SECOND READING. (Hansard, 29 June 1880)

HC Deb 29 June 1880 vol 253 cc1109-17 1109

§ Order for Second Reading read.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

§ MR. M. BROOKS
, in rising to move that the Bill be read a second time upon that day three months, said, he wished to offer a few observations to the House. The township of Rathmines and Rathgar embraced a very large and flourishing district in the immediate neighbourhood of the City of Dublin. The promoters of the present Bill proposed to obtain an independent supply of water, the present supply being professedly inadequate and impure. It was proposed to do this at the cost of about £100,000, and he opposed their being allowed to obtain the powers asked for, because the City of Dublin already possessed a scheme called the "Vartry Water Scheme," which was admitted to be the finest and best public supply of water that existed anywhere in the world. Now, this water supply lay at the very door of Rathmines and. Rathgar, and there were no engineering difficulties to prevent them from participating in the Vartry supply. But there was a fear on the part of Rathmines and Rathgar, that if they obtained their supply of water from the Dublin source, the feeling at present existing in the public mind that Rathmines and Rathgar with the surrounding townships should be amalgamated with the City of Dublin would be thereby encouraged, and that eventually the amalgamation would be carried out, greatly to the advantage of the City of Dublin as well as to the advantage of Rathmines and Rathgar. He ought to remind the House that there was at present, and had been for some years, a Royal Commission sitting in Dublin for the purpose of inquiring into the propriety of re-adjusting the boundaries of several of the districts adjacent to the borough. That Commission was about to present its Report, and there was little doubt that the Commissioners would recommend that the townships adjoining the City should be 1110 amalgamated with the City. It was thought that the proposed amalgamation would endanger the existing form of local self-government, and bring all the local bodies now independent of the Corporation of Dublin and of each other, into general co-operation. That was, as far as he could understand, the only objection the Commissioners of Rathmines and Rathgar had to obtaining their water supply from the same source as that of Dublin. Undoubtedly, if this scheme was rejected, the present injustice in the rating of the borough and of Rathmines would shortly be removed, and Rathmines would have to pay more in the shape of taxes, while Dublin would pay so much less, and the inequality that now existed would be remedied. With regard to the present condition of the water supply of Rathmines and Rathgar, he must mention that the Government supplied the barracks within the township of Rathmines and Rathgar with Vartry water at a cost of £500 a-year, and every penny of that sum was in alleviation of the taxes of Dublin. In regard to the rate at which the water ought to be supplied by Dublin there need be no difficulty, because the Corporation of the City of Dublin were not unwilling, but, on the contrary, were most anxious to remit the question of the rates of payment to arbitration. Upon these grounds, he begged to move the rejection of the Bill.

§ Amendment proposed, "to leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add "upon this day three months."—(Mr. M. Brooks.)

§ Question proposed, that the word "now" stand part of the Question.

§ MR. FINDLATER
supported the second reading of the Bill, and said he believed that it received the approval of a large portion of the ratepayers of Rathmines, who were not in favour of the proposal now made on the part of the Corporation of Dublin. They had every confidence in the Commissioners that they would do their best for the benefit of the ratepayers, and they thought this was an unfair attempt, before the Bill was submitted to the investigation of a Committee—an unfair attempt by a piece of sharp practice of this kind—to throw out a Bill that would be useful and valuable to the inhabitants of Rathmines and Rathgar. He 1111 thought the Corporation of Dublin had precluded themselves from coming forward on the present occasion, because, by the Act obtained by them in 1874, they prevented the Commissioners of Rathmines from compulsorily demanding to be supplied with water from the Vartry Waterworks. In 1877 they entered into negotiations with the Commissioners of Rathmines for the purpose of supplying water, and, after the negotiations were concluded and an agreement come to, it was repudiated by certain members of the Corporation, and was not in the end carried out. Their own rival scheme, which they had promoted here, had now been rejected, and they were actually trying to set up this agreement again. It was quite impossible, in a Sitting of the House like the present, to go into the merits of the question in the same satisfactory manner as would be the case if the matter were gone into by a Special Committee. They could rely much better upon the Report of a Committee appointed by the House to examine and investigate the matter. There could be no question whatever of surprise. All the facts stated by the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. M. Brooks) had been stated before the Committee, and it was most unusual to attempt to throw out a valuable Bill of this kind in this manner.

§ MR. RODWELL
hoped to be permitted to say a word or two upon the matter. He did not propose to go into the merits of the case; but he believed it was a Bill which had already occupied the attention of the House of Lords for seven days when a competing scheme was brought forward in opposition to it, and that, after those seven days' investigation, the present scheme was passed. He need not remind the House that it was a very unusual course to oppose a Bill on the second reading, and especially under such circumstances as these. The fact of its having occupied so long a time must, he thought, satisfy the House that it was a Bill that required more consideration to be given to it before they committed themselves to a proposal for throwing out the Bill on the second reading. He thought his hon. Friend the Member for Dublin (Mr. M. Brooks) had not explained the whole facts of the case to the House. It did seem to him (Mr. Rodwell), that the fact of the circum-stances having already been so well and 1112 so thoroughly discussed, and that this so scheme had in the end been preferred by the Committee of the House of Lords, were reasons why the House of Commons should send it to a Select Committee, and why they should not dispose of it in the summary way suggested by the hon. Member for Dublin. According to a statement which had been placed in his hands, there was a population of 25,000 persons already waiting for a supply of water. The Corporation of the City of Dublin had not agreed to supply them with water, but had actually excluded this very spot from a former arrangement they had entered into with Parliament; while, at the same time, they bound themselves not to oppose any future Bill for supplying Rathmines and Rathgar with water. Under these circumstances, he must oppose the proposition of the hon. Member for Dublin, who represented the Corporation of Dublin. Such a proposal did not come from them with good grace. He trusted that the House would permit the Bill to be read a second time, in order that it might be disposed of in the usual way.

§ MR. LITTON
supported the second reading of the Bill. He concurred with the hon. and learned Member for Cambridgshire (Mr. Rodwell), that it was a very unusual course to throw out a Bill of this description upon the second reading. The hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. M. Brooks) seemed to forget that the opponents of the Bill had already had an opportunity of pressing their objections upon the Committee of the House of Lords, and of showing why the Bill should not be passed. That being so, the course now taken by the hon. Member was a most inconvenient one. The hon. Member came down to the House, and on the second reading of the Bill, in a short statement of a few moments, asked the House to undo and set at naught all the labours of the Committee of the House of Lords who had had the Bill before them for several days. The whole course of procedure connected with Private Bills was already beset with great difficulties, and those difficulties would become intolerable if a proceeding of this kind were to be sanctioned. He, therefore, asked the House not to accede to the suggestion which had been made by the hon. Member for Dublin; but if the hon. Member thought he had 1113 a case against the Bill, let him take such steps as would enable the opponents of the measure to state before a Select Committee of the House those objections which had already been held untenable by a Committee of the House of Lords. On that ground, he supported the second reading of the Bill, and he asked the House to reject the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dublin.

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
, having had some acquaintance with the water supply of Dublin, rose to support his hon. Friend the Member for Dublin (Mr. M. Brooks) in the Motion which he had submitted to the House. That was, undoubtedly, a very strong case, and the very fact, that the hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire(Mr. Bodwell)had brought forward as an argument, that it was subjected to a seven days' investigation by a Committee of the House of Lords, proved nothing beyond the extreme injustice and inconvenience of submitting Irish local questions to the consideration of a Committee who could have practically no acquaintance with the facts of the case. The facts of the case were these. The sanitary state of Dublin was about as bad as the sanitary state of any town in the United Kingdom. Continual efforts had been made by various Government Boards to improve the sanitary state of Dublin; but if there was one thing more than another which was absolutely perfect in connection with the sanitary arrangements of Dublin it was the water supply, which was quite as perfect as the celebrated Croton water supply of New York. That water supply was obtained at immense cost by the City of Dublin, 25 or 30 years ago, and the pipes absolutely passed through the township of Rathmines and Rathgar. Yet, the township refused to avail itself of the supply, and preferred to go in for an entirely new scheme for obtaining water from some other source, altogether competing with this great public work carried out by the Corporation of Dublin some years ago. In no case could Rathmines and Rathgar get a better supply of water. The Corporation of Dublin had offered to supply water on reasonable terms, and it passed absolutely through the township. Under those circumstances, he did not think it was right to allow schemes of that kind to be brought forward in that haphazard manner. And the matter was 1114 one of such extreme importance, that he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. (Mr. Law) or the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland himself would explain their views of the case.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
said, he was of opinion that it would be an exceedingly inconvenient and, to borrow the expression of the noble Lord, a hap-hazard course to throw out a Bill which had been so fully considered by the House of Lords, without allowing it to be at least re-examined by a Select Committee upstairs. The case was simply this. A corporate body—the Commissioners of Rathmines township—proposed to supply themselves with water. He would not say one word against the excellant character of the supply of water afforded by Dublin. Everyone agreed that the Vartry water was excellent; but it could hardly be maintained that, because Dublin had a good supply of water, therefore the people of Rathmines should not have the privilege of supplying themselves with other water equally good. He certainly could see no reason why the House should compel the Rathmines people to take the Vartry water from the Corporation of Dublin, if they thought they could get a better and cheaper supply elsewhere. Besides, there was a clause in the Dublin Water Act of 1874, to which attention had already been called by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell), and which, with the permission of the House, he (Mr. Law) would now read. In that year the Corporation of Dublin sought to extend their waterworks; but, finding the original scheme too costly, they reduced it by specially excluding Rathmines and certain other districts from their operations, and inserted in their Act clauses which prevented the people of Rathmines and the other excluded districts from participating in the supply of water so authorized to be provided. The clause then proceeded in these terms— Provided always, that the Corporation shall not hereafter have power to oppose any person, company, or incorporated body seeking Parliamentary power to obtain a water supply for any place or district excluded hereby. He (Mr. Law) thought it would be very unjust if the House were now, at the 1115 instance of the hon. Member for the City of Dublin, and in the summary manner he suggest d, to preclude all further consideration of the merits of the Bill.

§ MR. A. M. SULLIVAN
remarked, that the clause just read by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law) had had the effect of preventing the full merits of this measure from being gone into by the House of Lords. He agreed that, the House of Commons ought very rarely to interfere with the passing of a Private Bill at this stage. Nothing but very exceptional circumstances would justify such a course of procedure. There were, however, exceptional circumstances in this case. The Boundary Commission was about to Report on the question of extending the boundaries of the Borough of Dublin, and what was now called the City of Dublin would then be so enlarged as to take in all the parasitical townships which had grown up around the old Principality of Dublin. It would be most mischievous, therefore, if they were to allow a number of these small independent schemes for the supply of water to grow up, instead of having them all under a complete sanatorial system of water supply. The noble Lord below him, the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), was personally acquainted with the City of Dublin, and he thanked the noble Lord for the interest he took in the affairs of the people of Dublin. The noble Lord was fully aware that if this scheme were sanctioned, nothing but mischief could accrue in regard to future plans which the House would undoubtedly have before it for the better municipal government of Dublin. It would be disastrous to sanction Bills like this, constituting new vested interests—little petty interests altogether independent of the City of Dublin—instead of giving the chance of creating some few months hence, when the Report of the Boundary Commission was presented, a scheme of water supply that would be worthy of the great Corporation of Dublin. It was upon that ground that he would give his vote in favour of the Amendment, although he quite agreed that the House ought not to interfere with the second reading of a Private Bill except under very exceptional circumstances.

1116

§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIR
said, the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) had based his opposition to the Bill chiefly on the ground that the Report of the Boundary Commission would come out at some future time. He (Mr. Lyon Playfair) wished to remind the hon. and learned Member that if the boundaries of the City of Dublin had to be enlarged it must be by an Act of Parliament, and that the worst that could happen under the circumstances would be that the township of Rathmines, having obtained a supply of water otherwise than from the Vartry river, would have a locus standi to represent its own interests on this Bill being committed. He did not think that that was a ground for preventing the Bill from going upstairs. Let the House see in what position the Bill was. It had already passed through a careful examination by the House of Lords, and had only been passed after seven days sitting, and a thorough investigation of the merits of the Dodder water. The Vartry water was also fairly before the Committee of the House of Lords, and both sources of supply were considered on their merits. The Vartry water was very good; but the Dodder water was exceedingly good also. It came from a Silurian district, and was very pure water. He thought, when the House of Lords had spent seven days in examining into the merits of the scheme, and had rejected one Bill in preference to another, and sent it down for consideration in the House of Commons, it should require a very strong case indeed to refuse permission for it to be sent upstairs. He held in his hand a Petition from the Corporation of Dublin against the Bill, and in that Petition the Corporation did not say one word about the Boundary Commission. They petitioned simply to be heard against the Bill, on its merits, in the ordinary form, when the Bill got upstairs. Under these circumstances, he thought the House should take the usual course of giving the Bill a second reading, and then they would have the Corporation of Dublin and any other person who could establish a locus standi, to represent their case, when the Committee would carefully hear it, and give as much consideration to it as the Committee of the House of Lords had done.

§ MR. M. BROOKS
said, that in consequence of what had fallen from the 1117 right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees, he thought he ought to be content with the discussion which had taken place, and that the further investigation of the Bill should take place before the Select Committee. He would, therefore, with the leave of the House, withdraw the Amendment he had moved for the rejection of the Bill.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Main Question put, and agreed to.

§ Bill read a second time and committed.