HC Deb 23 May 1879 vol 246 cc1134-5

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time."—(Sir James M'Garel-Hogg.)


said, he wished to make a few remarks before the Bill passed, in order to point out the unjust mode in which many persons would be affected by the measure. He believed there was not an instance in the records of the Statutes passed by the House of the riparian owners being saddled with the expense of works necessary to prevent floods. Even the Bill just introduced by the Government—the Rivers Conservancy Bill—went upon the old lines; but the Metropolitan Board of Works, in the present Bill, desired to take that part of the Thames which passed through the Metropolis out of the hands of the Conservancy Board. For his own part, he failed to see why the Committee upon this Bill should have reported in favour of the riparian owners, being differently dealt with under this Bill from riparian owners in other localities. They must have known then that in the Metropolis the riparian owners were already mulcted in very large general rates. As a riparian owner himself, he contributed largely towards the funds of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and he thought it unfair that he should be saddled with additional expense by the present Bill. He wished to remind the House that in 1877 a Committee sat on a Bill similar to the present, and by a decided majority—he believed by 4 to 2—they threw out the measure. Last year the hon. and gallant Member the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) made several efforts to bring in a Bill. He failed; and now what was it that he did?


wished to point out to the hon. and gallant Member that if he had any opposition to offer to the Bill the Motion for the third reading must be deferred.


said, it would be useless for him to oppose the third reading, and he was not going to do so; but he wished simply to explain to the House the reasons which had induced him to resist its progress. He was of opinion that it involved unjust legislation, and he looked upon it as having been introduced by an irresponsible Board.

Motion agreed to.

(Prince of Wales's Consent, as Duke of Cornwall, signified.)

Bill read the third time, and passed.

Forward to