carefully into all the questions brought under their notice, the Committee came to the conclusion that they ought to support the Bill. It was true, to some extent, that the present measure was not in accordance with the resolution of the previous Committee; but the Bill was presented before the Committee upstairs in a somewhat different manner. He did not accept the interpretation of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen, that this was a compromise—that the Metropolitan Board of Works was to pay part of the cost, and the owners the other part. If his hon. and learned Friend would read the Bill, he would find that the Metropolitan Board did not pay any part of the cost of constructing the necessary works. It was not requisite that he should detain the House by entering into the general merits of the question; but he believed it would be found that the expense of carrying out the works would be much less than was supposed. That was the conclusion at which the Committee arrived after hearing the evidence. It was estimated that £55,000 would cover the cost-—£55,000 for the protection of the river from floods—and there was no serious challenge before the Committee of that estimate of the cost. The Committee also ascertained this fact—that at least three-fifths, and probably more, of the owners of property, both in regard to numbers and the length of frontage, had already executed all the works that were necessary. That, he thought, placed the matter upon a very different footing than it would occupy if all the works had now to be entered upon. The Select Committee thoroughly considered the case of the Petition presented from the constituents of the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark (Colonel Beresford); and, without giving any opinion whether the cost would ruin the Metropolis, they were of opinion that, at any rate, there were good grounds for supposing that it would not. They had clear evidence before them that a great mistake was made by the parties who were interested in opposing the Bill. Perhaps the House would allow him to give an illustration. There were wharfingers who strenuously opposed the previous Bill. They not only opposed by Petition, as his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Southwark did, but they appeared by counsel, which he did not. They thought that the Bill was a very dangerous measure. Since then they had done all the works that were necessary themselves, and the expense of constructing them turned out to be £60; while the expense they had previously incurred in opposing the Bill amounted to £400. There was another opponent who was not at all convinced about the matter, and his counsel came before the Committee in hot haste, because he thought it might be necessary to make a change in connection with his works. But, on inquiring what the cost of the works would be, he found out that it would only amount to £8. In that way the real facts in regard to the expense and everything else came overpoweringly before the Committee. They found that it was necessary the Thames should be guarded against floods; and they found, further, that the owners were people who, generally speaking, gained their livelihood upon the Thames. It was not unreasonable, they thought, to ask Parliament to oblige their owners to prevent the property of other people from being injured by the overflowing of the Thames; and it was found that the expense of constructing the necessary works was very slight, and much cheaper than anybody expected—and cheaper, also, if done by the owners than by anybody else. That being so, it appeared to the Committee that the present Bill was the one they ought to support. He therefore trusted, if his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Southwark put the House to the trouble of a Division, which he hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would not do, that the House would reject the Amendment. To postpone the consideration of the Bill, as now suggested, would be simply to defeat it altogether.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

expressed a hope that it would not be necessary to put the House to the trouble of a Division on the present occasion. The question had already, and only recently, been fully and carefully considered by a Select Committee upstairs; and the right hon. Gentleman who presided over the deliberations of the Committee told them that the conclusions arrived at were unanimous. An important element in the case was the fact that, in the case of the great majority of the owners, the works necessary to prevent floods had already been voluntarily carried out at their own expense. Not only was this the case, but it was found that the works could be executed at a comparatively trifling cost. The case, indeed, stood upon a very different footing from that which it would have occupied if they had had to deal de novo with the whole of the large area in question. He said this without the least prejudice. If the plan of the Bill had involved the construction of works involving the whole river frontage of the Metropolis, his own opinion would have been against the particular scheme proposed. But that was not the case; and the only question raised by his hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Amendment was, that before the Bill passed an opportunity should be afforded for considering the Government Bill which had come down from the House of Lords in regard to the Conservancy of Rivers. It was perfectly true that the Rivers Bill contained provisions for the prevention of floods; but the River Thames, which was already under the management of a body of Conservators, had been specially exempted from the operations of the Government Bill. He was far from saying that the Act for the Conservancy of the Thames did not require to be amended. On the contrary, he thought it did; but the case against his hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment was a strong one, because not only the Thames Conservancy Board and its functions were specially exempted from the operation of the present Bill, but there was no absolute power taken even in the general measure to override the acts of the Conservancy Boards, even in regard to other rivers where they were doing their work properly. Under the Conservancy Act, it might be, and probably was the case, that the frontagers and occupiers of property had charges placed on them which the Government measure did not impose. He did not think it would be right for every river in England to be placed under the same arrangements by the operation of a general measure. That was not already the case; and it did not at all follow from the fact that a general measure was considered necessary, that other conservancy bodies would be obliged to conform to the general provisions of that measure.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he would also make an appeal to his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Southwark (Colonel Beresford) not to divide the House. He did so, not on the same ground as the other speakers, but as one who agreed with his hon. Friend. He thought it would be better not to divide in opposition to the decision of the Select Committee. It was quite clear that it would be of no use to divide the House; and he hoped, therefore, that his hon. and gallant Friend would not do so. He had only one other remark to make. His right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee (Mr. W. E. Forster) had given a fair account of the matter, except in one single respect. In answer to the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. B. Williams), the right hon. Gentleman referred to the case of Hudson v. Tabor. He thought his right hon. Friend was wrong in saying that that case did not apply to the Metropolis. [Mr. W. E. Forster said, it was not certain that it did.] He would remark that that question was not really gone into by the Committee; and certainly, in the opinion of some of the Members of the Committee, the case of Hudson v. Tabor clearly bore upon the matter.

COLONEL BERESFORD

said, that, in accordance with the general wish of the House, he would not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, considered; to be read the third time.

Forward to