HC Deb 06 August 1896 vol 43 cc1654-6

The price for excess or surplus water supplied to the Commissioners of any of the townships shall be threepence-halfpenny per thousand gallons, and in and for the purposes of this Act the expression "excess or surplus water" means and includes in the case of each township all water supplied in excess of a quantity of water equal to twenty gallons per head per day for the population of the townships ascertained as in this Act provided.

MR. CLANCY moved, at the end of the clause, after the word "provided," to insert:— Provided always that nothing in this Act contained shall be deemed to interfere with the existing contracts between the Corporation and the Commissioners of the new Kilmainham township. His object was to exempt Kilmainham township from the provisions of Clause 8, and he made the Motion on very distinct grounds. In the first place, he understood there were contracts existing between the Corporation and Kilmainham township for the supply of water. He had never heard that the Corporation complained of the terms of those contracts, nor yet of the way in which the township fulfilled them. That being so, it was rather hard that all those contracts should be summarily terminated by the carrying of this Bill. He believed he was right in saying that Kilmainham township was almost the only township, if not the only one, to which the Corporation supplied water, which had always paid for its excess of supply without a murmur, and without being compelled to do so by law. There was a stronger reason for omitting the Kilmainham township. He was told, on the authority of the solicitor to the Kilmainham township, that there was a distinct agreement between Kilmainham and the Corporation that the latter should be omitted from the provisions of the Bill. Kilmainham so far acted on the understanding that they were not represented on the Committee of the House of Lords, before whom the Bill was thrashed out. That alone furnished a conclusive case why Kilmainham should be excluded from the provisions of this clause.


hoped the Chairman of Committees would advise the House against the acceptance of this Amendment. It raised exactly the same question in principle that had been thrashed out in Committee upstairs with regard to Kingstown and other townships. The case of Kingstown indeed rested not on mere contract, but upon statute; yet the Committee upstairs found it necessary to agree with the views of the Corporation that all these matters should be revised. It would be most unfair, seeing the Corporation had not an opportunity of considering the matter, to insert the Amendment.


said that the Motion of the hon. Member for North Dublin had come upon him by surprise, but he had made himself acquainted with the question as far as he was able. The Committee had gone fully into the subject, and they had given their decision. The hon. Member was now seeking to upset a decision come to after full inquiry, and, in accordance with the principles which he had always followed, he thought it would be inadvisable to disturb the arrangement made. He should therefore vote against the Amendment of the hon. Member, and would advise the House to follow the same course.


hoped that the House would not go back upon the decision of the Committee, which had been arrived at after full discussion.

MR. T. SKEWES-COX (Surrey, Kingston)

hoped that the House would support the Committee. The proposed clause had been before the Committee and was seriously considered in all its bearings. The Committee, after due deliberation, came to the conclusion to allow the Dublin Corporation to enter into the new arrangements as proposed by the Bill.

MR. W. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick)

appealed to his hon. Friend to withdraw the clause.

Clause negatived.

Clause 15,—