THIRD READING. (Hansard, 27 July 1885)

§ LORD BRAMWELL
said, he wished to raise a last, and he feared an unavailing, protest against a measure which was wholly unjust in principle, and the proceedings in which had been of a most unusual character. The Bill was grossly unjust, and would cause much misery. It altered the Private Acts of eight different Water Companies supplying the Metropolis. It altered the private bargains which those Companies had made with the public, and the Bill was in reality a Private Bill, and would have been so treated if the Companies had themselves proposed alterations of a like character. And the alteration in those Acts would operate to the grievous loss of the Companies and their shareholders, many of whom depended wholly for their maintenance on the dividends received on their shares. The income of these poor people would be diminished by one-fifth. There had been no complaints of the Water Companies; and no Petitions, except from Vestries which did not understand the question, and would be glad to reduce the income of Water Companies as low as possible, had been presented in favour of the Bill. The Companies would be obliged to charge on assessments as to which they had no voice. Everybody else was entitled to appeal against an assessment; but in consequence of the time at which that Bill would be passed it would be too late to appeal, and the Companies would be subjected to this gross injustice for the next five years. If this Bill had been referred in the proper way to a Select Committee, witnesses would have been examined and the subject properly thrashed out. But that course was not followed, and this great wrong was to be perpetrated. The Water Companies had done their best, and it was a very remarkable fact that out of their 700,000 customers they had only had 50 complaints settled by the magistrates, and that all those cases except two were settled in favour of the Companies. As he had said, the Bill would work a grievous amount of injustice, and he could not believe their Lordships could understand its injurious and unfair effect. He begged to oppose the Motion.

§ LORD TRURO
said, he deeply admired the courage and persistency of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell) in fighting the battle of the Water Companies as he had done, although it 26 was ad misericordiam; but he must call the noble and learned Lord's attention to the fact that, while doing so, he had wholly ignored the extortion in the shape of exorbitant overcharge practised by those Companies for a great number of years. He (Lord Truro) would impress upon their Lordships that there was great necessity that the Bill should pass.

VISCOUNT ENFIELD
said, his noble and learned Friend (Lord Bramwell) had used such strong terms in regard to this Bill that he must recall their Lordships' attention to the history of the measure. It was before the other House of Parliament for four months, and the third reading was passed without opposition.

§ LORD BRAMWELL,
interposing, said, that the Bill certainly did not pass without opposition.

VISCOUNT ENFIELD
said, he thought he was correct in saying that the third reading was passed without opposition. It was true, however, that there was an important division in Committee, on the question whether the Bill should be treated as a Public Bill or not. When it came to that House, the noble Earl who presided over their Lordships' Committees (the Earl of Redesdale) did not treat it as a private measure, and consequently it came before them as a Public Bill. After having been read the second time without a division, it was referred to an impartial Committee, who heard an able representative of the Water Companies, and reported the Bill without Amendment to the House. He hoped it would be passed.

§ LORD FITZGERALD
said, that his noble and learned Friend (Lord Bramwell) and the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss) had reiterated the arguments against this Bill several times over, and had asked their Lordships to reverse their previous decisions. For himself, he could not understand such a course of action. What had been advanced on behalf of the Water Companies only went to show that for years they had been taking too much. What his noble and learned Friend denounced as spoliation was this—No person being appointed to make a valuation under the Act of 1847, the Water Companies made valuations for themselves, and on that footing they continued to charge until a case was 27 brought forward by a gentleman named Dobbs. Then it was decided by their Lordships' House, in an eloquent and conclusive judgment, delivered by his noble and learned Friend, that annual value meant net annual value. This Bill was a consequence of that judgment.

§ LORD BRAMWELL
said, he wished to entirely deny the assertion that the judgment in the Dobbs case had anything at all to do with this matter.