WEYMOUTH AND MELCOMBE REGIS CORPORATION BILL (by Order). (Hansard, 3 March 1887)

§ DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)
Yesterday, when this Bill was brought forward for second reading, I felt it my duty to oppose it, because, on reading various provisions contained in it, I found that they were of a somewhat extraordinary character. The size of the Bill itself is bulky; it contains a great number of pages—no less than 100; and the clauses, which are very numerous, comprise many unreasonable provisions. I know that it is unusual for an hon. Member to oppose a Bill which has been brought forward by a Municipality with which he has no connection; but still, when we look into this Bill, and see the large amount of money asked for by this Municipality in order to carry out certain works; I think it is incumbent upon us, before we pass it, to examine the accounts of the Corporation, and see whether the measure is one which ought to be passed by this House. No doubt, this measure contains a great many good provisions; and, probably, if the bad ones were eliminated, the Bill would be of great benefit to the Municipality. The object of the Bill is— To enable the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the Borough of Weymouth and Melcombe Regis to make a new Pier and new Streets and Street Improvements, to purchase the Undertakings of the Weymouth Consumers Gas Company and the Company of Proprietors of the Weymouth Water Works, and to make further provision for the Improvement and good Government of the Borough; and for other purposes. Now, with respect to new streets and street improvements, I have nothing whatever to say; but when I come to those provisions of the Bill which deal with the purchase of the Water Works and Gas Works, and propose to hand over those undertakings on payment of a certain sum of money to the Corporation, I think the position of this Municipality requires a little investigation. Now, Sir, the town of Weymouth, according to the Returns of the last 1051 Census, has a population of 13,715, and the area of the parish itself is 52 acres, although that of Melcombe Regis, which is combined with it, is 1,548. The poor rates levied in the town amounted, in 1883, to £15,758; but in 1884—and this is the last year for which I have been able to obtain a Eeturn—they amounted to £15,013, showing a considerable falling off. Then, according to these statistics, I think it is only reasonable that we should go into some of the details, and ascertain what amount of money the Corporation of Weymouth have already borrowed, and the amount which they now propose to borrow. I find, in the first place, that they have borrowed a sum of £15,000 for repairing, improving, and maintaining the harbour of Weymouth and Melcombe Regis, and also £20,000 for repairing, improving, or rebuilding the outer pier or breakwater of that harbour. They do not say that that money has been repaid. It appears to have been borrowed, and a great portion of it remains, at the present moment, unpaid. By an Act passed in 1854, the Corporation were authorized to construct a pier known as the Pile Pier, and for the use of such pier to levy tolls and rates, on the security of which they borrowed £12,000. In 1859, under an Act called the Weymouth and Melcombe Regis Markets and Pier Amendment Act, the Corporation were further authorized to borrow, on the security of the pier tolls and rates, a further sum of £5,000. Subsequently they borrowed, on the security of the market tolls, a further sum of £10,000. In 1859 they were authorized to borrow, on the security of the market tolls, the sum of £1,500; and I find that they have been authorized to borrow additional sums on the security of the market tolls. They now owe the sum of £10,000 borrowed on that security for the purposes of the harbour, and on the security of the harbour tolls the sum of £21,000, of which £19,925 is still owing, making a total sum of £41,925. The Corporation then appear, with the consent of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, to have borrowed, upon the security of their Corporate estates, for various purposes, a sum of £7,000, of which sum £5,031 is still owing. In 1879, under the provisions of the Weymouth and Melcombe Regis Bridge Act, 1052 the Corporation built a bridge, and for that purpose they borrowed, on the security of the bridge tolls, and as a collateral security the borough fund and borough rate, the sum of £6,000, of which £4,600 is still owing. The actual debt of the Corporation at this moment is £57,556. Now, when I inquire into the position of the town and harbour of Weymouth, I find that it is an old yachting station; but that so far as commercial purposes are concerned it does not appear to have improved very much since the time of George III., who brought it into fashion from going there personally in order to enjoy the climate and the good sea-bathing to be found there. I am told that it is still resorted to as a sea-bathing place, and I do not object to any expenditure which may be incurred in street improvements, and for improving the esplanade which is absolutely essential to any locality resorted to for bathing purposes. But what is it that the Corporation of Weymouth propose to do by this Bill? They propose, now, to borrow £40,000 for the harbour, £30,000 for the new pier, £41,300 for the pile pier, £11,000 for street improvements, £10,000 for the markets, and £6,700 for general purposes, although what for they do not state—making a total for the new loan they now require of nearly £139,000. Well, Sir, there was a point yesterday which I had intended to bring before the House, but to-day I will merely advert to it, because I find, on investigation, that I happen to be wrong in my surmise. I have been under the impression that the ratepayers of the town had not been convened together in public meeting in order to give their assent to the Bill for which this application was to be made to Parliament. I find that I was wrong in that matter, and therefore I will not refer to it further. In looking through the provisions of the Bill, I find a clause, on page 12, entitled "Committees of Council." I altogether object to this clause, and should necessity arise, I will take a Division upon it, because I regard it as an extremely improper clause. The clause provides that— For the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act the Council may from time to time appoint committees of their members and may define the duties of each such committee and may delegate to each such committee such of the powers and duties of the Corporation whether as a Municipal Body or as 1053 the Urban Sanitary Authority or otherwise as the Council think fit and the acts and proceedings of every such committee within the limits of their delegation shall be deemed the acts and proceedings of the Council and the quorum of any such committee shall be five unless the Council otherwise direct and the Council may from time to time make such regulations as they may think fit with respect to the confirmation of the proceedings of a committee or otherwise and for the guidance of a committee and the Council may from time to time remove any member of a committee and appoint in his stead another member of the Council. Now, Sir, this delegation of powers from one body to another is distinctly wrong, and yesterday, when I had the opportunity of meeting the very learned Gentleman who acts as your counsel, Sir, I was glad to find that this point had received favourable consideration at the hands of some of the Gentlemen who are in charge of the Bill, and which gave me reason to hope that this clause would either be materially modified or altogether withdrawn. I will pass on now to the provision in regard to the purchase of the Water Works. What is it that they propose to do? They say that— The Water Company with the consent of three-fifths of the votes of the Shareholders of that Company present personally or by proxy at any meeting of that Company specially convened for the purpose may sell to the Corporation and the Corporation may purchase the Water Undertaking (including in that expression the undertaking real and personal property choses in action easements rights powers and privileges of the Water Company) for such consideration and on and subject to such terms and conditions as may be agreed on between the Water Company and the Corporation. Now I strongly object to this clause, because I think that if the Corporation intend to purchase the undertakings of this Water Company with money which is to be borrowed, the sum should be specified and the number of years named over which it is to be spread, in order that we may know whether the Corporation are really making a bargain, or are simply purchasing a white elephant. When I look into the past history of this Water Company I do not find that it appears to have been a very successful undertaking, and therefore I think it is absolutely essential that the amount of the purchase money should be specified in the Bill. There is yet another point. How are we to know that some of the members of the Weymouth Corporation may not be Directors or share- 1054 holders of the Water and Gas Company, because I look upon one as practically including the other, although the Gas Works appear to have been doing very much better than the Water Works. If some of these gentlemen should happen to hold a position in both of these Boards as Directors or shareholders, they may be able to perpetrate a job and may endeavour to recoup themselves in a large sum of money by the sale of undertakings which are not worth one-half of the amount they are going to receive. I shall certainly require a full explanation upon these points; and I think that, in the first place, the sum agreed upon as the purchase money should be specified, and whether any members of the Corporation now occupy a position on the Board of Directors, or as shareholders, in either of these Companies. Clause 46 provides that— From and after the transfer and subject to the provisions of this Act all the rights powers privileges and authorities of the Water Company under the Waters Acts and under any enactment for the protection of the Water Company or the Water Undertaking including the right to levy demand receive and recover any rates rents and charges which the Water Company may demand receive or take shall he by virtue of this Act transferred to and vested in the Corporation and those Acts and enactments shall be read and have effect as if the Corporation had been therein named instead of the Water Company subject nevertheless and according to the provisions of this Act and to the following exceptions and provisions (namely):—

(1) The provisions of 'The Companies Clauses Consolidation Act 1845' incorporated with the Water Acts shall not apply to the Corporation:

(2) None of the provisions of the Water Acts in any manner relating to the share or loan capital of the Water Company or to any limitation of the amount of profit to be received by them or to the constitution meetings by direction of the Water Company shall apply to the Corporation."

Now, this clause does not specifically state what the Corporation may charge for the water. If the Water Company in the past has not been successful, the Corporation, in order to make the undertaking pay, ought to be entitled to charge more than the amount charged in the past, and it is, therefore, important that we should have some explanations on these points. I pass from the Water Works to the sanitary portion of the Bill. Clause 64 relates to notice to be given to the Corporation of 1055 persons suffering from infectious diseases. Before I go into this subject, I may tell the House that upon various points under this head of infectious diseases there appears to be a considerable amount of divergence of opinion among the people of Weymouth themselves and the medical officers of that town. I find, in the first place, a provision that— If any such inmate be suffering from any infectious disease the occupier or the person having the charge management or control of such building (or if such occupier or person be prevented by reason of such disease then the person in charge of such inmate) shall so soon as he shall become aware of the existence in any such inmate of any such disease forthwith give notice thereof to the Medical Officer of Health at his office. I do not object to that, but in sub-head 2 there is a provision which I cannot help regarding as curious, at any rate. The sub-head says— If such inmate be not a member of the family of such occupier or person the head of the family (resident in such building) to which such inmate belongs or if there be no such head or if such head be prevented by illness then such inmate (unless prevented by reason of such disease or of youth) shall on becoming aware of the existence in such inmate or in his own person as the case may be of such disease forthwith give notice thereof to such occupier or person.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member is not entitled to go through the clauses of the Bill in this manner.

§ DR. TANNER
I bow to your decision, Sir, and I will merely draw attention, if you will permit me to do so, to this one clause relating to infectious diseases. The sub-head speaks of the occupier becoming aware of the existence in an inmate of the Home, or in his own person, of an infectious disease. Now, if he becomes aware of the existence of small-pox or cholera in his own person, how can he possibly give notice of the existence of the infectious disease? The medical officer, on becoming aware that any person is suffering from an infectious disease, is required forthwith to give notice; but I do not see how it is important to require the person infected to give that notice himself. Finally, let me call the attention of the House to one provision in this Bill which strikes me as being of the most vital character. Clause 175 provides that— A Judge of any Court or a Justice shall not be disqualified from acting in the execution of 1056 this Act by reason of his being liable to any rate or other charge thereunder or by reason of his being a member of the Council. That means that if the Judge or Justice happens to be in any way included in this Gas Company or Corporation he will not be disqualified from pronouncing an opinion on any of the points which may afterwards crop up. I am glad to see, however, that there is a provision in the Bill which is underlined—namely, Clause 55, that matters in difference between the Water Company and the Corporation are to be determined by arbitration.

§ COLONEL HAMBRO (Dorset, S.)
I cannot but think the hon. Member has taken a very unusual course in opposing the second reading of this Bill, which, as the House must be aware, is a Bill of an entirely private character. He has informed us that he knows nothing of the locality in regard to which the Bill is promoted. Indeed, he informed me himself that he had never the pleasure of being nearer to Weymouth than somewhere off the Bill of Portland. His opposition of the Bill, therefore, cannot have arisen from any desire to benefit the ratepayers of Weymouth, and I rather imagine his real object has been to stave off the discussion which the House desires to enter upon at a later period of the evening.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not entitled to attribute motives of that kind to the hon. Member.

§ COLONEL HAMBRO
I am sorry that I made the remark, and I withdraw it at once. This Bill, which has been introduced by the Corporation of Weymouth, is one similar in character to those which are constantly being projected by Municipal Corporations. It is purely of a local character, and its objects have been stated by the hon. Member. Perhaps he will allow me to supplement his statement by remarking that the Bill also seeks to consolidate the Harbour Trust and the Harbour Pier Trust; to consolidate the Corporation and their Market Trust; to provide for the purchase of the existing Gas and Water Works; to make various street improvements; to provide for the erection of a new pier and the improvemement of the existing pile pier; to carry out certain improvements on the esplanade parks; to borrow money for improvements; to 1057 mate bye-laws and purchase lands; and to exercise various powers in regard to infectious diseases, besides granting a municipal stock, by means of which money may be borrowed at a cheaper rate than under present circumstances. If this Bill had received the slightest opposition from the ratepayers of Weymouth, I might have had something to say about it myself, and I should certainly not have been heard here to support the second reading. But the measure has not been introduced in a hurry. First of all, it was under the consideration of the Town Council, where it received the approval of an absolute majority of the Council. After that the resolution of the ratepayers was taken at a public meeting, and a motion was passed in favour of it. Not content with that a poll of the town was taken, and a very large majority of the inhabitants declared themselves to be in favour of the Bill. The Town Council again had a meeting after the Bill had been deposited, and passed a resolution by a large majority approving of the provisions it contains. Having done that, the Corporation obtained the consent of the Local Government Board, of the Treasury, of the War Office, of the Admiralty, and of the Board of Trade to the provisions of the Bill; all these consents being granted subject to certain modifications in various clauses of the Bill. This Bill is absolutely necessary, in the opinion of the ratepayers of Weymouth, for the improvement of the harbour and town. The hon. Member for Mid Cork has pointed out that the amount of money already borrowed is £57,956; but under the Local Government Act the Corporation is allowed to borrow up to two years' rateable value, which would amount to a sum of £130,000. I have no desire to detain the House with any explanation of the provisions of the Bill; but I would point out to the hon. Member for Mid Cork that Bills of this description are not Bills which are usually discussed on the second reading. If he is acquainted with the course of procedure on measures of this kind, he will know that as soon as the Bill has been read a second time it will be handed over to a Committee of this House, by whom every clause and line of the measure will be carefully gone through, and examined with the assistance of the Legal Authori- 1058 ties of the House. It will also be carefully investigated by the House of Lords, if it happens to be referred to that House hereafter. I can only hope that the hon. Member, when he becomes more fully acquainted with the facts, will not insist upon opposing the Bill. I may add that the Water Works to which he has referred, instead of being an unmarketable speculation, is most highly remunerative. I hope, under all the circumstances, the hon. Member will allow the Bill to be read a second time.

§ MR. BIGGAR (Cavan, W.)
I quite agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down that the main objects of this Bill are of an exceedingly laudable nature; but, at the same time, I am afraid there are certain provisions in the measure which are objectionable, and that the attention of the House should be called to them, especially as the Bill is not likely to be opposed upstairs, and the provisions of it will, consequently, not be fully gone into by a Committee. I make no reference to the proposed street improvements, or the works in connection with the harbour and the pier. I assume they are of a desirable character; but I think that some of the points which have been raised by my hon. Friend are entitled to consideration from the officials whose duty it will be to watch the Bill in Committee and to strike out and modify any of the clauses of the measure which may be found to be objectionable. If I understand the provisions of the Bill aright, the Corporation is authorized to treat with the Directors and shareholders of the Water and Gas Companies; even although some of the members of the Corporation may be Directors and shareholders of those Companies themselves. I maintain that that is a provision which ought to be struck out of the Bill. It is a provision which is perfectly indefensible. If negotiations are going on with regard to the price at which these undertakings are to be purchased, I think it would be the duty of gentlemen so situated to resign their position in the Town Council, so as to allow gentlemen who have no interest whatever in the Gas and Water Companies to make an arrangement with the Corporation. I also think it would have been more regular if the Bill had stated the basis upon which the valuation of the undertakings of these two 1059 Companies has been made. The Bill gives DO information at all upon that point. The prices at which the works may be purchased may be double what, according to the ordinary rules of valuation, would be considered fair and reasonable. Another awkward fact is, that in the provision which relates to rating for water purposes, if the maximum of rating power be reached which the present Water Company enjoy, there is no power, in case of a deficiency, to pay such deficiency out of any other receipts. Therefore, I think it is possible that the ratepayers may hereafter be called upon to pay a much larger sum than they ought to pay. I think my hon. Friend was justified in calling the attention of the House to the defects of the Bill; and I hope the Chairman of Ways and Means, when the measure comes into Committee, will see that it is in a proper form before it is allowed to pass this House. Having said so much, I think my hon. Friend would do well not to put the House to the trouble of a Division. He has done his duty in calling attention to the subject; and I hope he will not now press his opposition further.