§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Dodds.)
§ MR. DIXON-HARTLAND (Middlesex, Uxbridge)moved, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second 1620 time upon that day six months. He opposed the Bill because, in addition to the injury it inflicted upon the localities which it affected, it was a most objectionable measure in the public interest. It was perfectly unnecessary to speak of the value of the River Thames. The River Thames at the present moment was not only of the greatest benefit to the inhabitants on its banks, but it was used by the people of London as a playground and a health resort. The Bill took fresh powers to acquire land in the parish of Dorney, near to Surley Hall, above Windsor, for the purposes of their undertaking, but it had a much wider scope than it purported to have. The real object of the Bill was to enable the Company to move the whole of its works from Hampton, where they were now placed, higher up the River; invading an entirely new district, while the old district would not be used at all. The promoters of the Bill knew very well that no more water would be allowed to be taken out of the River Thames. They knew that a provision of that kind would never be sanctioned by the House of Commons for one moment, and therefore, in order to blind the House, they inserted in the Bill words to provide that no more water should be taken out of the Thames than was now taken. But what they did was to take power to intercept the water before it reached the Thames. He failed to see the difference of taking the water out of the Thames and intercepting it before it reached that River. So far as the water in the River was concerned, the Conservators were able to test the quantity taken out. If it were intercepted before it reached the River there would be no check whatever upon them, and they could practically take any quantity they pleased without limit. If the sources were tapped from which the Thames was fed, and all the springs taken away, the River would be diminished by a quantity which it was impossible to estimate. The River itself would not be diminished by a known quantity, but by intercepting the sources it would be diminished by an unknown quantity which it was impossible to estimate. It was believed that the effect of the proposed works of the Company would be to reduce the water in the Thames in the summer months, which at the present moment was very low, by one- 1621 sixth of its present flow. The inhabitants living along the banks of the River altogether objected to the Bill. Another objection to the measure was that it contained no safeguard or protection at all as to the quantity of water that would be taken. There was no provision whatever by which to check the amount that might be taken, and nothing could prevent the Company from taking more than they might be authorized to take. He trusted that the House would forgive him for moving the rejection of the Bill in this manner, but it was a measure which would seriously injure his own constituents. He had the honour of representing a constituency which lived along the banks of the Thames for 16 miles— all the way from Staines to Teddington Lock. They were of opinion that their existence depended on the manner in which the House treated this measure; many of them obtained their livelihood from the River; if not directly, at all events indirectly, from those who came down to fish and enjoy the boating. If this Bill were passed their occupation would be gone, and, therefore, their interests would be seriously affected. They felt that if a large quantity of water was taken from the River the effect of the diminution of the volume of water would very much diminish the speed of the flow, the consequence being that the River would silt up in a manner very detrimental to the traffic. In the course of last summer the River silted up in a serious manner just below the point where the Grand Junction Company propose to take the water, and if any further quantity of water was taken away the traffic upon the River at that part might be virtually destroyed. The next point was that in the summer time the water would not be bank high, and great quantities of mud would be exposed to the daily action of the sun, causing a large amount of effluvia to arise, which would be most injurious to the health of the inhabitants on the banks. If the Bill passed it would materially affect the River at Richmond and Twickenham. It was almost possible now during the summer to walk across the River at certain points, but if this Bill passed it would be left almost dry. He thought the House would be exceedingly jealous before they consented to do anything further that might be calculated to 1622 injure the River. Windsor and Eton were anxious about their water supply. They had lately purchased their works, and feared the supply might be tapped; but at any rate, if this Bill passed, and it did diminish the water in the River, they knew they would be unable to work the machinery by which they supplied themselves with water. There was another matter of great importance. If these works were constructed it was feared that the foundations of Windsor Chapel would be affected, and the safety of the Castle itself imperilled. A Report had been made to the Dean and Chapter some time ago that the lack of water was already undermining the foundations of the Chapel. If the water was contracted still further the probable result would be a subsidence of the soil. It was feared that if this Bill passed the whole of the water beneath the Castle mound might be drawn off. Another point was this—in the dry summer of last year there were visible marks in Winsdor Forest that, the water being taken away from the trees, they showed great signs of decay in consequence. If any quantity of water were permanently taken away the trees in Windsor Forest would be seriously injured. Then, again, the market gardeners were afraid that their land would no longer be fit for the purposes for which it was now utilized, seeing that they were entirely dependent for their supply of water on the water proposed to be drained off by this Company. In addition, the roads in the locality would be rendered useless to those who lived there. He would only point out what occurred at Hampton. At the present moment the roads had been so much taken up by the Water Companies that the Local Authorities had had to buy land in order to put in sewers. The tramway which was about to be formed in the neighbourhood had been stopped, and the inhabitants could not obtain the communication which they ought to have, because the Water Company were interfering with them. As far as London was concerned there was another very serious point. If the water of the Upper Thames were impounded great injury would be done to the scouring power of the River, and the ebb and flow of sewage would constantly be going on between London and Woolwich. The sewage, instead of being carried off by the return water, would be allowed to 1623 go backwards and forwards with, the tide. He wished to know why the Conservators of the River Thames had not taken distinct action in the matter? Parliament had placed in their hands the preservation of the River Thames. At the present moment there were a large number of Water Companies, which supplied the Metropolis with water, and he wished to know if the Conservators were likely to receive a larger sum from the Grand Junction Company if they consented to this proposal, and did not treat it in the way it deserved. He thought it was extremely hard that the Conservators should bring criminal prosecutions against persons who polluted the water, and yet were willing to part with the water bodily for a profit, although the inhabitants of London got no benefit from the expenditure. There should be no question that the water supply of the Metropolis ought to belong to the Metropolis, and that would come to pass before very long. The way in which the Water Companies at the present moment treated the public certainly failed to meet with universal approbation. They cut off the water from the poor, and the way in which they raised the rates and made the people pay for the concessions which were given to them did not commend them to public approbation. He wished to know how long was that House prepared to give to these Water Companies privileges for which, the public must hereafter pay? There could be no doubt that Lord Cross's Bill would have been a good measure for the people of London. If that Bill had been carried the Metropolis would have been much better off in regard to its water supply than, it was at present. He feared that they would never get the same terms again. Since then the Water Companies had spent no less than £1,600,000 on works, all of which would have to be paid for. Until there was one grand plan for the entire supply of the Metropolis, all money expended in this way would be money thrown away. How long was Parliament going to allow these Companies to spend money over which they would have no control. The Company did not propose to raise further capital, which made the scheme all the more objectionable, as if they used their unexhausted powers the capital be used would not be liable to the 1624 restrictions Companies applying for new powers had to submit to. Personally, he should resist the proposals contained in the Bill in every way. He objected to the second reading, because he did not think that the money of the ratepayers should be spent in order to oppose the Bill in Committee. He understood that the Government intended to support the Bill. At the present moment the Company could increase their works without injuring the taxpayers or the people of London. When the House gave further powers to the Southwark and Vauxhall Company, they accompanied their powers with a sinking fund to pay off the capital authorized to be raised within a certain term. Therefore, in every shape the measure was most objectionable. The last Report of the Local Government Board spoke of the increasing purity of the River. He believed that at the present moment the water supply of London was more pure than that supplied either to Birmingham or Glasgow. No doubt the water had been rendered year by year more pure through the exercise of the provisions which Parliament had imposed upon the Water Companies. He hoped the House would throw out this Bill on the second reading, and not put the parties who were opposing it to the enormous expense which an investigation upstairs would entail. He begged to move the rejection of the Bill.
§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)said, he rose for the purpose of seconding the rejection of the Bill. It seemed to him that the measure would not only do an injury to the community, but that it was framed in such a way that it was a positive insult to the House. It assumed that the Members of that House were perfect fools; it assumed that they did not know that a river was fed by its tributaries. He supposed the Company thought that the House of Commons imagined that the whole of the Thames water came down in the shape of rain from the sky. He would read one of the clauses of the Bill in order to show what he meant—namely, the 10th clause, which said—
The Company may from time to time by means of the works by this Act authorized, take, collect, and divert into their now existing reservoirs and works, and the works by this Act authorized, and therein impound and thence distribute the waters of the River Thames and 1625 its tributaries, and of any of the other streams and waters shown on the deposited Plans or on or near the site of the works, by this Act authorized, or on any land, for the time being, belonging to the Company: Provided that nothing herein contained shall authorize the Company to take from the River Thames a larger quantity of water than they are authorized to take under the powers of the Acts hereinbefore recited.That meant that the Company should not take in water they had not power to take at the present moment when they claimed to take any water they liked from the tributaries of the Thames. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) who opposed the Bill, had spoken in the interests of the inhabitants above Teddington Lock. He (Mr. Labouchere) spoke on behalf of those below Teddington Lock. At the present moment so much water was taken from the River that its volume was diminished by about one-third. The consequence was that the mud was carried up by the tide and deposited, the tide not being strong enough to sweep it away. Any hon. Member could see that for himself by looking at the opposite side of the River from the House of Commons. Under these circumstances, he did not think that they should give power to any Company whatever to take water from the tributaries of the Thames. He understood that Mr. Joseph Lucas had made a survey of the water-bearing strata of the Thames Valley. That matter was a large one, and ought to be treated by the House; but it ought not to be taken piecemeal. No Company should be allowed to go to that House and ask for powers which were calculated to injure a river which was of so much importance to Londoners. He had great pleasure in seconding the Amendment.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Dixon-Hartland.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL (Paddington, S.)said, that no doubt a formidable coalition had manifested itself against the Bill, and he was interested in that coalition, because on previous occasions he had taken part in it, and he had found himself in alliance with the hon. Member for Northampton 1626 (Mr. Labouchere) and the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Dixon-Hartland). On this occasion, however, he would ask the House not to be guided by those hon. Members. The hon. Member for Uxbridge, who moved the rejection of the Bill, drew a gloomy picture of what would happen if the Bill were passed. He had made statements of an alarming character. In the first place, he said that the Thames would run dry; that the mud would be uncovered and exposed in consequence of the Thames running dry, which would produce a pestilential effluvia that would be dangerous to health, and might lead to loss of life; that Windsor Castle would subside and possibly tumble into the River; that all the trees in Windsor Forest would decay and die; that every road in the neighbouring locality would become impassable, and cease to be of any use whatever to public traffic. No doubt these were statements of an alarming character; but they were statements which he thought the House would agree could not be taken on the mere assertion of the hon. Member for Uxbridge.
§ MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, he was quite sure that the noble Lord did not wish to misrepresent him. He had not made those statements, but he had said that they were brought forward by those who were opposed to the Bill as statements of its probable result.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that might be so; but, at any rate, the hon. Member had endeavoured to influence the House by repeating the statements. It was obvious that they were statements which required careful examination. They were allegations which could not be allowed to rest upon any ex parte statement of facts. If the hon. Member was correct in the forecast he had made as to the result of the Bill, no Committee of the House of Commons would hesitate for one moment in rejecting the measure. But the question was, were they correct? The statements which had been made as to the effect of the Bill upon Windsor Castle and the Thames, and all the other effects he had stated to the House, were not questions which the House could, on a second reading stage, examine for themselves. He thought it would be an unprecedented thing if any bonâ fide project for carrying out a great public improvement, such as an addition 1627 to the water supply of London, were thrown out on the second reading. He thought he was right in saying that there was no precedent whatever. What was the question that ought to be decided by the Bill? It was essentially a scientific one, on which the evidence of scientific men must be heard. What was the question? It was this—Whether the River Thames and all the amenities of the River Thames would vanish if this Water Bill were passed? He would ask the House with great confidence whether that was a question they could decide in a debate on the second reading? It was a question upon which evidence must be called and thoroughly sifted by a Committee upstairs. What would be the position of the House if it took upon itself on an ex parte statement a project such as this, which might be productive of the greatest possible advantage to a very large number of people? In the speeches of the hon. Member for Northampton and the hon. Member for Uxbridge not one word was said about a most important part of the community—the 500,000 of the population of London who had no recognized representation in that House and no local self-government of their own, and who, if the House did not protect them with the greatest possible care, might suffer great injury if the Bill were rejected. The present Company averred that they were not at the present moment in a position to supply 500,000 of the population of the Metropolis with water unless they got these powers. That was their statement, and the hon. Member for Northampton would hardly deny that any Gas or Water Company, or any other Company, had privileges which should be protected by the House. He maintained that the House could not in common justice to a large population, without authorized information, throw out a Bill of this kind upon any ex parte statement. The Bill undoubtedly ought to be allowed to go upstairs. He had only one more point to bring before the House, but it was a point of great importance. The Inspector of the Local Government Board, who was appointed by the Board to report yearly on the condition of the Metropolitan water supply, had been made aware of this project and had reported upon it. The document was long, and therefore he would not read it, but if 1628 any hon. Member would turn to the document he would find that the Inspector had reported in favourable terms on the scheme, and there was not one word in it about all the terrible results which the hon. Member for Uxbridge had stated. He found nothing in it about Windsor Castle, or the trees of Windsor Forest, or the pestilential effluvia, but he did find this passage—
There can be no question that if the Directors succeed in carrying out this project the Company will greatly improve its position.[Cries of "Hear, hear!"] Yes; but this position was that of a Company authorized and bound to supply London with water. The hon. Members for Northampton and Uxbridge had no consideration for the consumers; they thought only of the people who made a playground of the Thames; whereas he (Lord Randolph Churchill) thought of those who were dependent for their supply of water upon schemes of this kind. The Report went on to say—The consumers, numbering; nearly 500,000 persons, will benefit by having at command a larger, and, so far as the upper source is concerned, a better supply than heretofore. But this project, by the possibilities it introduces, may fairly be regarded as the initiatory step towards the improvement of the water supply of all the Thames-deriving Companies, involving the interests of more than 2,500,000 people.He asked the House if this was a project they ought to reject peremptorily on the second reading without any examination—without the slightest consideration for the interests of the Metropolis, or for the 2,500,000 of the population who, for all they knew, were dependent for their water on this supply? He appealed with great confidence to Her Majesty's Government and the Chairman of Committees to say whether he was not perfectly justified in his contention that this was a Bill which the House was bound to send upstairs? If, after a due examination, after studying the evidence, the House was dissatisfied with the decision of the Committee the whole question could be brought before the House again. He implored the House in the interests of the inhabitants of London not to reject the Bill.
§ MR. RICHARDSON-GARDNER (Windsor)said, he intended to oppose the second reading of the Bill. He did 1629 so, not on the general grounds which had been brought forward by previous speakers, but as the Representative of a very large constituency, and a very ancient constituency, on the borders of the Thames. He was anxious to point out how their interests would be very materially affected if this measure were passed. The Corporation of Windsor— the town he had the honour to represent—had lately purchased, or were about to purchase, for the only question remaining to be settled was the amount of the purchase money which was now under arbitration by the Board of Works, a quantity of land which was to be devoted for the purpose of securing the health of the inhabitants of the town. Not only were they entering into this arrangement, but they were engaged with the present generation to pay the sum of money it was necessary to raise, although the scheme was for the benefit of generations that were to come. What would be the result to the Corporation of Windsor and its water works if this Bill passed? The measure authorized the Company to take 300 acres of land contiguous to Windsor and Eton, where the promoters meant to make shafts and adits. By doing so they would draw from the strata the water out of probably 50,000 or 100,000 acres in the immediate neighbourhood. The Bill authorized the Company to draw water which might be found in or under any lands acquired by the Company. But they could not limit themselves to the water found in or under the lands they required, because this particular piece of land was like the neck of a bottle, and would suck in and withdraw all the water out of the chalk formation. What would be the consequence to the inhabitants of Windsor and Eton? It would be found after the Corporation had purchased the land to which he referred, and had spent a large sum of money upon it, that all their wells would be tapped and dried. What security, therefore, could they have for supplying Windsor and Eaton with water, which was undoubtedly as important to those places as the supply to the inhabitants of London? The Company knew very well that the land they proposed to acquire contained a large quantity of water. With regard to the national property contained in Windsor, and particularly Windsor 1630 Castle, he would not follow all the arguments of his hon. Friend who moved the rejection of the Bill, but he would say this—that some 20 years ago there was a conflagration in Windsor Castle, and the authorities, being very much alarmed at what had occurred, immediately constructed works for wells in a high position in Windsor Forest, so that the water from certain towers then erected might find its way to Windsor Castle. If a fire were to occur there again, and these wells had been dried by the works of the Grand Junction Company, a very serious calamity might occur. He was told that the Company had made some suggestions to the Board of Works which might be satisfactory to them, but he thought that whatever terms they might offer, or whatever suggestions they might make, it would be much better for the Board of Works to rely upon and preserve the sources of supply they had now, rather than trust to others which they knew not of. There were other reasons why this Bill should not be read a second time; but, seeing that it was a Private Bill, he would not enter into them, but he would leave the measure to the judgment of the House, simply intimating that he should record his vote against it.
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Ritchie) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)said, as the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) had appealed to the Government to give its support to the Bill, he wished to say a few words in answer to that appeal in regard to the course which he would recommend the House to take upon the measure. In the first place, he would point out to the House that this was no wanton application on the part of the Company, but that it was absolutely necessary for them to come to Parliament for additional powers in regard to the supply of water. The Report of the Water Examiner in London to the Local Government Board pointed out clearly last year that the demands upon the resources of this Company had approached almost perilously to the limits of supply. He would only read one paragraph of the Report in order to show what the opinion of the Water Examiner was—
The expansion of the demand for water in the district supplied by the Grand Junction 1631 Company, and the circumstances under which the supply was carried out during the past two summers, when it approximated closely on two or three occasions to 22,000,000 gallons daily, showed that the time had arrived when a further enlargement of the works must be arranged for.The House would see that it was consequently imperative on the Company to come to Parliament for further powers in connection with a supply of water. The question next arose whether the Company could get the enormous supply they absolutely required in the neighbourhood of their existing works. From the evidence before the House it was evident that they could not obtain the supply in the neighbourhood of their existing works, and that if they were by any means enabled to do so, it would not be a satisfactory one, in consequence of the building operations now going on. The next question was whether the proposed source of supply was, from a sanitary point of view, a good one. On that point he thought there could be no question whatever. The source from which it was proposed to obtain the supply was an infinitely superior one to that which the Company at present drew upon. Therefore, whether the House looked at the needs of the Company or the source from which they proposed to obtain a supply, the application would be found to be a justifiable one. No doubt the objections which had been raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) were of a serious nature. He had no desire to express any opinion upon those objections on the part of the Government, but he agreed with his noble Friend the Member for South Paddington that that was a question in regard to which the House was not in a position to come to a satisfactory decision. It must of necessity be a matter to be inquired into in the usual manner by a Committee of the House of Commons. The position the Government took in the matter was this —they recommended the House to pass the second reading, in order that the Bill might go before a Select Committee, where all the objections which had been raised would be fully considered, and the question would be decided upon its merits.
§ MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)said he intended to ask the House to reject the Bill for precisely the reasons 1632 that the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) asked the House to pass it, and not for any of those matters which had been put to the House, no doubt accurately enough, by the hon. Members who had moved and seconded the rejection of the measure, but for a matter upon which the House was perfectly competent to pass an opinion. He spoke on behalf of the population of London. He would put this to the noble Lord and those who thought of voting with him. The proposal was to give to a private Company power to take from the Thames, which was already falling very short year by year, for the benefit of that Company's pocket, water which they were to sell at a profit, and which they should go further away to find, instead of reducing that which was now an insufficient supply. The noble Lord said that the House was not competent to judge of the question. There were matters within the knowledge of the House which they could not help recognizing. One of them was that the Thames for years, except in seasons of flood, had been deficient in volume, and was growing more deficient year by year. His own experience might not be of much value, but he frequently visited the district from which this water was proposed to be taken. He was fishing there only on Saturday last, and, therefore, he spoke with some knowledge when he said that the Thames was not more than two or three inches higher in mid-winter than it generally was in the drought of summer. It used to be that the Thames was only low in summer, but that was not the case now. It was proposed that the Grand Junction Company should take the water away and sell it, and they were told that that was a matter upon which a Committee upstairs could form a better opinion than the House itself. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board intimated that the Government were prepared to support the second reading of the Bill. He was very sorry to hear it. In the interests of the people of London he was sorry to hear such an announcement. He maintained that the Government would do better to prevent that which was an important source of health, because a well-fed river was always a source of health, from being further 1633 interfered with by a private Company which would soon have to be bought up in some of the arrangements which were about to be made. He asked the House to reject the scheme. They were told that the Company must have water —that was to say that the Company must have goods to sell. Let the Company then get their goods from a longer distance by the moans which science had placed in their hands, just as Glasgow and Manchester had to do. Why-should a private Company be allowed to convert the Thames into a muddy ditch simply for their own benefit? The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said the source from which the Company proposed to take their supply was a superior source to that from which they obtained it now. That was quite true; but why should the River itself have its volume of water extracted, and mere sewage, filth, and mud retained in it? He asked the House to reject the Bill as an impertinent attempt on the part of a private Company to make money out of the health of the people.
§ MR. SEAGER HUNT (Marylebone, W.)wished to point out that the arguments used by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington and the President of the Local Government Board were arguments which should induce the House to look at the question, not from the point of view taken by the Grand Junction Company, but from the point of view of the supply of water to London generally. It might be necessary for this Company for sanitary purposes to remove their works from Hampton to Windsor on account of the pollution of the supply by cesspools. It might, therefore, be necessary to withdraw the water supply from Hampton and for the works to be removed to some other place. On the other hand, his hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) had pointed out a number of evils which would be created if the Bill were passed. The proper course, then, was to refer the whole question of the water supply of London to a Committee. It was not a question pertaining to this one Company alone, but it was a question pertaining to the entire water supply of the Metropolis, and that being so, he ventured to suggest that those who opposed the Bill should come to an 1634 understanding that the matter should be referred to a Committee in order that the whole question of the supply of water to London should be thoroughly gone into.
§ MAJOR RASCH (Essex, S.E.),in supporting the Amendment, said, he hoped the House would allow him to say a few words, as he regarded himself to some extent as an expert, being himself the Chairman of a large Water Company. The intention of the promoters of the Bill appeared to be twofold. First, to obtain a superior supply of water; and, secondly, to take no more water out at Windsor than they now took out at Hampton. They were told that the water supply at Hampton was impure. He thought that they ought not to condone the laxity of the Thames Conservancy Board, who, against the interests of the riparian owners, allowed to be poured into the Thames millions of gallons of sewage. He thought it was wrong that the water of the Thames should be injured owing to the laxity of the Conservancy Board. The argument was that the Company would not take more water at Windsor than at Hampton; but that argument could hardly be held by any man of business, because the difference consisted in taking water 20 miles higher up the River. It was just the same as taking a glass of water out of a nine-gallon cask instead of a water bottle, seeing that the volume of water at Hampton was only one-third of that at Windsor. He hoped the House would vote against the second reading as a protest against the laxity of the Thames Conservancy Board, and in order to prevent the inhabitants of Windsor and Eaton from being subjected to the despoiling of the most beautiful prospect near London.
§ THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY) (Cornwall, Bodmin)said, he would not detain the House long; but he would recommend hon. Members not to depart from the usual course, but to remit the consideration of the Bill to a Select Committee. Many allegations had been made on both sides in reference to the Bill that were contradictory' to each other, and it was quite impossible that the House could, as a rule, from mere impressions, derived from different statements, come to a right conclusion with regard to them. Every one of the statements made in 1635 course of the discussion could be investigated before a Committee upstairs, where the constituents of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) and the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Richardson-Gardner) would be able to protect their own interests. He did not see why the persons represented by the hon. Members for Uxbridge and Windsor should not defend their interests before a Select Committee appointed by the House to inquire into all the vexed questions raised by the Bill. The junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Brad-laugh) had made a powerful impression by appealing to larger considerations relating to the character and state of the Thames. Now, the Thames would be represented before the Committee by the Thames Conservancy Board, who were to appear in opposition to the Bill; and it would be their first duty to show distinctly the effect of the operation of the Bill upon the condition and volume of the water. That was a question which it was absolutely necessary to decide on its merits. If the hon. Member for Northampton had displayed his usual candour in dealing with the House he would have told them, when he spoke of the low level of the Thames at this time of the year—namely, midwinter—that there was an unusually dry summer and an unusually dry winter.
§ MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, that except after a flooded winter a few years ago, the Thames in mid-winter had been invariably low for the last 10 years.
§ MR COURTNEYsaid, that was a new allegation, but it was one that could be investigated by a Select Committee. There was nothing that the Committee would not have power to examine into with regard to the effect of the operations of the Company, if the Bill were read a second time. So far as a general review of the Thames was concerned, there was only one point which a Committee would not originally inquire into, and that was the probable general effect of the operations of the Company upon the beauty of the Thames. He did not know whether any particular persons would have power to appear before the Committee upon that matter. In reference to the general effect upon the Thames and its banks, he would suggest that if the House consented to read the Bill a second time, as he hoped it would, 1636 it might be expedient to agree to an Instruction to the Committee to consider what the effect of the Bill might be upon the beauty of the Thames, and what safeguards could be introduced in order to protect the River under that aspect of the case. Subject to that suggestion he did not know a single issue raised in the Bill which could not be fairly and properly considered by a Private Bill Committee, and which certainly could not be properly decided by the House itself.
§ MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)remarked that there was one point which had not been gone into, and that was how the Bill would affect the whole supply of water to London. Many persons thought that the water supply of the Metropolis was not in a satisfactory position, and required to be considered as a whole. Therefore, every Bill passed by Parliament which tended to increase and emphasize the present system by retarding the carrying out of a larger and better supply of water for the whole of London, was one which required careful consideration. That was the view he took of the matter, because in his judgment what was required was that the entire system of the Metropolitan water supply should be carefully investigated. The more formidable and larger the Water Companies became, the more difficult it would be in future to rearrange and consolidate the whole of the water supply of London. Therefore, as they were about to enter upon domestic legislation, he thought the best course for the House to pursue, would be to wait until the entire subject could be inquired into by a Select Committee. He thought the Bill should be referred to a Committee to consider the whole question of the water supply of London.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 104; Noes 188: Majority 84. (Div. List No. 16.)
§ Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
§ Second Reading put off for six months.