§ Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
§ Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a"—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
§ EARL DE LA WARR moved that the Bill be read a third time that day six months. He thought it was due to their Lordships that he should make a few words of explanation as to the course he was pursuing with regard to this Bill. When the Bill was lately under discussion in their Lordships' House, upon the second reading he proposed to refer the measure to a Select Committee; but hoping, as he then did, that some Amendments would be made which would remove the principal objections which were felt to the Bill, he did not ask the opinion of their Lordships' House. Inasmuch as these Amendments, with the exception of one that had been proposed by the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Somerset) had not been inserted, and as he could not see that the principle of the Bill was in any way altered by any of the Amendments which had been agreed to, he proposed to ask their Lordships, under the circumstances, not to pass the third reading. When the measure was discussed on the second reading, the main objections were pointed out to their Lordships by those who were most intimate with the subject, and he should not further trouble them by recapitulating at any length those objections; but he might, perhaps, refer to the statement which was then made by the noble Marquess on the front Bench (the Marquess of Salisbury), who was not now in his place, who said that the effect of the Bill might possibly be to create very great difficulties, or rather to increase the existing difficulties. Reference was also made by a noble Earl opposite (Earl Cowper) in Committee to the 206 persons who were in authority in rural sanitary districts as not being persons competent to undertake, or to be invested with the power which this Bill would give them. He thought it was, perhaps, one of the greatest objections that might be urged against the measure, that they were giving large powers over property to persons whose education and position in life hardly qualified them for the exercise of those powers. Under this Bill, powers were given to enable rural sanitary authorities to inquire into the circumstances of every cottage or house with regard to the necessary supply of water from a sanitary point of view. Now, he thought to deal with a question of that kind, it required a very different class of persons to those who would be invested with the power under this Bill. It required great discretion and great judgment to deal with such cases, and not only did this provision apply to existing cottages or houses, but a power was given to the rural authorities to stop altogether the building of new cottages, unless there was a sufficient supply of water—that was to say, a sufficient supply in the opinion of these authorities. Now, it might happen, and it did very often happen, that a cottage required to be built in an outlying rural district, where it might be very difficult to obtain what might be considered a good supply of water. Of course, it was open to opinion as to what was, and what was not, a good supply of water; but, under this Bill, they were giving power to certain authorities to altogether stop a landowner from building a cottage which he might think absolutely necessary for his estate. Surely, the matter of water supply was a case in which the landowner or proprietor was the best judge as to what was good, and what was not. It was in the interest of the landowner that the supply should be a good one, and to delegate the power of deciding this matter to other people might prove very objectionable. Then, there was the further important question which was connected with the general sanitary laws. In this Bill they were dealing with great and important questions in a piecemeal fashion. The Sanitary Acts had been under the consideration of the late Government, and he believed of the present Government also, with a view to see whether they might not be consolidated; and he be- 207 lieved he was right in saying that a Commission or Select Committee, in the other House of Parliament, had expressed an opinion that it would be very desirable to consolidate these Acts. This was an additional and very important reason why the further consideration of this question should be deferred. He begged to move that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.
§ Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day six months.")—(The Earl De La Warr.)
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYhoped their Lordships would not be dissuaded from passing the third reading of this Bill in consequence of the statements they had just heard. The alarms which had been raised respecting the character of the measure were unfounded. The Bill was one of very narrow limits, and those who objected to it could not have properly considered its provisions. The gist of the Bill was, that where a supply of wholesome water could be obtained for £8 13s. 4d., it should be provided. It was no great hardship to require that to be done, and if the supply could not be procured for £8 13s. 4d., then the Bill would have no effect whatever. That was the chief provision of the Bill, while, on the other hand, there was a protection to owners being called upon to incur this expense; because, if they thought waterworks ought to be erected at the expense of the entire parish, there was an appeal to the Local Government Board. A letter from a gentleman who took a great interest in this matter had been placed in his hands in which it was stated that if this Bill passed, it would prevent the construction of waterworks all over the country. That was exactly the effect he (the Earl of Kimberley) hoped the Bill would produce; for, in his opinion, there could be no more wilful waste of public money than for various little parishes, with a few houses scattered here and there, with water close at hand, to be put to the expense of erecting waterworks. In cases where water was wanted for a particular cottage, and which could easily and cheaply be supplied by the owner of the property, it would be a great evil to oblige the community to which the cottage belonged to construct expensive waterworks at the cost of the ratepayers. The noble Earl 208 who had moved this Amendment seemed to think that the Bill interfered with the rural Inspectors, and conferred upon them some very novel authority. That was a mistake; Parliament had already given the rural Inspectors and sanitary authorities great powers; at the present time they had the power of condemning a water supply if the water was unwholesome, and of prohibiting its use. It was the positive duty of the Inspectors to condemn water that was unfit for use, and in this Bill a power would be given them, which they did not now possess, of providing a supply of wholesome water. They could not do that at present, even in the case where they deprived the cottagers of the only supply of water they had, by condemning and prohibiting its use. In such cases the occupiers of such places were put to great hardship. The measure would not work oppressively in any way, and he thought the measure was one which might very safely and usefully be passed into law.
§ On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Resolved in the Affirmative: Bill read 3a accordingly, with the Amendment; and Bill passed and sent to the Commons.