RESOLUTION. (Hansard, 13 July 1885)

§ LORD BRAMWELL,
in rising to move— That the Petitions of the several Water Companies who supply the Metropolis with water (the New River Company and others), presented on Friday last, be referred to the Select Committee, with leave to the Petitioners to be heard against the Bill as desired, said, that he felt it a matter of duty to endeavour to prevent their Lordships from doing what would be a grievous injustice. He was not going to trouble their Lordships with the question of whether this was a Private or Public Bill; but what he wished to impress upon them was what the substance of this Bill really was. It was a Bill which proposed to alter the bargains made between the public and Water Companies. He would take the case of one Company —the New River Company, for instance. That Company, by its Act, had bargained with the public to supply water for domestic consumption, for watering streets, and for other purposes, and had the right to make certain charges in respect thereof; and this Bill was a proposal to alter that bargain. The New River Company said—"Let us be heard." That ought to be quite sufficient to secure them a hearing, and it ought not to be necessary now to say what was their objection to the Bill. Never before was a proposal made to alter a Private Act without hearing the Company affected by it. The Waterworks Clauses Acts and other Clauses Acts were not laws of themselves, and only became such by being incorporated in a Private Bill; and this Bill said that a Private Act incorporating clauses should be altered as regarded the clauses so incorporated. Was it conceivable that a Company affected by such alteration was not to be heard? It was contrary to the ordinary elementary principles of justice that judgment should be given without 405 hearing the person affected. By the law of the land, if he was not heard, the proceedings were null and void. But he must tell their Lordships why the Companies wanted to be heard, and he could show good reason why they should be. At the present time they had a right to charge according to the annual value. The proposal in the Bill was that the expression "annual value" should mean rateable value, as estimated from time to time. If the two things were identical, these unhappy Companies, who were subjected to persecution for no reason that he could understand, except that they supplied the best water in Europe on the best terms and in the most admirable manner, and were paying a respectable dividend, would gladly accept the proposal in order to get rid of the worry to which they were subjected. But the two things were not identical. Rateable value, as settled from time to time, was less than the annual value of the premises. It did not make any difference to a parish whether it raised £1,000 by a rate of 1s. in the pound on an assessment of £20,000, or by a rate of 2s. in the pound, on an assessment of £10000. But a low assessment made all the difference to the Companies, who estimated that on rateable value they would lose one-sixth of their incomes. In his own case he had been first assessed at about half the annual value of his house, and now that assessment had been raised to only five-sixths of the annual value. The Companies ought, at least, to be heard. There had boon some absurd talk about "gentlemen of the long robe." What was wanted was that the facts should be laid before the Committee, and a reasonable amount of argument showing the conclusion to which those facts pointed. If the Bill was passed in its present shape, a largo loss of income would be thrown on the Companies. No doubt the Companies were great and rich; but some of their shareholders were neither great nor rich.

§ THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Earl BROWNLOW)
said, the Motion was practically 406 the same as that brought forward by the noble and learned Lord last week, on which occasion the arguments addressed to their Lordships failed to convince the House that it was right to accept it. No fresh argument had been addressed to their Lordships that day to induce them to change the opinion they then expressed. At this period of the Session there would be no prospect of the Bill passing if the Water Companies were hoard by counsel and witnesses. It would cause great disappointment outside if this Bill was strangled in Committee. He, therefore, trusted that their Lordships would not agree to the Motion.

VISCOUNT ENFIELD
said, he would not have complained if the noble and learned Lord had moved that the Bill be read a second time that day three months, for that would have been a straightforward and legitimate opposition; but he did claim a right to complain of what the noble and learned Lord had said this week and last with regard to spoliation and the Companies not being allowed to be heard. As stated on the former occasion, it would be impossible at this advanced period of the Session to proceed with any chance of the Bill becoming law, if counsel and witnesses were heard, as recommended by the noble and learned Lord. It must also be borne in mind that these powerful Companies could fee counsel and obtain evidence to any extent, whereas no such power rested with the 4,000,000 ratepayers, who could not strike a special rate for the purpose; but there would be no objection to the Water Companies being heard by their agents, and that would give an opportunity to the ratepayers of the Metropolis to have the clerks of the different Assessment Committees before the Committee in order to answer any charges which the agents of the Companies might make. Ho did not see the great hardship and injustice of which the noble and learned Lord had complained, for he had found that the rateable value, especially in the case of moderate-sized and large premises, came very nearly up to the annual value; and the Companies as well as the householders had the right of appeal against the assessment.

§ LORD BRAMWELL
said, he did not desire to impose the hearing of counsel on the Committee; but ho desired to give 407 them power to hear counsel if they should think fit.

VISCOUNT ENFIELD
said, he would put it to their Lordships whether last week it was not the understanding that counsel and witnesses should be excluded, but that the agents of the Water Companies might be heard? The public would be grateful to their Lordships for reading the Bill a second time, and referring it to a fair and an impartial Committee.

§ THE EARL OF SELBORNE
said, ha could not agree with his noble and learned Friend that justice was opposed to the Bill in its present shape. The difficulty arose from the fact that the Waterworks Clauses Act provided that there should be a valuation, but did not say how it should be made. And nothing was more common, under such circumstances, than for the Legislature to explain its own public Act, and to say how that Act should be carried into effect. The contention of the Water Companies appeared to be that the general valuation, which was the basis on which rating for all other public purposes proceeded, should not bo the valuation for the water rate. That appeared to him to be neither just nor reasonable; and the Bill, in his judgment", did not interfere with any rights of the Water Companies, but merely provided in a proper way for the rights of the public.